Communities Diplomacy/Federation wish list

[Kinkness]

I was going to write this thread as my own, but decided why not open it up and allow it to be a dedicated thread where we all dump our hopes and dreams.

Quite honestly I can't think of anything else paradox could do that is seriously lacking in Stellaris anymore apart from the Diplomacy and Federations. They are completely bare bones, lack luster, and drawl in comparison to all the other changes done in the past 2 years.

However, paradox if you're reading this: You need to fix your AI before anything else!
----------------------

Federations:

One big issue I have with Federations is that they feel so empty. It's more like an Alliance than an actual Federation. There needs to be ways for the player to "talk" to the AI members so the computer understands what the player is trying to do (and vice versa).

* Would love to see a "mobilization" before any war is actually started. Where the members of a federation decide on a potential war target. This "mobilizes" the AI, they know war may begin, and focus their efforts on building armies, and ships. After a period of time, they vote to go to war or not.

* Staging Points: Systems chosen as "Staging Points" where Federation members move their fleet when mobilizing. This again helps the AI and player coordinate. The AI moves their fleets to a strong point, along with the player.

When a Federation is mobilizing everyone in the galaxy gets a notification, but not who the target is, this allows AI who have been the target of insults, or have a big negative opinion of you mobilize if they feel they are the ones potentially coming under attack, and will mobilize their own forces at their own staging points.

* Federation Ship Hulls: Basically special ship types, or hulls that are only available to federation members. They are very expensive, but large, and extra powerful.

* Federation Tech Tree: More tech towards federations themselves, and living in cohesion with other aliens in an alliance.

* Internal struggles: Events, situations, and simply internal politics for federations. Make Federations able to fall apart, change internally, or members having a valid excuse to kick another, etc.
----------------------

DIplomacy:

There's ALOT that I dislike with the current diplomacy. Many others have voiced their opinions far better than I can, and I'm a little too tired at the moment to really type it all out.

however the base lines are:

* Not enough way to increase trust, and opinion outside of selling your 1st born.

* Not enough ways to decrease opinion, or trust or even accidentally demolish it.

* Opinion modifiers are extremely rigid and stiff. Very very specific likes/dislikes, +'s and -'s. It feels extremely rigid, and easy to abuse, or avoid.

* Several things which don't necessarily =/= with each other. More branching out in civic styles, and government types, as well as their beliefs and backgrounds really need to play into diplomacy. Example: 2 spiritualists aren't necessarily going to see eye to eye.. look at our own world as an example.

Also just because 2 empires are xenophobes or xenophiles doesn't necessarily mean they are going to like or dislike another xenophile or xenophobe. The "You are this, and that's that" rigid cookie cutter makes the diplomacy even worse.

Reason I explain this is directly due to the modifiers and opinion modifiers you get. 2 spiritualist warlike races are probably going to be sworn enemies, not sworn friends. Allow for situations like this to happen, and put other reasons for opinions both positive and negative.

------------------------------

 

[Kinkness]

No one? D:

 

[nanoboy]

I feel like federation succession laws should depend on the membership. For example:

• More egalitarian succession should depend on votes, and members will likely need to hash out whether representation is population proportionate or one-state-one-vote. They will also want occasional (10 years?) votes on leadership.
  
• Authoritarians will prefer lifetime or permanent federation leadership.
• Militaristic federations will use duels involving fleets or armies to determine leadership and influence.
• Spiritual federations will look for the will of some being in the Shroud to decide who should lead.

Federations should have policies the member states (or perhaps just the lead state) determine. Policies include:

• Succession rules
• How much fleet power states provide to the federation fleet
• The responsibilities and benefits of associate members
• Who determines policies
• Rules for hardship relief
• War stance
• Mutual enemies
• Autonomy or integration
• Restrictions on empire policies (i.e., slavery, primitives)
• How hard it is for states to exit (easy or Brexit or the U.S. Civil War)

How's that?

 

[The_F]

I'm not sure, whether this belongs to an diplomacy or an espionage system, but there is one thing that bothers me in stellaris - and that is the whole "First Contact"-thing:

What happens, when you meet another empire in stellaris for the first time?

You research their language and... bam!

You know:
- about their species traits
- about their ethics
- how many systems they have claimed
- how many planets they have colonized
- how strong they are...

You know about their tech-lvl, their rivalries, their fleet power. You know nearly everything about them right from the start.

In my view, stellaris is alot about story telling, but the current system about meeting other empires does not feel very special.

When you meet a weaker empire, you don't care about having a rivalry with them, because you know, you can stomp them whenever you like. But what if you don't know, whom you are facing there at your borders? Would you risk a war, with an unknown empire, when you don't know about them? About their power? What, if your only information about them is, that they have a station in the system, where your borders meet?

That is the thing, I am missing a bit in Stellaris.

 

[KarsusTheMad]

Also, I'd like for their to be a legitimate explanation for why they do not like non-devouring swarm hiveminds. I'd understand it if they were like "Well, we know this over hivemind that has repeatedly demanded we feed them US so... Can you maybe go somewhere else?" Like, I know Hiveminds can set the living standard of xenos to livestock, but I think that should be compiled into the Xenophagia mallus instead of a whole unique mallus JUST for being a Hivemind.

And between seperate Hiveminds, I'd like to see a sort of drone exchange program, along the lines of "We don't actually know our origin? So lets figure it out together?" Idk. I imagine Hiveminds being more amiable than an individualistic empire.

 

[Zetesofos]

Just going to leave this hear (again) because I don't want to rewrite it all.

Federations

Currently, Federations provide a very limited framework for administering several sovereign empires under a single banner. Before we go into some of the details, we should review what a Federation is and should be, and how it relates to competing options.


Federations, unlike say defensive pacts or vassals, consist of a shared set of defensive agreements between all members equally, and that any member can enter into or leave voluntarily. The primary advantage of federations is that they allow otherwise smaller empires to band together to present a unified force against hostile threats. Within that framework, member-states each get equal (if random) time as leader to control the Federation fleet, and to manage the limited ability to make claims and declare war on behalf of the group. However, beyond that, members get a few minor diplomacy bonuses between members, but otherwise gain little else.


Going forward, Federations need to provide a few key options. In terms of purpose, In addition to shared alliance of mutual defense, Federations should allow for the potential for member nations to make unique and significant diplomatic relations - both with each other and with foreign powers. Additionally, there should be some options for influencing the governments of other member-states.


On the function of Federations, the most needed change is the ability to adjust how members control the Federations leadership. Depending on the founders intentions, there should be options to have federations that demand active involvement of member states of roughly equal stature vs federations with one or two dominate factions who hold most of the power.


Below, we’re going to look at the second problem first - the function of federations. This is mainly because design wise, this problem is easier to solve. Without a clear roadmap of enhancements to the Diplomacy System and internal politics, Federations will likely remain a primary a threat deterrence option.




Federation Charter
When you form a federation, you should have the option to create several traits and customize the organization based on your needs. Afterward, the leader should be able to access the federation, much like they do other empire management screens (e.g. when you click the federation button - you'd open a new window that simulates many of the current empire options. Then, depending on the governing system you can - if current leader - change any of the aforementioned options or mark an option to BE changed and up to a vote.)


Governing Ethic
Federations have a guiding ethic. This ethic is primarily used to determine Federation civics, Leadership types, and influence diplomatic and faction opinion. Neither the founder’s empire ethic NOR a member state’s governing ethic is needed to match the Federations ethic, but opposing ethics are prohibited (i.e. a pacifist empire cannot join a militaristic federation).


Ruler
Whichever empire currently leads the federation has a ruler selected from their leaders and/or empire ruler to assume control of the federation, depending on that empire’s own government (Imperial might be a bit weird).


While established, a federation ruler provides their ruler trait bonuses to the ENTIRE federation, and the ruler’s home empire gains an opinion bonus with the nations of federation members (representing their attempts to curry favor). In addition, Pro-Federation faction in your empire gains a bonus (more on that below).


Leadership
When founded, a federation charter has a leadership structure similar to an empire. Leadership determines who makes policy decisions, controls federation diplomacy, and perhaps most importantly, controls the federation fleet. Depending on the federations policy on Veto Power and Membership Status. the Federation leader can have a wide variety of latitude of authority. Unless the Federation was chartered with the Client States Civic, Federation members can still call for a vote to throw out Federation members, even if all other Veto Powers are prohibited and/or that member is the current leader.


There are four options for Federation Leadership.

• Static - The founding empire leader on a permanent basis. There are no elections, and members only have power delegated to them by the Veto Policy and Impeachment policies. (While this option may seem ideal, there is a chance that smaller empires might use this to avoid war while they build up forces, then leave to join a more powerful rival or rebel).
  
  
• Elected - A new empire is elected leader every 20 years. Regardless of the Veto Power policy, the elected leader is always based on a Majority - depending on Membership Status, an empire may be able to maintain dominance for a good while. (This option is primarily there for those interested in internal control of a federation, and want to manage inter-member conflict).
  
  
• Influence - Leadership is determined by whomever has the most power (economic, tech, fleet), using the current ruleset.
  
  
• Committee - A neutral speaker leader holds the federation position in trust, but takes no actions. Instead, member states can pay influence to gain the speakership for 3 months, and propose policy changes. While in Committee is the active leadership, Veto Power cannot be prohibited, and Fleet Levee is set to Inactive (you can’t run a fleet by committee after all...)
  

Once a federation's leadership is formed, it can only be changed by the leader (along with Civics, just like your normal empire). If there is only 1 member of a federation remaining, it is automatically disbanded.


Civics
Like empires, Federations can be expected to be unique, and have certain perks depending on their founding. Also like empires, the civics available will be determined by the Federations guiding ethic and Leadership. However, I would not expect as many Federation options. These civics would ideally perform two functions - provide a bonus thus to incentive joining a Federation, or thinking twice before going to war against them and also incentivise certain playstyles within them. For example, Intergalactic Embassies might provide additional influence gain and reduced diplomatic costs while War Games provides bonus fleet and leader experience.


Policies
A major change to Federations is the introduction of policies. Most policies deal with how the federation is governed, or what resources are available to the federation.


Veto Power
There are several actions that, when initiated by the leader, may trigger input by member-states. Besides War Declaration, these may also include a Policy Change, Diplomacy, or Trade. If allowed, members-states can veto the leader's decision, depending on the amount of votes. (Defaults for Veto power are determined by Leadership)

• Totalitarian (Static Default) - Members don't vote on leader actions
  
  
• Super-Majority(Influence Default) - 2/3 members must disapprove, otherwise action passes
  
  
• Majority (Elected Default) - 51% must disapprove, otherwise, action passes
  
  
• Consensus (Committee Default) - At least one vote will prohibit action.
  

Membership Status
Members cast votes depending on their status within the federation.

• Senate - One Vote per Member
  
  
• Assembly - One Vote per X Pops
  
  
• Shareholder - One Vote per X Monthly Resource Contribution
  
  
• Volunteer - One Vote per X Naval Capacity Contribution
  

Economic Contribution
Members are required to provide monthly resources to the federation reserves

• None - No contributions required
  
  
• Minimal - Member states contribute 10% of monthly resources gains and storage to Federation
  
  
• Balanced - Member States contribute 25% of monthly resources gains and storage to Federation
  
  
• Large - Member States contribute 40% monthly resources gains and storage to Federation
  

Central Bank
Leaders can transfer funds from the Federation Reserves. Deposits are unlimited, but withdrawals may have limits.

• Unlimited - Leader can withdraw funds at any time
  
  
• Large - Leader can withdraw up to 75% of funds every 5 years
  
  
• Balanced - Leader can only withdraw 25% of funds every 5 years
  
  
• Limited - Leader can only withdraw 10% of funds every 5 years
  

Fleet Levee
Members are required to provide some level of naval fleet capacity

• None - No fleet capacity, Federation Fleet disabled
  
  
• Minimal - Members contribute 10% of fleet capacity to Federation
  
  
• Balanced - Members contribute 20% of fleet capacity to Federation
  
  
• Large - contribute 40% of fleet capacity to Federation
  

Ship Design
Members may have the option to share technology upgrades to ships. (If access is revoked, all members still retain any gains previously made.

• Embargoed - Federation ship designs disabled; Federation Fleet ships selected from leader’s current available list.
  
  
• Restricted - Federation ships built can only be commanded by the federation leader
  
  
• Open - All members can produce Federation designed ships for personal use.
  

Sovereign Warfare
Members may or may not be able to declare war independently outside of Federation

• Prohibited - Member-states cannot declare war except as part of the Federation
  
  
• Police Action - Member-states can declare war, but can only select war goals that don’t claim territory, purge, or subjugate other empires
  
  
• Allowed - Member-states can freely declare war independent of the Federation.
  

Finally, Federations would have their own versions of the following empire policies, as they related to the Federation Fleet.

• War Philosophy
  
  
• War Doctrine
  
  
• Orbital Bombardment
  
  
• First Contact
  

 

[DimensionalHorror]

Here are some things from the top of my head.

• The ability to vassalize empires that are at war.
  
• Vassalization status quo peace treaties that actually work.
• Mechanics and events in case the player gets vassalized. The ability to get a larger empire to support your independence.
• More flavor regarding AI personalities. For example, diplomatic events specific to erudite explorers, hegemonic imperialists, etc.
• Fallen empires protecting the galaxy from the Gray Tempest, if it gets out of control.
• Commercial pacts enabling trade routes sent to other empires.
• A civil war mechanic reminiscent of the Machine Uprising mechanic.
• Rework of the "Threat" opinion modifier. Your allies not suddenly feeling threatened by you for destroying an empire both you and your allies hated.

 

[Sergei Andropov]

I'd like to see more same- species diplomacy. As it is, rebellions almost never succeed, and on the rare occasions they do, they result in tiny little OPMs. It would be amazing if we could see actual civil wars that result in large new empires.

It would also be cool if your own citizens would occasionally strike off on their own and start independent nations outside your borders. Or maybe there could be a civic where your species had sent out generation ships before the start of the game, whose descendants you would encounter as you spread across the cosmos.

 

[Surimi]

Way back, I came up with some ideas for reworking federations which I thought were pretty cool, so I'm going to repeat some of them. My thinking has changed a little based on the direction Stellaris has been headed and what would make sense.

Federation Government

Creating a federations should create a new political entity, the federation government, which is distinct from all empires within the federation. This should be represented by a neutral space station built in the borders of whoever founded the federation, and by a new screen (imagine the HRE screen from EU4) accessible to members of the federation, allowing players to interact with the federation government.

Each member of a federation has a federation influence score, which determines what percentage of the federation government they control. Having a large population, contributing to a federation's military forces and so forth should increase your influence, and in addition you can spend resources to temporarily bribe government members to get more influence (although this should be capped, to prevent players simply siezing control of the government with massive bribery campaigns).

When the federation government makes a diplomatic decision (like whether to allow someone into the federation) all members of the federation can vote as they currently do, but the weight of the vote should be modified by the percentage of influence they have within the federation. Thus, a single strong state or one which has invested heavily in the federation can still use the government to exert its will over the others.

Federation Ruler

Federations should have an authority like regular empires, so they can be dictatorships, oligarchies or democracies. This determines how often members of the federation vote for a new federation ruler character. Initial authority should be based on the country which founded the federation. This also removes the old problem of all federations using diplomatic nomenclature. The federation ruler could be a randomly chosen governor from whichever empire wins the vote, or if they have no governors it just creates one randomly. They give a federation influence bonus to their original empire.

Membership Levels

Joining a federation should not be an all or nothing choice, there should be a range of levels of integration ranging from association status (complete autonomy, but no influence) all the way to fully integrated (very little autonomy, but max influence). The more integrated you are, the more affected you are by federation government. For example, you might lose the ability to declare separate wars, or have to hand over some policy choices to the federation government, but at the same time higher integration allows for more control over the federation government and thus, potentially, over other federation members.

It should be possible to be a kind of semi-independent state within a federation, and potentially even to have rivalries or even conflicts with other federation members (although the federation government should have ways to sanction or intervene members who are too aggressive). The principle here is that federations should be a new arena for interesting gameplay, not just an unbreakable hugbox.

Federation Actions/Laws

By spending regular influence, any empire within a federation should be able to propose a vote to the federation government. This might be something like imposing a federation-wide policy change (for example, banning slavery or AI), asking the federation to declare war, changing the federation government's authority or demanding that all federation members become more integrated. Individual states can ignore the outcome of these votes, but this will annoy everyone else in the federation and potentially lead to them getting kicked out. Again, the point is to make contributing to a federation rewarding in terms of influence and control.

Unification

One important thing which has been mentioned in regards to federations is the ability for a federation to unite into a single nation. I think this could happen in two ways.

Firstly, if all members of a federation are fully integrated or if the presidential leadership is dictatorial, the empire which controls the presidency could initiate a vote to unite into a single nation. It should be difficult and require a lot of investment in the federation system to achieve this, although perhaps empires could be weighted to vote in favour if there is something scary going on like a war against a superior enemy (the chancellor granting himself emergency powers). Either way, when a federation unifies the tag which unified it annexes all other members and its empire name becomes the name of the federation.

I mean, these are all speculative ideas. But above all, I think the two priorities should be:

1) The system should be harder for players to influence, at a cost of being more rewarding to influence.
2) Joining a federation shouldn't be all-or-nothing, there should be opportunities for fun and dynamic situations within a federation rather than instantly being united against outside threats.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

The big problem with diplomacy atm is if you ask me, that there is a too high a degree of perfect knowledge.

Take the criminal Megacorps for example first contact and its "Hi there, we're drug dealing black marketing slavers and we can't wait to meet your people!"
Or purgers "Hi there, there's no tactical advantage in this at all, but we're going to tell you in advance that our fondest desire is to see the extinction of your whole race."


There really needs to be a period between 'first contact' and 'knows the most intimate secrets of each others way of government' here.

Then we can talk about a better way to communicate desires like 'we intend to expand into this space' or 'as a gesture of respect, lets neither of us claim this buffer zone' and 'I too desire that space, what shall we do to resolve this peaceably"

I guess what I most want from a diplomatic rework is a chance to get via diplomacy things otherwise attained only via war: Territory, resources etc, after all, to mangle a quote diplomacy is just war by other means. It would also allow escalation. Polite diplomacy>forcefull diplomacy>cesation of cooperation>santions>war that there isn't the support for atm.

 

[nanoboy]

Another fun thing a federation might do is attempt to force a member to grant independence to some sectors. The new empire would be a new member of the federation. Those federations being dominated by one member might build a movement to break up the dominant one. Indeed failure to do so might result in integration of all members into one new mega-empire, a la the HRE in EU4.

 

[lwarmonger]

Internal diplomacy and politics! Keeping a large empire together should be hard... and the cost of failure high.

My wide empire doesnt have too much trouble riding roughshod over most AI, but that is because I dont have to worry about anything internal.

And I should.

 

[RabbaDooDabba]

In regards to federations, I would like to see something like the precursor First League. Basically a meganation where each empire is still its own government and can play a specific role inside that federation (Diplomats/Traders/Researchers/Warriors/Intelliegence/...).

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

I guess what I most want from a diplomatic rework is a chance to get via diplomacy things otherwise attained only via war: Territory, resources etc, after all, to mangle a quote diplomacy is just war by other means. It would also allow escalation. Polite diplomacy>forcefull diplomacy>cesation of cooperation>santions>war that there isn't the support for atm.

Basically this, done via a social combat system.

I am so sick of diplomacy in strategy games being some optional formality that exists only to supplement war. We should be able to diplomatically pressure and manipulate opponents into giving up systems, changing their diplomatic status relative to other empires (breaking off treaties), or granting other concessions. I would especially love to play third-party matchmaker between other empires; getting Spiritualists and Materialists to set down at the table together, negotiating peace in someone else's war . . . basically doing everything humans did in Star Trek and Babylon 5.

All of that has to be possible without the recipient simply being to say "nah" and declare war on you. Diplomatic pressure has to be a hard force, not just a suggestion. Otherwise we're back to diplomacy simply being an accessory to war.

The fear is always that players will feel powerless if they have no means to resist diplomatic "attacks". That's why I think negotiations shouldn't just be a push-button affair, but done via social combat between diplomat leaders that takes time to accomplish. This would give the defender a chance to react, devote better leaders/influence to fight back, or issue favorable counter-offers to ensure that "defeat" isn't a total loss.

The beauty of this is that every moment of the game will have the same excitement that war does. A period of peace wouldn't be one in which nothing is happening. It would truly be the continuation of war by other means.

 

[Ikael]

Good tread!

Ok, wishlist for the next diplomacy focused expansion.

Oh boy, where do I start...

- Leaders that actually matter (no more interchangeable slots and paltry bonuses) and have their own whims and agendas
- Sectors being relevant for once. What brings me to the next point...
- Independentist movements and rebellions
- Peaceful ways to influence and wreck your opponents outside war (spies, cultural influence, religion, megacorps, you name it)
- Assymetric information. Make understanding an alien culture and first contacts an actual event worth of investing resources
- Spyionage being about politics rather than random and annoying acts of sabotage and "this or that ship exploded"
- Neutral "buffer" zones, false flag attacks, corsairs, raids, guerrillas, assymetric warfare and cold wars. Make wars a gradual, scalable thing with different stages and flavours
- A more in-depth race creator, racial traits that actually matter and creates radically different gameplays
- Primitive hiveminds and synths!
- More interactions with pre FTL species
- Bring back powerful uplifted species so xenophiles have something cool besides xenocompatibility
- Autority types having really different, actually influential intra-politics
- More faction variety within the same ethois that conditions diplomacy. No, my peaceful englightened spiritualists are not going to love the death cultists just because they're "spiritual" too
- Federations having different flavours and mechanics depending on their intention and ethics (a defense initiative is not the same as a trade league or a federation of planets or a feudal union)
- Ground combat that actually matters
- Player-defined secret victory conditions (Example: "My empire's endgame is to exterminate at least one xeno race and reach the shroud"). When paired with a proper spyionage system, this can result in incredibly satisfying mindgames, specially in multiplayer, and in very dynamic narratives in single player (as well as a truthly insane endgame when paired with crises)

In short, there's a big room for improvement, specially in the diplomatic area.

 

[nanoboy]

- Leaders that actually matter (no more interchangeable slots and paltry bonuses) and have their own whims and agendas
- Autority types having really different, actually influential intra-politics
- More faction variety within the same ethois that conditions diplomacy. No, my peaceful englightened spiritualists are not going to love the death cultists just because they're "spiritual" too

I think these in particular could be really interesting. Here are some thoughts on the matter (sticking with the tradition of bullet outlines for this thread.)

• Authorities should be more different from each other than they are now. (I shall ignore the gestalt consciousness types, since I personally have no real interest in them.)
  • Democracies should have elected governors and presidents. (Parliaments would be cool, too.) While the player should be able to use influence to affect the elections, such efforts should upset losing factions. These leaders should make some actions cheaper and disallow other actions. For presidents, that may mean your new Xenophile president will not let you change your primitive policy, even though your empire is not Xenophilic. Governors should try to force policy changes as well, and friction between governors and the empire should cause economic, influence, and unity disruptions or eventual civil wars. However, when people are on the same page, democracies should get big unity boosts.
  • Oligarchies should be subject to infighting among the elite. What happens at the top should trickle down to the economy. The leadership team should be able to veto new leadership appointments and push their own special interests into policies and new leaders.
  • Authoritarians should have some interesting succession issues. For example, governorships could be hereditary (perhaps changing their titles) in some empires, while others allow appointments. While autocracy should allow a player more free policy-making options, military coups and succession crises should be constant threats. These governments should have more stability punctuated by sudden instances of chaos.
• Leaders should matter a lot. They should all have agendas and more traits that come and go more often, though not as much as one sees in CKII. They should accumulate more influence, so while experienced leaders provide more bonuses, they also wield more power in their own agendas.
  • Presidents' ethics should restrict actions and make some actions cheaper or more effective.
  • Governors should have more interactions with the factions within their sectors. They should also sometimes want greater degrees of autonomy, unless their loyalists or something.
  • Scientists should have more say (the level of which might vary by policy) over which technologies an empire develops. Some may even start their own secret laboratories or force some research into pet projects.
  • Admirals and generals may have influence, depending on an empire's nature. They would, of course, be instrumental in a military coup.
• Faction variety could be interesting, as one can imagine multiple favors of each ethos. The different factions needn't be totally antagonistic toward each other. For example, both social democrats and libertarians balk at the threat of a totalitarian regime.
  • Egalitarian: libertarian vs. social democratic
  • Authoritarian: totalitarian vs. aristocratic
  • Xenophilic: tolerant vs. paternalistic
  • Xenophobic: isolationism vs. eliminationism
  • Militaristic: honor vs. jingoism
  • Pacifist: non-interventionism vs. economic growth
  • Spiritualist: multiple religions; dogmatic vs. mystical
  • Materialist: technocratic vs. academic

 

[Abakus]

I'm not really going to comment on Federations, since I don't have enough experience playing with them outside of multiplayer. I'd like to talk more about diplomacy though.

The first thing I'd love to see from a diplomacy/espionage update (or from its accompanying DLC) is the incorporation of Religion. That seems to be a bit of a hot-button topic and there seems to have been a lot of digital ink spilled over it, but I really think there's a framework for far more than Spiritualist interactions, and the ability to spread and suppress religion would be a really interesting addition to diplomatic rework.

The second thing I'd like to see is more depth to subjugation. 2.2's tradition rework hit the vassalization mechanic hard, and I think adding a lot more granularity to that system could make it really fun. Vassals where you can control how much they can expand! Tributaries forced to send pops to Hive Minds for food! Uplifted species that can do more than sit there and provide you with a bit of influence every month! I recently tried to play an empire that uplifted primitives and set them up as their own (subjugated) star empires, but I was fighting the mechanics of the game the entire time. I think that adding a lot of depth to subjugation would really put the Hegemonic into Hegemonic Imperialists.