Diplomancy isn't very fun.

An idea on the ship trading item. Lets say the enemy wants your Face Smasher Mk II ships. They put an order for 10 of them. The game would then create a special object that can be queued at a ship yard for an order of ships. You can then set your shipyards to build this special object that has a production cost of 10 * Face Smasher Mk II production cost.

So

Ship Cost = 100

Quantity = 10

Total = 1000 Production to complete.

On completion you get the previous agreed amount as long as it's completed within a certain time Windows.

In addition to the credits you get a +1 diplo bonus for completing the job. Failure to complete the job on time will hit the player for -10 diplo points.

Let me know if this doesn't make sense.  I'm barely awake typing this. 

Sounds as if Illauna would prefer a constant state of war/near war....

A: I guess the ultimate question for the developers is: Ultimately, which type of Victory do we want our players to go for? This has it's roots in the developers asking themselves "Which type of Victory would I go for?" Therefore, the developers spend x hours plotting how players get any particular victory but within that always allowing - by a range of means some subtle, some not - a way for the player to realise it's best to follow the Victory path the developers actaully want them to.

For example, make the diplomacy a bit too stupid. Trading planets makes no sense unless you're trading what you know is a 0 type planet and:

1: The AI doesn't know that

2: And you know what the AI doesn't know that ie it has no intel on Planet BoogieWoogie IV.

Or

3: You know what the AI thinks it knows about you is wrong ie it thinks it's getting Planet BoogieWoogie IV Class 7 Research 50%.

Obviously, this applies to ship trading etc (ie the AI's Spies have seen the Super Duper Star Killer Biatch ship in one of your starports but only from the outside so actually, that Laser 2 is only Laser 1 etc etc)

I accept the developers may have their own hopes and paths they'd like the players to follow, I just think the hints should be as subtle as possible.

B: Should non-agression pacts be something that can only be negotiated on a short term basis? Ttwo races agree to a NAP, but every x turns, the AI (or any human in a multiplayer game) can pop up on your NAP fellow signee's Diplomacy screen: "What up, biatch? Given how buttkissy you've been to the Drengin recently, we need to chat about our Non Agression Pact. Today. My office. Or the deal's off. And be prepared to give up some stuff."

Something for the AI developers to consider??

Overall, I agree that Civ V: Brave New World expansion has a better diplomacy system than the GC 2 model, though, like you, I don't think it's perfect.  The thing that is usually missing from 4X and RTS diplomacy is betrayal.  I mean, look at the history of human diplomacy.  Betrayal is a major factor: Shifting alliances (sometimes in the middle of a war or even a battle), backstabbing, subterfuge, assassination, economic sabotage, propaganda, etc.  While some of these appear in games, there is a tendency to make AIs too trustworthy.  If you make a non aggression pact, the AI is likely to stick to it.  How many of these were violated in real human history?  Civ V introduced this to a limited extent, but it's still not "realistic."  I mean, why would Russia annex the Crimea when they have a treaty recognizing Ukraine's borders?  Come on, humans don't do that anymore.  Right???  In diplomacy, I would like to have some friends like the U.S. and U.K., but I also want the Russian's and China's that you can never really trust and the North Koreas that just can't be trusted at all, but you still have to deal with. 

I agree that this is realistic when trying to make or keep the peace, but otherwise is a way to exploit the AI.  Again, looking at human history, how willing are real nation states to give up their territory?

I'm going to disagree, here.  I use ship trading as a means to supply arms to another player (like Lend-Lease before the U.S. entered WWII).  For instance, I like to keep the Drengin alive as long as possible (to keep the other AIs busy so they won't go to war with me) and will often feed them ships (always with a flaw that makes them vulnerable to me) to feed their war(s).  This is an example of the betrayal I mentioned above.  I may have peace, economic, and research treaties with other major AIs, but I'll feed the Drengin warships to keep those major AIs weaker and distracted.  And, feeding the Drengin warships means they usually won't war on me.  The AIs need that kind of sneaky.

The idea of orders is interesting.  For a good ally (like the U.K.) I might make and deliver Apache attack helicopters, but for Iraq . . . well, I'm not going to give them my best stuff (I mean, who knows if they might just abandon the equipment and allow a major terrorist organization to capture it--I'd hate to have to face and destroy my own equipment).  I would rather choose what I give than fill orders, but both could have a place.

Since the resources haven't been integrated yet, I'll wait to see what the devs do with them.

As always, my opinion.

I actually don't want constant war. I just don't want guaranteed peace either. Again will show off Civ5 : BNW because lately they have done pretty well in my opinion. Again, I'm more pointing out what I feel are the funnest systems in that game to help with the diplomancy system in this game. 

It's possible to keep the peace in Civ for the most part. Not guaranteed though but you can have peace. How is this done?

Stay off the AI's lawn and respect the Neutral zone. 

- Nothing brings war fast in Civ5 then expanding where the AI was planning on expanding to. Extreme examples will cause the AI to outright complain to you and warn you not to do that again.

Trade with the AI

- The AI does consider if going to war will hurt them economically. 

Keep some guns

- If you have a weak military the AI will declare war. Thsi gets kinda crazy in higher difficulties because the AI has been well known to gang up on the weaker side. 

Honor your deals.

- Making agreements with the AI keeps them happy.

Finally, no matter how good you there are jerks and crazy people in Civ. Many vet players of that game can tell you how much fun it can be starting next to Monty or never trust Ghandi. Monty is nuts one game he will be super peaceful, most games he will pick a fight with every player and AI. Isabella in Civ4 was a religious fanatic.

Constant peace should be an option if the player wants to go for it.  So should trading techs, ships, planets, anything really.  I want as many options as possible.  Plus it's fun when the Drengin demand my home planet.

Choices are always good IMHO.

That said, something like trading colonies. It easily falls into one of two binary states - either the AI will never trade a colony (to prevent cheesy abuse) or it will (and players abuse it cheesily).

It's more a balance point than anything else. When something is done that is massively powerful - like trading a world/unique tech/lasting peace. The game should tell you why it gave in (via the text, not merely 'ok') while also perhaps chastising your for using a cheesy tactic... something to change your behaviour more subtly if you agree that the trade smelled a little cheesy.

Hmm, complete opposite.  I'm enjoying the current iteration, glad that it is similar to Gal Civ 1, and I hated Civ5's mechanics, though I sunk hundreds of hours into it.

My personal beef with diplomacy is they simply aren't very diplomatic.  You can't really interact with someone who opens with an insult, and that's as far as the conversation goes; doubly so when they are supposedly "overjoyed" to see me.   I'd like to see intelligent counteroffers, actual friendly friends, and more options to cooperate with other cultures, rather than simply bombing them into dust.

Yes, that would be almost as awkward as, say, Iran flying the F-14 Tomcat.

Japan commissioned a couple of battleships from the UK (in the mid-30s).  Why not?  Excellent work for a reasonable price ... and their own shipyards were busy

No, just add more new creative stuff. There's no need to cut anything since it all generic right now AND the OP is just wrong. We were promised this;

Strategy Informer:  How are you going to approach Diplomacy and Trade in GalCiv III – I’ve found that they can be hard things to get right, or to make ‘special’ in any meaningful way.

Brad Wardell:  One of the things about Diplomacy is that, in games, it seems to have moved more and more to being about Trade, right, trade or ‘give me stuff’. But again this is kind of a missed opportunity in the GalCiv and strategy games in general, because Diplomacy is about achieving your ends through non-violent means, and it doesn’t have to be like “give me four rocks for three space diamonds”, how about “I’ll help you do this, so I can influence that, so we both benefit”. It doesn’t have to be equal exchange. I could help some guy fight some insurgency on some planet, in exchange for him allowing my cultural goods into his empire, which spreads my culture. There can be many instances where you’re trading – no, that’s not even the right words – where you’re getting your goals through other people.

So I imagine diplomacy will become more dynamic as time goes by, in addition to curving any abuses.

DARCA ;- )