[Barnacle Bill]

Most people's complaints about the AI seem to focus on "it does stupid things" and "it isn't tough enough". While I welcome improvements in that regard, those deficiencies bother me less because I am not a multiplayer gamer and my play style focuses more on internal development of my empire & roleplaying the part of an emperor than on "winning the game". I see conflict in this sort of game as something that should happen because two empires want the same system, rather than the "Last man standing - eliminate the other players one by one" style of a multiplayer game. So, I want AI that acts like the leaders of real-life countries who, aside from the occasional Hitler/Napoleon/Axexander type, do not act like players in a "winning means conquering the map" wargame. I'm not really looking for AI that is competative in a "Last man standing" game, because I don't play that way myself. Frankly, I turn off all the optional victory conditions in SE4 so that the game won't end until/unless somebody is the "Last man standing", but I don't play to achieve that result and usually decide to start a new game long before anybody achieves it. That doesn't mean I don't want any AI, or competent AI. AI that acts corretly is important to suspended disbelief. It is just that different things about the AI bug me than if I wanted it to better imitate human game players rather than human national leaders.

With the above in mind, the number one thing that bugs me is the inability to defend your territory against your "allies". This causes me to avoid agreeing to treaties above Non-Intercourse, making all those other treaties useless. After all, NAFTA doesn't mean the US government is free to found cities in British Columbia or the US Border Patrol throws our southern border open to Mexican migration. Similarly, even if the AI agrees to "give" you a system, they always reclaim it in a turn or two. Hence, the following proposed changes to diplomacy & related "rules":

Change the "claim all systems you colonize" selection in Empire Options to "claim all uninhabited systems you explore unless claimed by an ally". "Ally" in this context meaning Non-Aggression or better, including Protectorate & Subjugation. The AI would act as if this option was selected.

You can't colonize or invade a planet in any system unless you claim it first.

Eliminate the "no treaty" diplomatic status. The default upon first contact is "Non-Intercourse".

When a treaty proposal or trade proposal including a treaty is transmitted, the terms automatically include recognition of all current system claims by the other. However, any contested systems remain contested (see below). Once a treaty above Non-Intercourse is agreed to, neither side can thereafter claim any system the other has already claimed as long as the treaty Lasts.

For contested systems, it is "no peace beyond the line" within the contested system. Mines in contested systems will detonate on your allies (too dumb to be selective about whether or not to detonate, but mines should be useful in the "limited war" within a contested system). Ships, by default, would not initiate combat when entering a sector in a contested system containing something other than mines belonging to the other party. However, they could initiate combat within the contested system if desired via the "attack" order, no matter what treaty is in effect. Damage inflicted on the AI within a contested system does not make the AI as angry as it would if inflicted in Non-Intercourse or War, since limited conflict within the contested system is expected.

If you "give" a system to another race, that abandons your claim to it and automatically transfers ownership of any colonies you have in it. If you separately "give" some but not all planets in a system without giving the system, that converts it to a contested system if it was not already. How much stake it has in the system, in terms of number & size of colonies, would heavily influence the AI in deciding to accept or reject proposals that it give up contested systems.

Any party to a treaty could unilaterally downgrade it one or more levels (Subjugation downgrading one level to Protectorate, Protectorate to Non-Intercourse). Each treaty level except the "unequal" ones (Protectorate & Subjugation) would have a minimum level of the AI's attitude toward the other party. If the minimum attitude or better does not exist for a given treaty level, the AI will neither propose or accept that level of treaty. However, having the minimum level should not guarantee acceptance, and the higher their attitude is above the minimum the more likely they should be to accept. If the AI's attitude toward its ally drops below the minimum for their current treaty, the AI should automatically downgrade the treaty.

For the "unequal" treaties, how the AI feels about you would not matter. It's decision making about accepting or downgrading treaties would be based on a comparison of your fleet's combat strength (ships only) to its overall military strength. On the other hand, if it's fleet is strong enough compared to your overall military strength, the AI should propose Protectorate or Subjugation to you! Certain levels of military strength comparison would also offset AI dislike for purposes of accepting or not downgrading "equal" treaties. In other words, if the AI is "intimidated" by you it might not risk angering you by refusing or downgrading a treaty that it doesn't like you enough for under normal circumstances.

When deciding anything involving "intimidation", the AI should also take into account the strength of both its Military Allies, Partners & Subjects and yours. It will also take into account distance between the nearest systems of the two parties or their Military Allies/Partners/Subjects (somebody big on the other side of the galaxy with lots of other races in between is not very intimidating).

A Partnership treaty would require that there be no contested systems between the two parties, or that all remaining contested systems to be resolved as part of the trade including the treaty offer.

Alternately, Partnership would change the rule about claims and colonization. In this alternative, you could colonize in any system claimed by either yourself or your partner, any system of your Partner's that you colonize in automatically becomes claimed by you & contested thereby, and combat in contested systems between partners is not allowed (including mines).

In addition to the 20% tariff, Protectorate would preclude the weaker side from attacking the stronger even in contested systems (including mines), but the stronger side could still attack the weaker (again including mines). The weaker side could conclude Non-Intercourse or Non-Aggression treaties with any third party with which the stronger side is not at war, or Non-Intercourse with third parties with which the stronger is at war. However, the weaker side can downgrade the Protectorate to Non-Intercourse in order to accept a treaty with a third party. If the weaker side is at war with a third party when it agrees to the Protectorate, the war automatically ends in a Non-Intercourse treaty unless the third party is already at war with the stronger side. If any third party declares war on the weaker side, this automatically declares war on the stronger (which should be taken into account by third party AI when deciding on war). The AI would only propose becoming your Protectorate if it will save them from having to agree to the same (or worse) with another race they like less than you. In that case, the new treaty does not end the war but rather puts you at war with the third party, and your Protectorate cannot unilaterally downgrade the treaty as long as the war Lasts.

Subjugation would work like Protectorate except 40% tariff, the weaker side automatically goes to war with anybody the stronger side does, the stronger side "sees" all systems the weaker side can see, and the stronger side can resupply at the weaker side's resupply depots.

If you propose Subjugation or demand Surrender and the AI is not "intimidated" enough to accept, but would have accepted Protectorate, it should counter-offer Protectorate. The same thing should apply if you demand Surrender and the AI is not "intimidated" enough to agree, but would have accepted Subjugation.

If "Mega Evil Empire" is enabled in "Settings.txt", if the conditions for declaring a Mega Evil Empire (MEE) are met then all the AI's who are not the MEE's Protectorates or Subjects sign a Military Alliance. Individual pairs within the Alliance will retain any pre-Alliance Partnerships, and can agree to new ones while the Alliance is in force if they like each other enough. The Mega Evil Empire's Protectorates & Subjects will weigh the ratio of strength between the two on an ongoing basis to decide whether to downgrade their treaty with the MEE and join the Alliance. However, members of the Alliance will weigh the combined strength of the Alliance against that of the MEE when deciding whether to accept offers/demands from the MEE for "unequal treaties" or Surrender, and may accept if the MEE is strong enough. Aside from accepting such offers/demands from the MEE, though, Alliance members will never downgrade their treaties with each other below Military Alliance as long as the Alliance is still in force. If the MEE declares war on any member of the Alliance (or is at war with any member when the Alliance is formed), all other Alliance members will immediately declare war on the MEE. If no Alliance member is at war with the MEE when the Alliance is formed and the MEE does not declare war on any of them, the Alliance will decide collectively each turn whether they all declare war on the MEE or keep the peace (by some function of the attitude of each Alliance member weighted by its contribution to total Alliance strength). If the Alliance keeps the peace, its members will downgrade any individual treaty with the MEE to Non-Intercourse. If the MEE is at war with the Alliance and offers Non-Aggression to any Alliance member, the same function would be used to determine whether it is accepted, and if accepted all Alliance members go to Non-Aggression with the MEE together. Offers other than Non-Intercourse or "unequal treaties" from the MEE will be ignored by Alliance members. However, if the relative strength of the MEE falls to the point that the conditions for having an MEE are no longer met, then the Alliance disolves and there is no MEE until/unless the conditions are met again later in the game (by the same race or a different one). If the Alliance disolves, the relationship between each pair of Alliance members drops to the highest allowed by their current mutual like or dislike. Formation and disolving of the Alliance, as well as individual defections to/from the Alliance, should be announced via Messages in the log. Alliance membership should also show on the treaty grid and the main diplomacy screen as "Anti-Whoever Alliance", where "Whoever" is the name of the race which is the current MEE.