Stardock Forums
I think I was able to reach an alliance at "friendly".
Stardock Forums
Civ 3 gets around this issue by: --If you agree to attack another civ, you automatically declare war on them (ie these types of agreements are binding). --Agreements like this have a specified duration. --If you break the agreement, (either directly or by making peace with the relevent civ) it is viewed as a hostile diplomatic action by the civ you made the agreement with.
Stardock Forums
Sounds like the AI is overvaluing atacking a minor civ.
From what I have seen, one is technically the default, but you get +1 from trade technology. So by the time you can actually build freighters, you get 2 routes.
A UP issue forced all governments to be imperial, yet my senate still had normal elections.
A maintenance cost for starbases makes sense. Also, it might help if the bonuses from multiple starbases in the same sector didn't stack.
Stardock Forums
I've noticed that the AI doesn't seem to want to part with any of the initial "theory" techs. That doesn't seem to make sense. I can certainly understand why the AI would not want to trade away techs that allow a new class of starship.
I'm not sure if it has been suggested before, but I think it would add strategic depth to have trade embargoes.
It would be nice to see players be able to bring resolutions to the up, instead of having them be random. Of course, this would mean the AI would have to be able to do so inteligently also. Or, maybe there could be a mix of player-generated proposals as well as random ones. Being able to buy votes as they were being cast in smac really trivialized the voting process imo. Also, I agree that often a vote where 3 choices are a percentage or numeric value and one choice is 0 are s
Stardock Forums
I think that either having unspent money go back to your treasury or going towards other activities on the same planet would make sense.