Diplomacy and Finlandization?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Diplomacy and Finlandization?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Diplomacy and Finlandization?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/8/2010 6:32:26 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

I have noticed that smaller, much less powerful empires commit suicidal acts when dealing with their much more powerful neighbors and even their close allies. They quickly fall on their swords regarding trivial slights, like armed merchantmen, colonies sharing the same system, etc.

Do you think there should be a greater amount of "Finlandization" added to AI empire's diplomacy?

I suggest that whatever change in reputation and relationship score results from such events should be heavily factored by the relative strength of the parties. I also recommend that this "relative strength" calculation not just take into account bilateral comparative analysis, but also account for coalitions that are formed by mutual defense pacts and free trade agreements.

Post #: 1

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/8/2010 6:43:22 PM

Wade1000

Posts: 771
Joined: 10/27/2009
From: California, USA
Status: offline

I agree. AI should be a constant top priority; even during and after new features are added to ensure that the AI competently uses them.

_____________________________

Wish list:population centers beyond planetary(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture):Ships,Ring Orbitals,Sphere Orbitals,Ringworlds,Sphereworlds;ability to create & destroy planets,population centers,stars;AI competently using all advances & features.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 2

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/8/2010 8:26:53 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

I'll give you props for actually bringing Finlandization into the conversation!

(in reply to Wade1000)

Post #: 3

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/8/2010 9:09:14 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

There is a protectorate diplomatic option which more or less accomplishes this.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 4

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 12:19:59 AM

Cindar

Posts: 101
Joined: 4/5/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

There is a protectorate diplomatic option which more or less accomplishes this.

Yeah, but protectorates seem to like to revolt a lot still. It seems that when I have 90 colonies, my enemy has 5, and I generously offer not to wipe them out from the galaxy, they shouldn't go ahead and backstab me the week later and hope that I'm still going to be nice.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 5

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 12:22:37 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

i always said there should be a "fear" factor for the AI interaction...
a 5 planet "empire" with no tech shouldn't be declaring war on a 300 planet empire with much higher tech and massive fleets. nor should they ever reject free trade, protectorate, etc offered by said empire.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Cindar)

Post #: 6

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 8:11:31 AM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

There is a protectorate diplomatic option which more or less accomplishes this.

I see little value in the protectorate or subjugation in these terms. You get some money and you get to see his map/ships. That's it. He still builds colonies in your systems and tells you to go to hell. You can't even demand his technology or force discounts in trade.

Even when subjugated the AI empire will readily re-declare war within minutes of ending the previous war.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 4/9/2010 8:13:31 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 7

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:42:41 AM

monsterfurby

Posts: 13
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline

I agree - since the "we want your stuff" modifier is pretty heavy, there should be a "please don't throw your stuff at me" modifier as well, around the point when the stronger empire has, say, twice as much firepower assembled in their fleet as the smaller one.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 8

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 1:54:26 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

There is a protectorate diplomatic option which more or less accomplishes this.

I see little value in the protectorate or subjugation in these terms. You get some money and you get to see his map/ships. That's it. He still builds colonies in your systems and tells you to go to hell. You can't even demand his technology or force discounts in trade.

Even when subjugated the AI empire will readily re-declare war within minutes of ending the previous war.

Agreed to all of that. Although I do find value in subjugation in that the AI empire will NOT readily re-declare war... it MIGHT redeclare war, and some do... but there seem to be a hefty modifier against it... In some games on species that instinctively hate me have redeclared war from subjugation, and even then rarely... most other empires stayed subjugated forever.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 9

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 2:33:19 PM

SiempreCiego

Posts: 38
Joined: 4/8/2010
Status: offline

I think you have an interesting idea. Yes the Diplamtic options should be a bit more complex/varied. I think this game, which I am quite addicted too at the moment would benefit from a more Space Empires 5 style diplomacy.
That way you can negotiate whether already colonised systems can be colonised by another empire. Form grand alliances, specify the level of trade (maybe up to free trade area).

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 10

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 4:14:26 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: monsterfurby

I agree - since the "we want your stuff" modifier is pretty heavy, there should be a "please don't throw your stuff at me" modifier as well, around the point when the stronger empire has, say, twice as much firepower assembled in their fleet as the smaller one.

Another thing, if you have a mutual defense pact, should the AI even worry about the resort base I build in one of their systems? Mutual defense means I am pledged to defend you if you are attacked. That is going to be hard to do if you don't allow me basing options in your territory. Especially something like a resort base that is only lightly armored and armed and is in essense a civilian facility.

The one that really irks me is that the AI will build a colony in my home system, then get pissed off because they want all my stuff. WTH?! 1) We're allies 2) you chose to colonize in my territory 3) GET YOUR OWN STUFF!

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to monsterfurby)

Post #: 11

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 5:00:30 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: monsterfurby

I agree - since the "we want your stuff" modifier is pretty heavy, there should be a "please don't throw your stuff at me" modifier as well, around the point when the stronger empire has, say, twice as much firepower assembled in their fleet as the smaller one.

Another thing, if you have a mutual defense pact, should the AI even worry about the resort base I build in one of their systems? Mutual defense means I am pledged to defend you if you are attacked. That is going to be hard to do if you don't allow me basing options in your territory. Especially something like a resort base that is only lightly armored and armed and is in essense a civilian facility.

The one that really irks me is that the AI will build a colony in my home system, then get pissed off because they want all my stuff. WTH?! 1) We're allies 2) you chose to colonize in my territory 3) GET YOUR OWN STUFF!

Your point is well made, but "sovereign territory" in the land-based sense is fairly immutable. For instance, whose laws are followed on your resort base? ... not even mentioning the fact there is no kick back to the territory holder.

I also note with some humor that the U.S. Navy (usually performed by the U.S. Coast Guard) conducts an operation each year by sailing into the Hudson Bay. This is done to remind Canada that the Hudson Bay doesn't belong to them. I would say the U.S. and Canada are very close allies.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 4/9/2010 5:01:14 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 12

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 6:02:21 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: monsterfurby

I agree - since the "we want your stuff" modifier is pretty heavy, there should be a "please don't throw your stuff at me" modifier as well, around the point when the stronger empire has, say, twice as much firepower assembled in their fleet as the smaller one.

Another thing, if you have a mutual defense pact, should the AI even worry about the resort base I build in one of their systems? Mutual defense means I am pledged to defend you if you are attacked. That is going to be hard to do if you don't allow me basing options in your territory. Especially something like a resort base that is only lightly armored and armed and is in essense a civilian facility.

The one that really irks me is that the AI will build a colony in my home system, then get pissed off because they want all my stuff. WTH?! 1) We're allies 2) you chose to colonize in my territory 3) GET YOUR OWN STUFF!

Your point is well made, but "sovereign territory" in the land-based sense is fairly immutable. For instance, whose laws are followed on your resort base? ... not even mentioning the fact there is no kick back to the territory holder.

I also note with some humor that the U.S. Navy (usually performed by the U.S. Coast Guard) conducts an operation each year by sailing into the Hudson Bay. This is done to remind Canada that the Hudson Bay doesn't belong to them. I would say the U.S. and Canada are very close allies.

the usa holds bases all over the world... we have one in germany, in japan, etc.. those bases are considered of us sovereignty.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 13

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 6:29:08 PM

Resan

Posts: 98
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

Maybe some kind of diplomatic option where you can ask for the right to place a base in another empires solarsystem.

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 14

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 6:52:15 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

the usa holds bases all over the world... we have one in germany, in japan, etc.. those bases are considered of us sovereignty.

With respect, those bases are leased from those countries and it is not sovereign U.S. territory. In each case a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) is established where the specific rules/contract is made between the U.S. and the host country.

Believe it or not, the same is true for the guantanamo bay base.

There are few places in the world that are covered by "extraterritoriality" agreements. The United Nations headquarters in New York city is an example of one. Also embassies are considered sovereign territory, but that isn't completely true. Specific agreements exist for embassies as well and are established when diplomatic relations are established between nations. For instance, a host country has the right to expel a mission--although normally they simply expel the ambassador.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 4/9/2010 6:59:33 PM >

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 15

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 6:56:11 PM

Gertjan

Posts: 698
Joined: 12/9/2009
Status: offline

Interesting discussion. I agree with your point Malevolence.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 16

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 7:50:48 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

the usa holds bases all over the world... we have one in germany, in japan, etc.. those bases are considered of us sovereignty.

With respect, those bases are leased from those countries and it is not sovereign U.S. territory. In each case a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) is established where the specific rules/contract is made between the U.S. and the host country.

Believe it or not, the same is true for the guantanamo bay base.

There are few places in the world that are covered by "extraterritoriality" agreements. The United Nations headquarters in New York city is an example of one. Also embassies are considered sovereign territory, but that isn't completely true. Specific agreements exist for embassies as well and are established when diplomatic relations are established between nations. For instance, a host country has the right to expel a mission--although normally they simply expel the ambassador.

But in the game text, we don't have the option to make those agreements, so my argument is that a 'Mutual Defense Pact' should consider those agreements inclusive. Add the diplomatic options to place bases and pay 'rent' for them, and I'm all for it. Until then, the MDP should cover it.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 17

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 7:56:35 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

Indeed, as I wrote, your point is well made.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 18

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 8:03:06 PM

BigWolfChris

Posts: 634
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Your point is well made, but "sovereign territory" in the land-based sense is fairly immutable. For instance, whose laws are followed on your resort base? ... not even mentioning the fact there is no kick back to the territory holder.

I also note with some humor that the U.S. Navy (usually performed by the U.S. Coast Guard) conducts an operation each year by sailing into the Hudson Bay. This is done to remind Canada that the Hudson Bay doesn't belong to them. I would say the U.S. and Canada are very close allies.

I would say that, like real life, bases should only be established if both sides agree to allow it
There should be a few treaties for this
1. Civilian Construction Treaty - This would allow unarmed bases to be built
The system owner would be charged with defence of said bases, in return they would get say 10% of income and research generated from each base

2. Military Construction Treaty - This would allow for armed bases to be built
The system owner no longer has to defend said bases if they choose not, but must allow for weapons on board the stations, in return they would get 25% of income and research generated from each base

Obviously numbers can be altered, and I would say passage of armed/unarmed ships should be decided with a different set of treaties

As for laws... since laws don't actually exist within the game, it would be going off-topic and only make a difference too those role-playing at this time (which would be their choses anyway)

< Message edited by BigWolf -- 4/9/2010 8:04:06 PM >

_____________________________

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 Core @3.7GHz
2x16 GB Vengeance LPX 2666MHz RAM
MSI RTX 2070 Armor 8G
SSD Drive

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 19

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 8:43:00 PM

thiosk

Posts: 150
Joined: 2/2/2010
Status: offline

In my current game, I was the big dog on the block, in a peaceful galaxy.

The alpha dog. Small military though, but huge construction potential.

I was using construction ships to repair a damaged abandoned fleet-- when a tiny 4-star neighbor jumped in and tried to snag one or two of them. I opened fire and took out the construction ship.

The empire shortly thereafter declared war, and the entire galaxy fell upon one another.

There was no fear factor, and no hope of victory. A state (previously allied to me until the war) did take a planet from me, but my retaliation was swift and crushing.

(in reply to BigWolfChris)

Post #: 20

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:00:14 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

the usa holds bases all over the world... we have one in germany, in japan, etc.. those bases are considered of us sovereignty.

With respect, those bases are leased from those countries and it is not sovereign U.S. territory. In each case a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) is established where the specific rules/contract is made between the U.S. and the host country.

Obviously there was a diplomatic aspect to it, the USA Can't just plonk bases in other countries without their agreement.
But the way I saw the argument was:
Person 1. I should be able to diplomatically build bases in their territory if we have defensive pact
Person 2. No, because its their sovereign territory which is immutable.
Me. IRL there are bases in other countries being made diplomatically.

So yes, I get it that the USA asks permission to hold those bases... I am just saying that "defense pact" sorta is, and if it isn't, then there should be an option to allow such permissions.

quote:

Believe it or not, the same is true for the guantanamo bay base.

I was already aware of it, I thought it would be better to refer to the ones in germany and japan to avoid derailment.

quote:

There are few places in the world that are covered by "extraterritoriality" agreements. The United Nations headquarters in New York city is an example of one. Also embassies are considered sovereign territory, but that isn't completely true. Specific agreements exist for embassies as well and are established when diplomatic relations are established between nations. For instance, a host country has the right to expel a mission--although normally they simply expel the ambassador.

All true, but none of it contradicts my point or his point... and that is that you CAN diplomatically establish "bases" in another's territory as long as you do it diplomatically and in a reciprocal manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
But in the game text, we don't have the option to make those agreements, so my argument is that a 'Mutual Defense Pact' should consider those agreements inclusive. Add the diplomatic options to place bases and pay 'rent' for them, and I'm all for it. Until then, the MDP should cover it.

That was EXACTLY my point, sorry I did not make it as clear.

< Message edited by taltamir -- 4/9/2010 9:01:12 PM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 21

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:04:37 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thiosk

In my current game, I was the big dog on the block, in a peaceful galaxy.

The alpha dog. Small military though, but huge construction potential.

I was using construction ships to repair a damaged abandoned fleet-- when a tiny 4-star neighbor jumped in and tried to snag one or two of them. I opened fire and took out the construction ship.

The empire shortly thereafter declared war, and the entire galaxy fell upon one another.

There was no fear factor, and no hope of victory. A state (previously allied to me until the war) did take a planet from me, but my retaliation was swift and crushing.

happens to me all the time... In one game it wasn't just some piddling "ancient ships" they were after, but my world annihilator project.... well I wasn't gonna let that stand. in that game I had 300 planets, second largest 60, next 30, then 5,5,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 respectively for the rest of the empires... and every single one declared war on me (the first few due to defensive treaties, the next because I had suddenly horrible reputation because I was in war with everyone AND they were jealous"

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to thiosk)

Post #: 22

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:21:37 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

I agree with both your posts taltamir.

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 23

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:27:13 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

btw... i now overcome this issue by aggressively slaying pirates (my reputation is perfect; if i do something evil and it dips to dubious, it gain it right back), never trading my maps (I don't want them to come after my stuff), and never entering a protection agreement (refusing to go to war harms your rep, going to war harms your rep, its lose lose... plus its better to be colonizing planets while other empires fight rather then actually fight yourself), only free trade agreements (good rep, and the one you have it will love you now and don't care as much about your rep) and subjugations (subjugation doesn't bother anyone, if someone else declares war on you then YOUR rep goes down, a subjugated races is very unlikely to declare war on you... therefore subjugating improves your rep). Also, make peace ASAP, ESPECIALLY if it is against a race who is a major component of your empire (races hate it when you fight any empire of their race...)

following those simple steps:
1. most empires like me
2. I decide who to fight and when most of the time (well, I am still always in a war with 1 or 2 empires out of the dozen)
3. my rep is excellent
4. my citizen's morale is high because my rep is good, and because i am probably not fighting an empire of their race. and they pay more taxes

< Message edited by taltamir -- 4/9/2010 9:29:06 PM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 24

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:36:05 PM

Gertjan

Posts: 698
Joined: 12/9/2009
Status: offline

Taltamir, good strategy advise. This is becoming a useful thread. However a protection agreement seems useful if you are relatively small and can get it with a large and relatively peaceful and cautious empire. Like a way of insurance. Question: How do you know if a race is a major component of your empire?

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 25

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:38:09 PM

BigWolfChris

Posts: 634
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline

I found it funny when an Empire declared war on me with

"We shall crush your feeble dying empire"

2 weeks later, I had took out their 2 colonies with my reserve fleet...
I'm flying around with a military power of over 10x that of the entire galaxy combined

Infact the only real enemy I have is war-weariness, yet it doesn't stop AI from acting all big around me... like they could actually do anything harmful
For the hell of it, I declared war on the race with the 2nd largest military, 2 months later they now lack one, even the moon around their capital (yes, their CAPITAL) revolted and joined me, that in itself is wrong, I would only except it if that system was all they had left, but it wasn't

_____________________________

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 Core @3.7GHz
2x16 GB Vengeance LPX 2666MHz RAM
MSI RTX 2070 Armor 8G
SSD Drive

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 26

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 9:48:23 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

well... it makes sense if you literally exterminated the entire armed forces... the moon likely had a crummy economy and high taxes and watched the lavish quality of life of the capital while they suffered; now finally they are free to rebel as there are no armed forces to ensure they do not (Also, you probably destroyed their space dock with its hospital and stuff)... (I am mixing some fluff explanations with crunch of my knowledge of the AI's policies... namely, overtaxing underdeveloped colonies and pampering rich ones).

another thing is... if a race hates you and declares wars on you often, and you have many of them in your empire... each time you are in war with them it is devastating to your economy... with the bigger empires try to get FTA, with the smaller ones either subjugation or completely annihilate them... an annihilated empire can't declare war on you... and when you are not in war with their race they don't hate you and aren't revolting.
this one is a rather difficult and advanced tactics... it takes some experience to decide when it is worth the cost (long period of revolting planets due to prolonged war with their race) to do so (to exterminate all EMPIRES of a race)...

remember to always keep your rep high though... you can ill afford it to go too low or your planets revolt (pay no tax, produce no goods, build nothing), might join the enemy, and you might even have civil war (half your empire splits to form a new empire. at war with you.. AND morale is even worse because now your dominant species is upset that you are at war with "their race", thus you have even more revolting planets...)

< Message edited by taltamir -- 4/9/2010 10:06:28 PM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to BigWolfChris)

Post #: 27

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 10:01:37 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

Good advice taltamir, despite the fact that I want to play species-centric and crush everyone else under the boots of my stormtroopers.... everyone except for maybe those blue chicks. They're hot.

< Message edited by Malevolence -- 4/9/2010 10:02:24 PM >

(in reply to Gertjan)

Post #: 28

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 10:08:00 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

Sexy blue space elf matriarchy... a staple of sci fi that I hope will be around forever :P...

also, from the game point of view the IDEAL is to absorb a species into your empire and then destroy every empire "of that race" while keeping that race as a major population in your empire (for the bonuses)... that way they will never get super upset when you go to war, since you aren't at war "with their race" (you are at war with other empires that might have a sizable majority of their race, but its not the "race" of the empire)

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Malevolence)

Post #: 29

RE: Diplomacy and Finlandization? - 4/9/2010 10:10:45 PM

Malevolence

Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

Sexy blue space elf matriarchy... a staple of sci fi that I hope will be around forever :P...

also, from the game point of view the IDEAL is to absorb a species into your empire and then destroy every empire "of that race" while keeping that race as a major population in your empire (for the bonuses)... that way they will never get super upset when you go to war, since you aren't at war "with their race" (you are at war with other empires that might have a sizable majority of their race, but its not the "race" of the empire)

Absorbing other species diminishes our purity. It would be ok I guess, but I can't enslave them or pick them up in cargo freighters and then space them. You know, good times.

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 30