Does that mean you can only receive one treaty at a time as well? If not, then a clever diplomat could wangle a treaty from each other race, giving them a super boost to economy or research. Would that be unbalanced?

Does that mean you can only receive one treaty at a time as well? If not, then a clever diplomat could wangle a treaty from each other race, giving them a super boost to economy or research. Would that be unbalanced?

It seems you can receive as many treaties from different races as you would like (one from each) and they do stack, at least in Beta1 anyway. This can be a great boon early game as your econ will skyrocket and you will quickly outpace the AIs in resarch (I've only been playing the beta on painful so far so its not all that hard to outdo them). On the insane levels, suicidal/masochistic, does it give you 1/10 of thier insane boosted econs...?

One thing I would like to see added to treaties: If you GIVE a treaty to another race it should give you a big relation/diplomacy bonus with that race, much like trading with them would.

To brake the threaty should not need declaration of war in my opinion also. If you brake a threaty it should hurt your relationships badly, nothing else in my mind.

ps. About the diplomacy. This aspect of the game has been tweaked countles times but there is no clear readme/faq about the issue. How much and what should you give to AI to improve relationships considerably? Giving a tech or two time to time seems to do nothing in GC2 and latest DA beta.

Is that what it does? I was hoping that it meant we automatically traded technologies. I guess not .

I guess I'm not getting the point of this feature, then. It seems like a very odd thing to do, and the idea that the extra research/economy magically comes out of nowhere bothers me. It's got no real life equivalent, and doesn't seem to make any sense.

Personally, I think it should be something like agreeing to automatically trade technologies or something similar.

I would like the Treaties to be breakable also, aside from war or death. Both options seem a little extreme.

I've said elsewhere that a big part of how I approach this game is telling myself stories while I click around. That, together with some of my "professional" training, is why I balked hard earlier in this thread.

I'm still a tad leery about the near-permanent duration for the treaties, but I'm beginning to think I have a lot more thinking to do about how a particular diplomatic agreement, say the Treaty of Versailles or NAFTA, has some results that no gov't can undo despite the fact that it took at least two gov'ts to make the deal.

If you (the fool who believes you're an autocrat) open trade routes or start exchanging scholars, your traders and/or scholars will never again be the same, even if you put a shooting war in the middle of the relationships you helped them establish.

Yeah, it's definitely confusing at first, especially since every other game I can think of that has similar treaties requires them to be mutual.

Once you understand how they actually work, they're not a bad idea, just confusingly named.

My first impression is that the AI sort of overvalues them early on, and undervalues them later (i.e., they'll trade their "aid" to you rather cheaply, and the other AIs don't seem to put any great emphasis on acquiring them from each other.) Another impression I have is that having these treaties, whether they're mutual or one-way, seems to give a sizable boost to diplomatic relations. In my first couple games, it seemed almost absurdly easy to form alliances with whoever I wanted to.