Maybe the key to a good 4X game was to make it a negotiation game?

It's surprising that I can't recall a 4X game that really emphasizes negotiation as the primary deciding mechanic. I mean, most multiplayer games will have negotiation, but imagine if every action resulted in players voting and manipulating the referendum via cards, chits, dice, or whatever else. Add in some bluffing and bidding, some hidden information, and that'll be mind kind of game.

Most computer games have negotiation only at the 30,000-foot level, probably because it seems more fun to focus on building an economic engine and developing a armada to stop on the enemy's throat. Few people want to engage on the internecine details of xenocommerce - do I really care about tariffs on Saalian brandy imported from Farpoint Station?

I enjoyed how MOO abstracted things like that to what I believe were called Trade Pacts. Two factions with sufficient warmth to each other could agree to a pact that would initially penalize them and then gradually begin turning a net profit for both factions.

However, I've always been bothered by in-game diplomacy with both computer and human opponents because the human players don't have a real incentive to be trustworthy. There is usually little reason why I shouldn't immediately backstab someone if it helps me win the game. Contrast that to real-world diplomacy that obviously has much longer timeframes, infinitely more important impacts, and a much richer set of nuances, methods and decisions. Some games actually bind players to the diplomatic decisions they have made, but that is pretty rare, and it can have its own frustrations by handcuffing the player who _wants_ to be the erratic dictator of a failed state.