the destabelising phase lines sparked another, possibly more implementable idea for me:
next to the standard phase lines, there could be unstable ones, depends on the map. as is, using them would be a risk and the ships travelling inside might get destroyed. however, higher up in the tech tree, there could be a technology that allows to build ... well, a phase stabeliser, a gate. if built on one side, the lane stabelises and is a secure to travel as any other lane. upon destruction of the gate, the lane would destabelise again.
my take is either it can be like a tactical structure or an upgrade to a starbase. the difference to vasari phase stabelisers is a) all races can have them you only need one end built for it to work and thus it could lead somewhere completely different and not inside your empire. the difference to wormholes is that a) they are not a grav well themselves and they are destroyable or a risk if not secured.
though on second thought, the idea of needing only one portal and go through the lane secure then seems vastly overpowered. maybe I'll think of something later.
idea spawned from freespace 2 end.
also, I'd like to note that I am not very keen on diplomatic ships and the like. there is enough in a ship and planet level, diplo - as little as there is - is one of the things that's a bit more abstracted and empire wide. I'd just like it enhanced by many functions along with transparence.
capturing vessels is probably pointless if we think about the masses of ships present and things going on. it works well for a homeworld type of focus, but in an empire game? I dunno.
though the alliance sounds like an interesting concept. some benefits from being in it, but being bound to its decisions presents an intriguing trade off.
I was also thinking of some kind of research partnership. sort of like the trade treaties, only it gives you a slight bonus in research. you know, two heads are better than one and so on.
but really, the most important thing that is lacking in diplomacy is the following: there are just too few motivations for races to cooperate or go to war. that's logical, since it's such a war-related game, but without some non-combat content, that's all there ever will be. think about it, in gal civ II you had ethical alignment among other things, in civ IV you had religions and a ton of government options and so on and so on. if there should be any depth in diplomatic relations, then races need reasons for agreeing or disagreeing, for liking or hating one another.
admittedly, judging from the background story that might seem difficult, but then few races as monolithic. some parts of tec may not be as much into the war as others, some may have been horrified at what was done to advent so long ago, others may have grown extremely bitter due to the onslaught brought on them by the vasari. in the vasari, some groups may be tired of running for so long and considering to band with those stubborn locals to put up a stand against that age-old threat that had been hunting them. and so on. in this case, it may be good that we don't know all that much about all the races, it leaves back doors as to who some parts might not be as opposed to friendlier relations as the main portion.
and so, with lore consideration also, we could have a better explanation of why some ais will cooperate and some not and what can be done to change their mind. as of now, we have little to offer them. give them resources of any kind. hurt their enemies. end of story. and even that later is strange. why are those guys their enemies? because they didn't give resources? because they didn't hurt me? that's part of the reason why I pushed for government types or anything that can both give interesting choices on its own merit and serve as a basis to foreign relations. vasari faction one likes dictatorships and central planning, but hates federations and free market? sorry player two, your liberalism got ya. advent player two likes free market, but hates freedom of though/ liberalism ... whatever? well, they won't hug you, but you're not top killing priority. and so on.
sure, the map limits who can effectively kill whom, but them, close borders can be a negative factor too and deteriorate relations or sth. there are ways.
so ... give us more options in which we can differ or agree with other players/ ai. more we can offer and demand. that would go a long way to some nice diplo. andinternal politics does not have to be super complex. a few, overseeable options is all that's needed. I'll try an example.
governement option 1, empire: bonus to ships and tactical construction.
government option 2, federation: bonus to allegiance
ecnomics option 1, free trade: trade bonus
economics option 2, protectionism: flat bonus to homeworld. maybe 100% effectiveness of hw credit bonus
religious option 1, theocracy: bonus to culture spread, lower cost for culture centres
religious option 2, freedom of religion: bonus to research
you can pick one in each category. now remember, I don't claim it's balanced, or even clever, but I'd say it's not overly complicated and tbh I wouldn't go far beyond that in a game like sins. but as I tried to show above, these not only represents some cool choices for your won sake, but also in foreign relations. suppose an advent ai wants you to use theocracy even though you'd prefer the research bonus? want to risk a war in the long run? suppose a tec ai wants you to adapt free trade even though your empire is still fairly small and you don't have trade ports yet? and so on.
of course, on problem is that different options are preferable depending on the race. a combi of tec with the trade bonus would be powerful. advent with an extra research bonus could also prove deadly, but as I said, these are more to be seen as a proof of concept, don't exaggerate the actual boni I chose. the idea counts.
"and that's all I have to say about that." (go get that anny, shouldn't be difficult again.)