vincible: I've just completed my first 1.12 game and...I didn't notice anything different, either. I'd like to respond from the point of view of a gamer who REALLY enjoys influence and diplomacy in 4X games, and has searched hard for games that employ this well. There aren't many, and I'd have to think of little known older games like 'Empires of the Fading Suns' before you could find one that modelled aspects most players would seek. I feel it is EXCEEDINGLY hard to incorporate in a game in a believable way for the player. The game should have an 'influence economy', parallel to the cash and trade one, which allows the player to fight, prosper and eventually dominate, just like the warmonger can. It is a valid route to victory.
Regarding your points:
1. Yes, Id say that's fair - at least to the point of the presence of CultSBs leading to downgrading of the relationship - that's what would happen in real life (Chinese ships off the Taiwan coast).
2. Yes, a cultural 'counter attack' would be reasonable, but VERY difficult to incorporate in an AI (especially prioritising this in relation to military objectives).
3. No. I detest 'nerfing'. Nerfing is not developing 'enhanced AI' - it is simply squashing an excellent tactic because the programmers arent smart enough to think of other options. This would risk removing any value that diplomacy and influence had in the game, reducing it to a simple wargame. We already all fight for 'military' wins...dont make it worse. Item 1 is a better answer.
4. Absolutely agree with this one.
5. I have no problem with it, but it seems a crude tactic. Money talks, or it should do in this sort of game. If you're a good enough businessman, and can find the price, you should be able to purchase it. Poverty stricken civs SHOULD sell you things in order to stay afloat - that's a real world occurrence. Frankly, it makes more real world sense for starbases to be 'flippable' just like planets. Why would a starbase hold out deep in enemy territory when all the surrounding friendly planets flip to the enemy? I know it goes against what you're trying to do, I'm just pointing it out!
6. Yes, clearly - no AI prioritises these at all.
7. Yes, and it should be treated like any demand make in game (ie you can deny it, and restore your relations later with gifting if possible). That is, it should not be instant war if refused.
8. No - I dont like single dice rolls bringing my careful strategies undone in one swoop. I think it should be harder to flip an AIs planets as you go along. It gets easier to flip them now, because influence depends in part on population. As your pop rises and their pop falls, flipping is easier. I think the AI surviving planets would band together even tighter - so each successive 'flip' should require more influence to obtain.
It might just be too hard to get really meaty diplomacy into these sort of games. Stringing together complex deals: "You can buy my next UP vote if you'll..." "You know the Torians are plain evil. Give me planet X and we'll ally and go to glorious war together..." "I will supply a contract of ten Avatars for you IF you use them to annihilate Civ Y"
Just my 2 bc. Well, it's worth 5 bc but because you're a friend, vincible, I'm giving it to you for just 2 bc. You know, a friend would probably respond by taking a little break from gameplaying while he writes to Stardock. Yes, I'd support that.....