Minor diplomacy changes hope to see in the next update or fix as soon as possible:

Agree, especially about allies and war. Right now you just get a grievance against your ally - I'd prefer something like the total war approach, which adds an additional defensive alliance:

Total war defensive alliance:

If your ally declares a war, you need not take any action

If your ally has war declared on them, you must declare war or break the alliance (with a reputation hit)

Total war alliance: 

If your ally declares war or has war declared on them, you must declare war or break the alliance (with a reputation hit) 

dongliz wrote:

Agree, especially about allies and war. Right now you just get a grievance against your ally - I'd prefer something like the total war approach, which adds an additional defensive alliance:

Total war defensive alliance:

If your ally declares a war, you need not take any action

If your ally has war declared on them, you must declare war or break the alliance (with a reputation hit)

Total war alliance: 

If your ally declares war or has war declared on them, you must declare war or break the alliance (with a reputation hit) 

Indeed, the total war alliance system would be a huge improvement for HK in diplomatic mechanism, a good place to start. But as an ETW fan, I must say the total war reputation and attitude mechanism may need significant rework before amplitude studios could really implement it. It is perfect fine for militant world-conquering players, yet very unfriendly with those who desire to maintain balance of power or being a pure pacifist. I personally would favor paradox game approach-realpolitik mechanisms such as crisis phase (Victoria 3 ) and coalition (EU4), but yes, total war approach is much more of a practical proposal at the moment.