United Planets

from GalCiv2 Forums
First of all, since this is my first post on this forum, I would like to say Hello

Having done that, I have a question regarding the United Planets: since I don't have time to play for too long I never had a chance to get far in the game. What makes me wonder, however, is whether later in the game you have ANY impact on what is going to be decided at the UP summit? And can you in any way convince other civs to vote your way?
14,599 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1. No, you don't get to decide what is to be voted on, the events are randomly selected every time the UP meets.

2. This depends. If you mean for them to vote for you in certain events, then just make them really happy with you usually does it, unless they like someone else more. If you mean for them to vote the way you want them to (IE: the way you vote), then no, I don't think there's anyway for you to tell them to vote like you. Afterall, you are all voting at the same time. What you CAN do, is buy/trade for their influence. That way, your vote counts for more when it comes up since the influence points is basically the amount of votes you have to cast.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The UP is one of the places where I think GalCiv2 can improve on immensely. FalCiv2 has all the basic building blocks for most things (UP, trading, epionage, simulated battle etc) but most of it isn't very expanded, and most likely will be improved on in future patches.

I like to see a way that 's similar to Alpha Centauri, where you can bribe/convinced/intimadate other races to vote for the same cause in the up coming election.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You can trade or buy other races' Influence Points that will then be used for the next UP vote...can be very handy sometimes.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You can trade or buy other races' Influence Points that will then be used for the next UP vote...can be very handy sometimes.


That's true. UP votes are based on influence points. I've done that on several occasion but you need to buy a lot!

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks; I would like to see some improvements to the UP system myself, especially in the area of proposing bills (like in MOO3) - that could add a new dimention to the diplomacy. And if these proposals were treated as a trading good (i.e. agree to vote in a certain way for a new tech etc.) would be even sweeter...
Hope incoming patches will cover this!
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like to see a way that 's similar to Alpha Centauri, where you can bribe/convinced/intimadate other races to vote for the same cause in the up coming election.

good idea !
could be further implemented with an election of some "ruler of UP" which also has a "VETO"
or perhaps the "ruler of UP" could bring up a number of minor UP laws
(nothing too powerful like something that would increase your power tremendously)

for example the UP law where I think you don't have the right to put starbases anywhere else than in your own territory could be a "minor UP law" (because it won't prevent neither you or the computer to win a game)
but a law that would make you or another specific race a distinct advantage won't be considered "minor"
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm starting to get disgusted with the UP.

Case 1) I'm trying to build a defense network to defend against constant Dread Lord attacks on my core worlds. The UP suddenly decides that you can only put three modules per starbase. Gahhhhhhh

Case 2) I chose the evil ethical choices early on, to get the advantages. Later, the UP decides that evil governments should be limited to three trade routes and my economy was devastated. By that point, I was making so much in trade that I wasn't taxing my population at all. That's alright though, the three civilizations that voted yes on that one found a Terran invasion fleet orbiting their homeworlds a few turns later.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If you dont like the way the UP functions then leave the UP..you have that option and then there bills no longer apply to you.. though the others get a little upset
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Case 1) I'm trying to build a defense network to defend against constant Dread Lord attacks on my core worlds. The UP suddenly decides that you can only put three modules per starbase. Gahhhhhhh

Yeah, the UP really should think about the bill dependant on the scenario. That's funny.

I chose the evil ethical choices early on, to get the advantages. Later, the UP decides that evil governments should be limited to three trade routes and my economy was devastated.

Yup. Had that happen to me - went from 10 trade routes to 3!!! Luckily I kept taxing my civilians cause I was evil so I could manage without my trade.

The UP do put a lot of restriction on doing evil things or generally being evil.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It would be really nice to have a way to propose bills, as it is now I usually end up seeing the same few bills each time.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One of the problems I have with the way bills are proposed, is that for example, if the proposal is a tax on starbases outside ones teritory, there are maybe 4 options.
0 tax
2 tax
5 tax
8 tax
(for example).

All the races that want no tax band together and vote for 0; the other races split their votes between 2,5 and 8, and the no-tax group wins.
It would be better to have a tax/no tax vote, rather than voting on the amount.


I would also like to see a warning on the issue that is to be voted on, so that one has a chance to buy influence for the comming vote, if one wants.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It would be really nice to have a way to propose bills, as it is now I usually end up seeing the same few bills each time.


I'll vote yes on that motion!

I personally don't have much trouble with the UP as I've got at least 40% of the vote most of the time, if not an actual majority of the votes. I just vote which ever way benefits me the most.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The UP do put a lot of restriction on doing evil things or generally being evil.


That really needs to change. I'd rather see something that takes into account the majority alignment (Good, Neutral, Evil) in the galaxy and adjusts this event accordingly.

For instance if the majority of Civs are Good, the resolution should change to restrict/punish any non-good Civs rather than strictly targeting Evil Civs with every single restrictive resolution.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That really needs to change...
...strictly targeting Evil Civs with every single restrictive resolution.


No - the anti-evil bias of the UP is there for a specific reason, to counteract the large bonuses and benefits you get from choosing the evil events in the first place. If there was no possible comeback for always choosing the best colonization events then no-one would ever play anything but evil. The UP and Fundamentalists are that possible comeback!
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the UP restrictions targeted against evil civilizations are meant to be one of the factors which balance the numerous bonuses one enjoys by being evil and chosing the evil options.

They are also in keeping with the way the game seems to present good, neutral, and evil as ethical choices: good nations tend to band together while evil species tend to go it alone and act only in their own best interests. The UP offers an attempt by the other civs to prevent one civ's habit of looking only after its own interests from hurting everybody else.

Although I think it would be great if you could propose bills or manipulate other civs to vote a certain way, I'd mainly like to see some new and different bills added to the roster. I've seen most of them already either from playing the original GalCiv or from playing GalCiv II. I'm not yet sure how to add one to the xml file... There are several political issues from Twilight Imperium 3 which I think would be pretty cool to implement in GCII: forcing civs to start paying to invade planets, forbidding certain civs from setting up trading routes with one another, etc.

Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeah i think the UP is fine as it is although i think it should have alot more bills...but restricting evil trade routes like that is broken if theres only like 1 evil race,
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
to counteract the large bonuses and benefits you get from choosing the evil events in the first place.


Not to mention the starbase bonuses etc. that come with it. I hadn't considered that at first (not having played "Evil" yet), but looking at it from the perspective of game balance I have to admit that all of you are right for saying it (bias against evil) should remain this way.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't think the number or nature of bills is to much of an issue as future patches and mods will no doubt add new and cool options.

What I find more concerning has already been mentioned though perhaps not exactly: essentially the system is at odds with itself.

On one hand we buy influence to get us more votes to win an important bill. These votes are expensive (the AI seems to want around 1bc for 1 IP which considering IP ranges in the millions is a lot) because the AI doesn't want to trade away influence in case an important bill comes up.

On the other hand you never know what bill will come up, so you never know if its important to you or not.

The result is, more or less, a stagnation to IP trading. No one gives away their own just in case they need that say but there's no way anyone can spend the mass of resources required to get a majority IP unless they're certain the bill is vital to they're civ, which they never can be.

For IP trading to be a worthwhile system it either has to be possible to do it on the spot (ie during the meeting) or you have to know the bills prior to the meetings. Then shrewd politicians (player or otherwise) can sell IP when they don't care about upcoming bills and buy it when they do. We'll know its working when we see instances of the AI coming to players requesting to buy IP, so long as the AI can afford to ignore IP trading it indicates that such trading has insignificant effect on the balance of power.

On an additional but unrelated note I would argue that, especially late game, the AI values its own IP unrealistically high. Even if I knew the UP was going to restrict evil trade routes to three, it would cost me, lets say 300,000 BC to get enough votes to win and maybe some technologies. I'm loosing 6 trade routes which, being generous, give me 1000BC altogether, that's 300 turns before its going to break even with the cost cost of the IP.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Greetings all. Tried searching through forums for anything else related to the United Planets idea to no avail so I think it's ok to post it here.

First of all, can any1 explain to me what's behind the idea of having United Planets body as a default? Ok it probably makes sense if you strat the game with political situation and layout predetermined. But if you start from the scratch... I find it a tad unrealistic if not ridiculous to start a game, do some exploration, encounter an alien civ and automatically form a galactic league of nations (only 2 civilizations included). Furthermore, other civs join the club only if YOU (and you only!) encounter them. So am I to infer from this that your civ is the initiator of this benevelent galactic body? How? Why?
Why not make it optional? Something that can be developed further on as your relations with other civs get tighter. Why not enable other civs apart from mine to initiate the union and invite you to it (or not). And why the hell am I to be penalised (i.e. unable to form trade routes) if I decide to ditch the club. Does it prevent me from reaching some trade agreements elsewhere. Is it some sort of unilateral embargo? Plus, so what that UP voted for limiting trade routes, armament etc. Why is it impossible for me to get some clandestine trade relations or arsenal build up?
The bottom line is the the way the whole UP idea is implemented is just a bit iffy. If it was something that you'd be able to join at later stage of the game for mutual benefit - no problem. After all it had taken some time (and fighting) for people to realise that forming a League of Nations (later UN) might be a good idea (not that it prevented anything dammit). But staring one automatically at the very beginning is just dumb. Can anyone see my point?

Take care
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is one of those issues that comes up with every game, balance vs realism.

Why is it compulsory to be in the UP? Because evil races get a huge advantage in most respects, an advantage that is (theoretically at least) toned down by the penalties they incur in the UP. If there were no penalties for not being in the UP, then there would be no penalties for being evil and as we've all seen there's certainly penalties to be had for the other two alignments.

And if you are hung up on realism lets not forget that this game is set in the far flung future. You're correct, the UN didn't begin at the dawn of time, but that's because it relied on national experiences (WWII among others) and technologies (democracy). Given that at the beginning of the game the races all posses the power of space flight its probably reasonable to assume that they have, at some point, come up with the UN idea on their own and thus the decision to form one with the new aliens you meet is mutural.

That said I do see where you're coming from with some of your comments (for instance the 2 nation UP).
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And do you thing that the UP system is going to be tweaked with the incoming patches? I mean, in my opinion quite a lot of options should be added if UP is to work efficently and make some greater impact on the game. I've said it someplace else, but I really miss a MOO3 system - with tons of options. If something like that was implemented into GalCiv 2, that would be cool ]
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


Why is it compulsory to be in the UP? Because evil races get a huge advantage in most respects, an advantage that is (theoretically at least) toned down by the penalties they incur in the UP. If there were no penalties for not being in the UP, then there would be no penalties for being evil and as we've all seen there's certainly penalties to be had for the other two alignments.


Ok fine I see your point. Balancing is a good idea I suppose but using the UP idea to counteract evil civs' bonuses... surely there are better ways. Bonuses for being good should (at least for the sake of balancing if not realism) offset those which you get for mischievous conduct. The question one should pose is why it pays off to be evil? I never played as an evil civ so I'm not sure but do you mean to tell me that bar the UP resolutions there are no penalties for being evil? (no cilvil unrest, no morale problems, no consequences of genocide etc.) Strange...

Ok, you're right I'm longing for ultra-realistic space civ game, and I know GalCiv 2, despite its many merits, still isn't quite the thing. I don't think however that realism and balancing are opposite concepts, this is a strategy game after all, you need to implement realistic principles and processes, for instance economy model. Otherwise devising any sort of strategy would be a massive chore. It's not a very good rationale for oversimplified solutions like the present UP feature


Given that at the beginning of the game the races all posses the power of space flight its probably reasonable to assume that they have, at some point, come up with the UN idea on their own and thus the decision to form one with the new aliens you meet is mutural.


Come on! You cannot honestly believe in this reasoning! What about evil races?! Can you imagine a militaristic, totalitarian (or evil if you will) civ to go for it? Furthermore why would I assume that all races support, or even are aware of the UN-like idea? It might be reasonable to us western, democracy obsessed, peace-loving earthlings. But for war mongering Drengin or inhumane Yor? I doubt it.

oh and yeah I agree with noble Baron - more options not only for UP equals coolness

Anyway, I hope that some bored developer strays into the fringe area of these posts and addresses the issue in one of the upcoming patches (yeah right ! )
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i said during the beta that we should be able to submit proposals.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Shamer12, good points on both counts.

Also I suppose I neglected to mention that there is one other penalty for evil races, from what I've read evil races have a harder time making and staying friends, however from what I've seen this is not particularly demonstratable. I have not yet played the beta however and if I recall the log said they were sharpening this difference (they're coming at it sideways though, making good and neutral races like 'good' more, rather than making them like 'evil' less).

Other than that it is true that there are no penalties for the evil races, excluding the possibility that I've forgotten some in which case someone please correct me. There has been talk through the forums that perhaps the nastier races should take morale penalties but so far there's no announced plans to implement that. Curiously enough the designers seem to give 'loyalty' bonuses to the good races and save 'morale' for the evil ones which is either odd or logical depending on how you look at it.

Oh and for the record I still maintain that even the Dregin/Yor would at least have the technology for democracy (ie have encountered it) but your point remains valid in as much as they probably didn't like it and wouldn't support any UN style construct unless they saw opportunity to be had. Looking back the assumption that democratic forms were the unilateral 'best' was kinda an embarassing statement