Danos Ideas #3 *************** Robust Galactic Councils **************

One of the really neat things about GalCiv (and one of the VERY few things that MOO did right) was the inclusion of a galactic council, where issues that have definite game effects could be voted on. However one limitation of this coolness in both games was that the entire council meeting had the feeling of an extended 'random event'. You couldn't choose which proposals were being put in front of the council, and council meetings because of their random nature never factored into long term goals (though the reverse frequently happened).
I think a HUGE improvement in the game would allow the player (as well as AI races) to force a council meeting as well as WHICH bills would be voted on. Of course the other bit of fun would be that you could threaten, or bribe other races into supporting an upcoming bill and they could do the same to you. Of course this is not to impugn the modern UN ... in the game the political powers would be engaged in backroom shenanigans where corruption runs rampant. Definitely NOT our beloved UN ... *cough*. Actually there would be another difference as well which would be that actual concil resolutions would have real effects such as many of the proposals in GalCiv1. You could also target specific alignments or races and impose things like trade sactions (reducing trade profits), trade embargos (unable to trade with ANY council members), expulsion from the council and outright war. Of course for the more severe bills to pass might require a 2/3 or even a 3/4 majority. At any time before the council convenes any of the races can see what bills are on the table and plan accordingly.
But why wouldn't a player just request a council meeting every turn and spam a favoured resolution over and over again? Well, there could be some sort of council currency. This currency could be permanently spent to call meetings and propose bills, and once spent the currency would slowly regenerate at a rate that is proportional to that race's influence. Bills with more severe effects might cost more of this currency than more minor bills.
Another cool feature would be speechs. Speechs might be a way to shake a few races that are indifferent to a particular bill one way or another. Speechs could be made by either the proponent of the bill or any of the other voting races. They have an effect that would be based on the speaker's diplomacy score, a random roll, and the number of council currency being spent for this speech. So if there is only one good race, I might propose a 10% tax on all good races. Since I consider this a key bill to being passed I might spend a big chunk of additional currency on a speech to swing a lot of the neutral races my way. The roll is made and the effect is shown ('The humans make a brilliant and impassioned speech for this bill's benefits). Of course the Altarians might decide to counter my speech by spending currency of their own to make their own speech, etc, etc. After each speech there might be a means of guessing which way a race MIGHT be leaning, so that other races that are so inclined might also make speechs. Of course the actual effect on any race would be tempered as to how strongly they feel about it (Any attempt to get the Yor Collective banished from the council will always be strongly resisted by the Collective, no matter how brilliant the speech) will be determined by that races diplomacy vs the speech makers, so a brilliant speech by a diplomatically inferior race will have less of a positive effect than a brilliant speech by a diplomatically competent race. Of course if I do introduce a bill that any of the races STRONGY oppose, then relations between me and that race, as well as that race any any others that support the bill should worsen.
I think this would be the ultimate in political machinery of any strategic game on the market, and prove to be endless fun for those that like politically manipulate and exploit other races.
There are only two down sides I can see to this kind of enhancement. 1) Obviously AI races are going to be at a severe disadvantage here as the player can always ignore speeches made by AI races. 2) The AI algorithims required for this kind of dynamic, and complex system of Bill selection, campaigning and voting, not to mention the behind the scenes action of threatening or bribing other races to support an upcoming bill could cause the CPU to melt.

Comments? Suggestions?

Dano
17,711 views 19 replies
Reply #1 Top
O3 was designed to have both; you could propose your own bills, but sometimes a random bill would also be presented. That's a good way to provide strategic depth as well as surprises imo.
Reply #2 Top
or civil unrest develops

Very cool ideas... I hope some of this in some form makes it into the diplomatic system for the game
Reply #3 Top
I always found the fact that I couldn't propose the same bill that the random events proposed myself anoying in moo3.
Reply #4 Top
course existing also on "national" level, not only galactic. And a less powerful party at the national level would mean less leverage... Now, how would the AI fare with this?... Comments?
Reply #5 Top
or 3 routes woult have compromised at 5 routes if they had known how the others were going to vote.
Reply #6 Top
t should we do?"
Reply #7 Top
litical price in doing so. This would encourage you to give ground on some issues that are agsainst your best interests as the AI races are required to do.
Reply #8 Top
Interesting ideas. I like how MOO3 had it, but you should have had more bills to choose from. Like Psyringe said, this could be possible with an expansion pack (if they decide to make one).
Reply #9 Top
I'm curious why you think it is not possible now? Expanding the UP has been something players have been wanting from nearly day one of GalCiv I.
Reply #11 Top
Mr. Dano,

Once again, you read my mind!

However, I have to agree with Psyringe in that I would be surprised (and pleasantly so) if Gal Civ 2 incorporated what you mentioned above. Unfortunately for me, I think the same could be said for what I have.

I like the idea of a robust council. There is something else I have not seen implemented in any game ( and I know it is due to the time and budget constraints the developers have) and that is the ebb and flow of a race from a "minor" race to a "major" race, and possibly back again, repeated as often as occurs, and vice versa. This is the story of history, and no game seems to capture this faithfully (Medieval: Total War accomplishes this somewhat, but not always).

So, this concept in a setting/game like GalCiv2 would be something like the following...

The X number of "major" races get some sort of special priviledges and remain at all times in the council (much like the big 5 do at the UN), while minor races rotate among Y number of available seats. If a major race is reduced to a minor race, then they lose their priviledges and the rules for the minor race kick in. By the same token, if a minor race moves up to that of a major race, they get all the benefits enjoyed by a major race. The dividing of priviledges could be the ability to introduce bills vs. not, ability to vote or not, veto power or not, etc.

Some other benefits could be that any story arcs involving the minor race would kick in when they became a major race, and the opposite would occur as well.

Well, that is all I have for now. Comments anyone?
Reply #12 Top
... but the GalCiv2 design, as far as it is known yet, seems to focus on other aspects.


Don't forget, there are many other features coming in later beta levels. Stardock is using a beta technique called "staging" that allows concentration on changes to or additions of a few new features or techniques at a time. Since Beta 1 is primarily a test of the UI only the UI is receiving a public shake down. Meanwhile, the developers are alpha testing the features being added in stage 2 (or so I would presume) and coding up for stage 3 (again, my presumption - but there has to be a schedule something like this they are following). Brad provided a post about the content of each stage, and the political features are somewhere in a future beta (see https://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=162&AID=64347 ).

Unfortunately, Brad doesn't list the kinds of features that will be intruduced in each beta level (wasn't this done to some extent in the beta for GC1?), so it is hard to know when to expect them. But I would guess that the political aspects of the game will come along in Beta 3 or 4.
Reply #13 Top
Any developer comments to any of these council ideas?

Dano
Reply #14 Top

About the council:



First, we must define what the council is: in terms of GC1, it is not a political entity ; it is a trading entity that defines the trade rules between members (we are far from earth-UN here ; much more like earth-WTO).



What use is it: it defines the trading conditions between it's members. Mostly, it establishes trading limits. Also, belonging to it (for trade reasons) means that you abide by it's decisions, which gives this entity some political clout (should it push some political laws). Refusing it's decisions only means that you are not allowed to trade with members.



While I can agree that those in the coucil can ban those out of the council from trade (just like earth UN-sanctions), there still should be marginal trade (smuggling etc), so that the actual result would be a reduction in trade route efficiency (say that routes to council members would earn only 40% money -for both sides-). On the other hands, routes to other races not in the council should still earn 100% of profit. In all cases, it should be possible to establish new routes (under the previous conditions).



Minor races should participate in the council based on their influence.



On the bills:





  • The council should convene on a regular, known, basis. It could convene exceptionaly on a member's request (cost influence).

  • A list (maybe large) of possible bills should be on the table before anything begins. You should state your position on each bill (that's not a vote, but should a vote on that bill occur you would have to vote in a way consistent with your stated position : this not to give the human player an unfair advantage). You can decide not to engage yourself (you’ll see the drawback later).

  • The list is again presented to you, but this time with the AI preferences figured in (so that you have an idea of where the universe is leaning for each topic) ; for each topic you should then indicate whether you oppose or support it (3 levels in each case, the highest level "costing" 10% of your overall influence, the second level "costing" 5%, and the third level 2%. You could also state you don't care (no "cost"). You can spend only 50% of your influence here. Actually, no cost would be charged, but you'd have a limit on what you can do. As you see, all races are equal here. Additionaly, you can spend money to buy you additional influence (to pass the 50% influence limit).

  • The list would be presented a second time, in the current voting order (i.e. which bill got the max influence -not percentage- etc), this time showing the AI bidding too. You bet again as previously, but now having a better view of what's likely be voted on (you can synchronise here with allies because you visualize their votes, the reverse beeing true; be consistent!).

  • The first two or three bills get now voted on.

  • You can attempt to influence each AI vote directly, either by money or influence (the computer can bribe you too which would force you, should you accept, to vote exactly as he does). Any race (even you !) who had no stance on a given topic must accept the highest bribe.

  • You get to vote on each topic where you did not accept a bribe ; you have to vote in the direction to said you would vote.




  • At the end of the vote, find out where the 50% limit passes, and set the result accordingly ; if the limit passes excatly at 50%, the side with more influence wins. For exemple, if there is a vote for a certain topic:

    race A votes 0, race B votes 2, races C votes 2, race D votes 5, race E votes 7, race F votes 8.

    the cut is at 2 (50% of all answers below or equal to 2) or 5 (50% of all answers above or equal to 5). if races D,E,F combined influence is greater than races (A,B,C) combined influence, then the result is 5.



This would make for an impressive council panel, but I think it could be managed. I think it is fair for both human and AI. I also think it gives the player a real possibility of influencing the vote and vote on interesting items (instead of voting on random laws).



More on trade in another thread.



Yves

Reply #15 Top
Sounds....complicated....but interesting. Well depends on what will developers say.
Maybe there should be president (chairman or whatever) elections for UP. And president would get increased influence and ability to propose bills.
Also number of votes should be always same (1000) andthen dividet to each civ. depending on their strenght.
Reply #16 Top
Good Ideas moi-meme -

I have never programmed AI, but I can imagine that such a sophisticated council set up would raise the AI necessary to properly use it by an order of magnitude.

It would totally be worth it though as there would be nothing else like it .... who knows, maybe in an expansion

Dano
Reply #17 Top
It may be a little late for the expanded UP to be inplemented in GalCiv2. But maybe just making the UP not randome and being able to propose bills?
Reply #18 Top
Proposing your own bills is a NEAR NESSECITY. Collabarating with friends is also a MUST. Expanded Council would be NICE.
Reply #19 Top
how about you can propose bills at any time and the next month it will be voted on (including you you can revote agansit if it actually harms you) that system won't be much harder to use THEN After a while in gold status how about implementing this ideas?