Realm Divided for Galciv 3

I think it should be part of an aggression/reaction behavior set based on difficulty level.  If you want a serious challenge, that would be a good part of it.

I think it does.  I was playing last night and was marching towards a research victory and the remaining factions all declared war on me except for my allies.

Though I totally see what your saying.  They did not join forces.  Some were still fighting each other and this attack was not exciting as I was way more advanced.  I even armed my allies to the teeth so we ended up fight much more efficiently then the rest of the galaxy.  It would be cool to have them unite as a coalition against you.  Or you could join one to stop another.  

This imo is the biggest remaining problem with diplomacy.  AIs and players both lack the ability to fight together as allies against a common enemy.   If the AI could look at a war as itself plus its allies vs its enemy and its enemies allies it would make the endgame much more interesting.  Currently there is also no way to declare war as a group.

Being able to garrison/liberate allied planets and join allied fleets would be really cool as well.

One thing I am trying currently is a game where I 'team up' some races. 

Borg+Yor

Drengin+Krynn

I may make a 4 way team with all four above...^^^

Altarians+Iconians

This means they share resources and sight and can and should defend the other. 

You can assign teams at generation. Ill report back and see how it works out. 

I so agree with you.  I really hope that this is on its way.  It would add so many levels of interest to the game and would really encourage immersion.  

It would be great if a dev could chime in on this too

 Honestly, fixing the mop up phase, a common problem with most 4x games, would give a game of galciv 3 SO MUCH more longevity. You no longer have that point in the middle of a game where it just starts snowballing in your favor with no return. 

Pshaw? Frogboy? 

Also, in this phase your enemies/nuetrals really put on the fancy dinner dates for your allies: "Look, I know he's your friend today, but he's going to break that alliance treaty any time now!" This means your allies may suddenly start going "Um, buddy, I'm getting nervous. Give me some stuff to calm my nerves or I'm afraid I'll have to terminate our arragement." So diplomacy gets very messy...

This would mimick an actual board game being played around a table.

"Don't trade with him! He's going to win!"

I would totally support that.

Love the idea!

how about we add in rebellions and whatnot too? Like, enemies team up and start disrupting your emoire. Making citizens rebel, attacking planetsnyour trading with to stop your income. and maybe even focusing onyour capital worlds. That would mKe defending yourself a bit harder and more important I think.

Only as long as there is good counter play.  In gal civ 2 there was an event that made part of your empire break off and form a new faction.  But it was random and there was no defence against it, so it could straight up just lose you the game if it took the bulk of your manufacturing worlds which was very frustrating, especially as someone who plays with a slow pace on the biggest maps.

Imo rebellion should be an expansion level addition with depth or not done at all.

Right now it's like playing Risk against five kids with down syndrome.

While I happen to agree that this would make the game better/more challenging, be aware that this type of AI behavior has often been universally hated in other games.

This is an age-old debate all the way back to the first Civ-style/4x games. 

Some people want a challenging game and they want the AIs to band together to 'not let the winner win'. Other people consider that horrible and that AIs should act 'normally' rather than gang-up on the winner.

EU2 had 'bad boy' rating which everyone hated. Civ 2-3 (and 4?) had mechanics to reduce diplomacy based on 'score'. 

I would imagine making it a configurable option would work too but again, then you have two camps of people again.

Trying to get a dev to comment with no luck

Do any of you disagree that this will solve the mop up phase boredom?

I hear a lot of good ideas.  Was thinking how we could add them.

Rebellions, have noticed that there is no penalty for doing things outside your moral alignment.  If you do that enough times some in your faction might feel you have lost your way, your not a true good, bad or pragmatic leader and they break off to form a more pure version?

The don't trade with that guy he is going to win.  I was thinking we might see this when espionage added.  Spies can often plant info, you should also have the ability to warn factions like they warn you.

Coalitions, EU games have it where when multiple nations go to war with others, the best/most powerful nation becomes the alliances lead faction. They set strategy for the war.  In the game this could me, if your are lead, you could mark planets controlled by the enemy as planets to invade, defend.  If your not, you might get missions from the lead faction, like please take planet x in 10 or more turns.  When peace comes, the lead faction does the negotiations.  This is neat, because if you hose your allies and keep all the planets for yourself you might find them turning on you.  There is a historical president for this, many allied nations in WWI felt screwed at the peace table and turned in WWII, ie Italy and Japan were on the Allies side in WWI.