[Barnacle Bill]

Another related thing I'd like to see changed is exactly what subjugation means. In one of my demo games, I had a subject race which was getting beat up by one of my trade allies. Since subject races are not allowed to form treaties, there was nothing I could really do about it. I tend to play more of a "role-playing" game (solo, not MP), so I like to build up more or less peacefully and prefer the idea of subjugation over conquest.

What I'd like to see is that subject races cannot have trade or better treaties with any third party, but otherwise automatically share your relationship with third parties. In other words, if you are at war with somebody so is your subject race. If your relationship with the third party is non-intercourse or non-aggression, your subject race has the same relationship. If your relationship with the third party is trade or better (or they are a protectorate or subject race), your subject race would have a non-aggression treaty with them.

Also, I think subjugation should work as a one-way military alliance - you can use their resupply & repair facilities but they can't use yours.

With the "mega evil empire" thing turned off, races should keep treaties unless there is a reason to break them (bad relations over some real conflict, AI "style" for the particular race which is supposed to be erratic, etc...). Races you have made protectorates or subjugated should only cancel that treaty if their strength relative to yours grows to the point that, were they still independent, they would not accept such a treaty with you.

Finally, I've noticed that when the AI agrees to give you a system their claim to it only disappears for a couple of turns. I think they should honor such agreements in perpetuity by default as long as peace between you Lasts (unless again the particular AI style is supposed to be erratic).