Please make treaties have minimum duration

Yeah like a 10 turn minimum duration. Only fair. Though they may likely start up again on the 11th turn but at least you have a breather.

I'm neutral on the treaty subject.

But as far as borders, this is space. Not a planet. They work in Civ4 because that game was designed for them to work that way -as actual 'diplomatic' borders that can be fortified - GC2 is a different game, they are only 'influence' borders - big difference in concept.

This is only an 'exploit' because of the stupid 'one tech per planet' and 'no money ever' system in place. If you conquer whole worlds of a more advanced civ, you'll get one tech. Not tech related to buildings on the planet, not many techs from analysis of artefacts... ONE. Almost always something crap like life support. And no money! There are $2,500 things just floating in space, but conquering a whole planet yields jack.

Minimum duration on treaties is absurd. There are already 'trust' issues in the AI, and they'll usually surrender to someone else anyway. Once you get a decent amount of technology and money for seizing planets, it won't be such a big deal.

I would recommand that once a peace treaty is struck, neither side should be able to declare war on the other side for one year.

And what magical entity would enforce this? "Q" ? Or the United planets? Laws can be broken by a dishonorable foe.You just don't trust them again.Think of Stalin's and Hitler's pact and how that turned out.

And like Oldstatesman said,Space is huge.I mean it's really enormous.I mean really; it's so incredibly gigantic.Again what magical force would a border law be enforced by?

-Wade

I believe that it was stated somewhere officially that the AI notices when other Computer players do this, and adjust thier attitude towards them accordingly. I could be wrong, but that is what I understood.

Also, I agree that it would make no sense. Who would/could enforce such a thing?

Also, the current system is very exploitable by the player. For instance, i offer a losing AI a peace treaty for a ton of techs, then simply declare war right away and finish him off (scoring a bunch of free techs).

Sure you can exploit it this way, but the AI catch on and won't trust you as much the next time. Also by the looks of it the AI has exploited you in the same way (more or less), so it just makes the game more interesting methinks

Come on. Anyone ever study history ? Treaties are just pieces of paper. If you capitualed a bunch of crap to get peace, and now they're attacking again shame on you.

The reverse, oh well. The AI's afterwards shouldn't trust you anymore. Not being able to attack for X turns is bull****. There could be fallout, like the rest of the CIvs stop trading with you, and don't trust you if you redeclare war.

I agree on the reasoning beheind 'enforcing' broken peace treaties.

I don't agree on the border discussion. I't really unrealistic when a civilization would allow to have huge alien fleets passing by their key worlds when they don't know if they'll fly by or suddenly turn on them and attack.

I'm in favor of making borders 'closed' by making a border violation an 'act of war'. Alien vessels can only fly in your space when they are allies or when you are at war. Only unarmed freighters (and perhaps unarmed surveyships) are excluded.

This would also temper the initial colony-rush. Aliens can colonise Mars when I don't, however, they'll have to go to war with me for it!

These closed borders would also hold for constructors! So no more alien (influence) starbases popping up on your side of the border. Expanding territory with influence starbases will become more expensive because you will have to 'island-hop'

Another option is again to to close borders (with an act of war violation) and to include a 'commercial right of passage' (freighters and colony ships) and a 'full right of passage' in the game which can be negotiated subsequently in the diplomacy screen.

Basically, hard artifical rules are always less desirable than consequences. It shouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE to break treaties, or form them in bad faith - it should be A BAD IDEA to do so. I haven't tried the latest betas, but I hear the AI is less tolerant of such behaviour. There is no need for a SM-style 'magic fairy' stopping you.

EDIT - AdmiralZ, all your concerns could be handled by an improved diplomacy system. If you could 'send' messages, like 'get your fricking constructors out of my space' or whatever, it would be good. Simply deciding you 'own' all the space under your 'influence' is ridiculous - indeed, it could be argued that sovreignity extends as far as one's ability to prevent incursion. In that way, your absolute 'territory' is that area of space controlled by your spacefleets and platforms - ie, the area around your planets, and within striking distance of your fleets. NOT in the middle of unihabited systems that happen to be green at the moment. The ability to threaten people with immediate action would allow you to define territory in a realistic fashion, and even provide realistic territorial disputes over starbases, fleet movements, etc. If you can't defend it, it isn't yours.

GC2 is a different game, they are only 'influence' borders - big difference in concept.

Not really. There are several UP resolutions that are based on your borders, as determined by influence. These borders are considered your territorial boundaries by these resolutions.

You can't have borders that exclude constructors, as that removes a massive part of the game. The whole POINT of influence starbases are to give a non-violent method of capturing planets.

I agree that treaties should have a minimum length or that ignoring them right after making them should have more serious diplomatic consequences.

I don't agree on the border discussion. I't really unrealistic when a civilization would allow to have huge alien fleets passing by their key worlds when they don't know if they'll fly by or suddenly turn on them and attack.

Instead of a very bad, unrealistic fix [closed borders], the developers could add more diplomatic options, for example telling the AI/player in question to get the f out of your space. Then the AI/player has a choice, leave the player's space or risk war.

As for treaties, as long as the AI take into consideration that the player or AI is a treacherous bastard, minimum-time treaties [also a bad and unrealistic fix] isn't needed.

Instead of a very bad, unrealistic fix [closed borders], the developers could add more diplomatic options, for example telling the AI/player in question to get the f out of your space. Then the AI/player has a choice, leave the player's space or risk war. As for treaties, as long as the AI take into consideration that the player or AI is a treacherous bastard, minimum-time treaties [also a bad and unrealistic fix] isn't needed.

i agree
treaties are fine now, but a diplomatic option to tell the AI to leave my space is needed
and if they are stronger then i am i should be at least able to pay them to leave my space