First off I have to say that I absolutely love the new update adding more depth to pressure and alliances. I particularly like how a weaker empire can have influence over me if some of my systems come under his influence. There are only three or four things I believe still needed to be added to make diplomacy near perfect. 


  • Firstly, pressure over an alliance member which allows you to force them to leave the alliance. I can see how this would be problematic, but perhaps to do so whoever requests this has to have dominant influence over all other alliance members. For instance, in a game where I am the Sophones in an alliance with the Lumeris and Vodyani, I can only force the Vodyani to leave if I have dominant influence over both the Vodyani and the Lumeris. If the Lumeris gets irritated, it can leave and make a new alliance with the Vodyani without me.


  • Secondly, I know the tootip over the advanced demand mentions something along the line of "forcing to leave alliance", but I don't see such an option. In my last single player game the 8 factions divided into three alliances, with the Cravers being neutral. This meant two alliances of two members, and my alliance of three members. The only way we destroyed one of the alliances was by annihilating one of the two members. It would be nice to somehow undermine another alliance. Again, perhaps a break up should be possible if the one demanding it has to have dominant influence over all the enemy alliance members. 


  • Or at least maby an option to have them join your alliance even if they are part of one. Of course in such a situation that faction would have to make very high demands on the one asking before they leave, but why not? For instance, suppose the Sophones, Lumeris and Vodyani are in an alliance and I, the Unfallen, are in my own alliance. If I ask the Sophones to join my alliance, his decision to do so should be weighed by the loyalty of and relations with his members. If the Lumeris and Vodyani keep sending him demands and fail to help him in war, then the Sophones should be more willing to leave the alliance and join mine. But to keep the system balanced I believe staying with the alliance should be prioritised. 


  • Lastly, I might be wrong but I recall having the option to ask a faction to declare war on another member. Is this gone or am I confused?


I do miss the vetos, though. I like the idea that one warmongering alliance member should not draw the alliance into constant war and that one member should not cut short my war with someone else. As the alliance - in its design at least - have all members as equals, it makes sense that decisions of war and peace should be unanimous, with vetos preventing unwanted actions. Perhaps to balance it out a veto should be temporary with periods after its dissolution in which you can't place a veto? Or, to make it more complicated and to tie in with my first two ideas, a veto can be overrided if you have dominant influence over all alliance members. 


The idea of having special actions (forcing member to leave, break up alliance, override vetos) if you dominate all alliance members makes sense. This way whoever has the most influence is the de facto leader of the alliance. And this leadership will be hard to maintain as it requires influence over all members. And the moment such a special action is taken, all pressure over those members should be lost. Perhaps, to complicate it more, whenever a special action is taken, that faction should have a pressure penalty vs his alliance members, allowing them to recover from his dominance.


Anyway, this is a long post. I realise the game should not be complicated and that it may be too difficult to programme some of these ideas. It is almost 1AM here and I just can't help but think of ES2 and its host of possibilites. 


Edit: One more thing: ultimatums. In other words, the current newly implemented demand system, but add "war" as another refusal penalty.