The best way to keep relations up in GC1 was to create trade routes with them, and to make sure that you had a high enough military rating that they didn't want to mess with you.   

I agree of course, but many times (not always) the influence military rating and trade had on the ai seemed to change with the updates. One person's cheese is another person's challenge I guess.

In addition, I think that giving things like tech, money and trade goods (to keep an ai off your back) so you can develop a tech or build some ships should be a strategy that works in GalCiv II. in GC1 anything other than military rating and trade kept the ai happy with you for about two turns. I have also played some games where all my availabe trade is going to an ai and they declare war anyway. GC1 came as close as any game I have ever played to being a game where you could win without a huge fleet if you wanted to or win without trade with the ai. Thats very cool.

Having more than one way to win (other than the military/trade combination) is what seperated GV1 from the pack.
In the games that I played my fleets were defensive because I found war with the ai to "micro-managey" for me. Once my fleet was big enough I would win by another tactic. GC1 was one of the few games I have seen where you could change tactics in the middle of the game and still win.

I know that not enough weight on the military rating (for the ai to decide how to respond to you) would introduce too much cheese. Players would find ways to exploit the game without putting a huge amount of resources into the military.

...and maybe a very high diplomacy score would make you less likely to get attacked even if your military was small kind of like Japan or the Swiss....This would alow you to focus on other ways of winning the game. Having said that, If you pissed off the ai he would still wipe you out. The startup option points to get this level of diplomatic skill would take other options away...kind of like planet quality does no GC1.

Playng GalCiv I could not always tell why a race was mad at me. An optional list of items affecting relations (for the good or bad) per race and hints (on the bad about how to fix) might be cool. In GalCiv II it might be that the alien races are more distinct and have more individual styles and personalities that make relations less ambiguous, if that is the case, then forget my post!

I would love to see more information on what is affecting my relations with other races (positive or negative). It would help to see a plus/minus list something like:

(+3) active trade routes
(-2) our ships in their space
(+2) superior military might
(-7) opposed moral alignment
(-1) inferior technology
(+8) traded technologies
TOTAL THIS TURN: +3

I think that kind of info would be very helpful in learning to build relations with the AI civs.

- Proud Canadian

I really like PC idea, or, if not strictly +1/-2 noumbers, then at least descriptions (They are annoyed wth our ships violating their territorry, they like our mutal trading....)

They despise our villiny, They fear our military, they enjoy our technology...

I'm inclined to agree with these ideas -- I think they would go a long way toward developing the AI not only as an effective opponent, but also as a distinct personality. One other factor that I wouldn't mind seeing implemented in regards to diplomatic relations would be the history of the races. For example, I wouldn't expect the Torians to EVER like the Drengin, and I'd expect tension to run high between the Korx and Altarians. Another example could play out between the Yor and Iconians -- would the Yor be friendly or resentful toward their creators?

This is outstanding concepts Yellow and Canadian.

I heartifully agree, I would enjoy having a much more understanding of Civilizations reactions and whatnot towards me except though I would love to have them posses a agenda.

Just because they like you is because of your military might but they deliberately drag you into supporting them in their war thus once you won they strike you down, backstab.

Giving them depth agendas and good reasons for breaking relations or scorning you would be exceptional.

I agree with Yellow above. For example, there is the fish vs. lizards war in MOO3. Then, cybernetics don't like humans etc. The history and personality of races add to the realism of the game and makes it more fun I think. Gal. Civ I has the good-neutral-evil which is nice but races liking-hating each other based on their history/personality would add another dimension to the diplomacy.

By the way, there will be minor races in Gal. Civ II right? I hate to see them go away. I'd like to search the forum to find out but I can't find the search button.

From what I've heard on these forums, Kobracan, the minor races will still be present. In fact, it sounds like the development team *might* be planning a few expansions to diplomatic options with said minor races, thus allowing more options of dealing with them rather than trade, bullying, or outright conquest. Granted, I'm not certain, but it's nice to think about!

Also, I was fond of the "racial enmity" present in MOO3, and count it one of the few factors that I actually liked in the game, as it was well-documented in background story and added a distinct identity to the broad racial categories (insectile, saurian, et al.) This sort of "historic antagonism" or even "protagonism," if combined with the alignment options from GC1, could prove a wonderful, rich addition to diplomatic relations in the game. (Let's just hope that it wouldn't prove too big a hassle for the devs -- they've got alot on their plates already!)