People that do not care can leave it at the middle setting. People that do, can ramp it one way or the other, depending on their strategic plans and intent.



My strategy might be to run an open society for some time, to build positive relations, then after 50 turns slam the gate shut on whoever empire other other civ's like least. Then, while they are blind on intel, Build an effective military vs. the nominated enemy, bribe or trick other civ's into joining in, invade them and expand borders, then impose a "25 year plan" that includes perhaps my defence of their worlds and their peace treaty with other powers and work hard to make them an ally, by sharing technology and becoming BFF.



To stay on topic though, the game needs some way to impose conditions on others / accept conditions. I like this mechanic because it can be used throughout the game, not just at the end of a war, it can actually be used to build mutual trust and respect. Several smaller agreements with short terms could really help build towards that longed for peace that many players want.

ShadowKitfox wrote:
If you even colonize planets to increase your economy, or occupy too many systems adjacent to theirs, they don't like you.

Then again, if you have made moderate expansion a part of your 50 year agreement, etc.. they would not feel threatened, would they? Nor you of course. And at the end of the treaty/agreement, you would have the option to renegotiate the terms for the next x years.

good idea

I had a thread with similar suggestions:

"These changes would improve the game and give diplomacy a more strategic and important role in the game. As with all strategie games with diplomacy-option, there are allways missing some oportunities you usually need to successfuly manipulate the AI-Players in the way you need it.



1. Counterproposal:

In the "Total War Games" it's standart: Your enemy or other factions make you an offer you find ok, but not at all perfect. In ES you have the option to say "yes" or "no". In "Total War" you have the chance to make a counteroffer: You take the - let's say - peacepact only under the condition of...X.



It is also important, that the other party acts accordingly. A party you are at peace with or at cold war sure won't be so happy to sign a counterproposal that benefits just you. But a party loosing his Planets to you under siege, bankrupt and with no chance at all to recover from the war, has no chance but to sign anything - as long as they may keep one last system.

For example: I was at war with the Horatio which had 3 Systems left. I invaded their two main systems, leaving them just the one - becaus I wanted to let them survive with their pitty system as some kind of vassals. But I couldn't make a counterproposal to their peaceoffer and when I tried to "make peace under my conditions" thei just wouldn't listen. So a counterproposal with a more balanced system would be grate.



2. Making somebody a vassal or similar:

As above mentioned, it would be pretty cool if could do more, than just exterminate your enemy. Integrating them in your Empire as a foreign colony under your terms would be more interessting. (Just like in Total War Shogun 2, if you know what I mean.) This would mean the "vassal-party" would give some Dust every round and perhaps share it's scientific accomplishements with you as long they are bound to you.



3. Force Pacts:

Sometimes you need a party to join your alliance with a third party. Or you just want to threaten them with your superior military strengh. The option to threaten instaed of proposing should be an additional option. If you have a better military score than the other party, than they should be more likely to accept terms they usually don't like. But if they are in an alliance with another faction, having their back - they won't be so cooperativ.

Additional, it would be grate to have the option to force someone into a peacetreaty/alliance/war, to prevent other AI-Factions form tearing themselves appart, or preventing you from forming an allience with both factions at war. For the multiplayer, that would mean that you propose another player something he can ignore - with the consequense of risking war or penalties to trade or other treatys.



4. Hiering Pirates or call for a Headhunt

Ok, this idea is perhaps a bit tricky for the stat in which the Beta already is, but I just try it. SINS has already made it and it would be a good improvement in ES as well, or at least as a DLC or Mod later. You trade some Dust, Ships or ressources for other Empires or Pirates to attack an enemy of your choice. Same works for any other faction as well, making your head particullary interessting for everybody."

Additional, It is very sad, that there is a Star-System-Trade-Option (Colonies), but you can never ever ask for a Star-System even from your closest friends. That somehow makes the Option useless (at least with AIs). At least Colonies inside your terretory or at the borders of the his territory should be tradeable.



I also find most of the ideas in this thread very interessting (exspecially the 25-Years-Plan). It is normal that expansion or military upgrade gives penalties on diplomacy, but you can counter that with such treaties.



Diplomacy can be such a great weapon but I usually just am not satisfied with the limited options most games have. ES has great potential, but it still misses some little tuning and new options for trade and/or negotioations. Also I miss great penalties for broken pacts and treaties!

Jethro wrote:
Perhaps they could simply be excluded from the mechanic? - no bonuses (as in, they cannot gain approval from this mechanism / engage in this process), and no negatives (they can not be targeted via these means). It's like the feature does not exist for them.

Jethro wrote:
Perhaps they could simply be excluded from the mechanic? - no bonuses (as in, they cannot gain approval from this mechanism / engage in this process), and no negatives (they can not be targeted via these means). It's like the feature does not exist for them.

@ OP: I think the idea is ok. But personally i feel like it needs a lot more diversity and race specific 'options' to feel right.

This thread is the origin of discussions about more diplomacy options in the diplomacy menu.

Other threads about this have been archived:

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13234-suggestion-diplomacy-suggestions

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13291-suggestion-ability-to-alter-proposals

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13399-suggestion-dipomatic-gifts

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13386-suggestion-enforcing-a-neutral-zone

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13393-suggestion-challenge-enemy-players-to-duels-for-e-g-systems

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13474-suggestion-protectorate-vassal-races

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13500-suggestion-improved-diplomacy

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13510-suggestion-poll-expand-the-alliance-feature-in-diplomacy

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13655-suggestion-intergalactic-policy

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13698-suggestion-possibility-to-make-vassals

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13743-suggestions-diplomacy-improvements

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13802-more-types-of-treaties

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13916-more-in-depth-diplomacy-options

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13931-ui-improvement-when-ai-propses-a-deal



Feel free to post here about this topic here and inform yourself about the variations the threads listed above have already discussed, but don't open new suggestion threads for anything alike.

Can you elaborate on this idea Nick?

Absolutely agree with suggestion! Also, every change of diplomatic relations can have 10-turns period before they can be changed again (except with big penalties).

Like this suggestion! We need more diplomatic options like this!

What would you guys think about Pirate negotiation ? like payoff hire n stuff

Like I said, "Perhaps they could simply be excluded from the mechanic? - no bonuses (as in, they cannot gain approval from this mechanism / engage in this process), and no negatives (they can not be targeted via these means). It's like the feature does not exist for them.".



Ultimately, it is not a massive 'advantage', and not having the feature means they are free to do whatever they want (which is an 'balance' to not having the feature), expand and crush, which they do really well anyway. It's not like that they will miss it, in fact, a boycott sounds like exactly what they WOULD do.

it is a good idea will add more to the reileasric fature of the gmae but what about the race that canno nagotiate how do you balnace it with him that he will not expend ?

like I said, I like your idea, I haven't played a game that's lasted long enough for me to genuinely put a lot of thought into the mechanics but if it could be implemented and work like you want then I think it could add some depth to the AI, especially if they were more inclined to have some sort of cooperative attitude.

In real life, nations watch each others build up carefully, and respond accordingly. It is a little hard to do with ES.



I would like to see the ability, with a peace treaty, to restrict growth of each other, or impose conditions. For instance, be able to argue for 'build restrictions on dreadnaughts or battleships', limit system or planet expansion, with both sides needing to perhaps make dust guarantees that they will stick to it. You break it, the amount of dust you committed to the deal goes to the other side.



I want some way of imposing order on those crazy neighbours who seem to love building a few fleets with a dozen massive ships that are just seemingly waiting to mush me. I want to prevent them from even getting there via diplomacy.



For added fun, can you and a neighbour impose such terms on other nations, or determine these plans or agreements (which can vary for 5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 years/turns) via a 'UN' style conference. Race that refuses to do deals is regarded as most aggressive and targeted accordingly.



What might this look like? How about...



[25yearplan]



TERMS



Mutual Commitment



- 950 Dust (refunded at end of cycle, or mutual pool total (1900) given away to other party in the event of a breach - warning issued before initiating a move that would breach you)

- Allowed further system Expansion 2



Restricted Builds



Dreadnaughts 2

Battleships : 5



Other Restrictions



No Tri 70 Vessels (Mutual)



This also allows both to predict the others strength rating and add a sense of stability to the game. I don't want to deal with bloodthirsty, ruthless psychopaths all the time, as I don't like to play that way. You could also "impose" conditions on other nations after war via a similar system (especially if AI is improved to demand you protect their borders, or assign you some defence responsibilities). These agreements can also be "mutual" allowing for balanced growth and a more exciting end game (who loves rushes?).



LOANS IDEA



On another point, I want to be able to do loans, and get loans from other empires. With interest of course, with substantial diplomatic advantage. Breaches result in nasty effects, such as their economy collapsing to punish AI scamming.

Since I tend to prefer playing multiplayer games cooperatively against the AI, I have simply come to accept cheating AI as a "necessary evil," and moved on. Sure, there are some devious tactics that might be fun to employ that would never work against a cheating AI, but I find the cooperative spirit more positive than the competitive (and the sportsmanship is almost always better).

PyroVortex wrote:
Aye, the AI knows all, because at the current level of AI algorithms, they have to cheat to pose a decent challenge to human players in most genres.

True, too bad they can't be better, but the flip side is you play with other people. But in most games of this genre I find the multiplayer lacking anything but people reading guides and stat counters to get the Unstoppable combination of units, that or just mass waves of units that shouldn't stand a chance, but because of the numbers slaughter higher grade units.

If you even colonize planets to increase your economy, or occupy too many systems adjacent to theirs, they don't like you.

I'd go for that, it's a bit annoying as it is to gain relations, if you sit and do nothing it goes up but if you build up your arsenal to attack a mutual enemy they get worried and don't like you.

Aye, the AI knows all, because at the current level of AI algorithms, they have to cheat to pose a decent challenge to human players in most genres.

Perhaps a slider button, when internal politics are introduced called "Internal Security" - Having it 'tight/closed' secures information and raises distrust, and having it 'loose/open' generates positive relations with other races at the cost of intelligence. You could also try and initiate "counter intelligence" at the cost of dust to try and flush out informers.



You thus have it open at peacetime, and slam the gates shut and hit 'purge' a few times when the going gets tough. More fun is being able to set this individually for each race.



EDIT : I do have very high hopes for this game, as the dev's have basically said that the AI is a bit of a placeholder. They seem to have some extraordinary talent just lined up to take on gripes like ours.

PyroVortex wrote:
One of the single most annoying things for me about this genre is how all factions somehow seem to know exactly what capabilities other powers have...

I agree, I noticed in one of my recent games the AI's ships were heavily dependent on beam weapons, so I modified my new ships to have larger shields and weapons focused on their weak defensive stats. Well I got about 5 of those bad boys up before the AI swapped all his ships to full kinetics. Was a time span of maybe 10-15 turns and the AI already saw that I was building ships to counter his strength, I'd like to see a game where the AI are not gods of everything going on but I know thats not gonna happen. But as for OP suggestion I like the idea but it would really only work in multiplayer, and even then I'd need some serious benefits to side with someone and restrict my war assets. Especially if the game has a good number of players, I wouldn't want to limit myself if another faction is just gonna be able to take us out one after the other, or together if its too restricting