Submitting Proposals before the UP

Being able to horsetrade before the vote would be a fun addition - if they can code the AI to be able to compete in it and not get taken by the Human everytime.

What I really want for the UP is having it meet not just in December. Just random times every year. UP is one of my favorite parts of the game, and I think random times every year would be great. And getting to choose what to vote on.

I've tried to add some resolutions, but they don't work well.
Love to propose some, so I can see mine come up more often, more testing.

I would like to see more out of the UP no matter what it is. Whether they simply meet more often (2-4x per year instead of once) or there are entire additions to their implimentation such as the aforementioned backroom dealings. Right now the UP seems nearly consequentless.

One other note: I'm playing the 1.0X and when the UP votes on a minimum speed for constructors, it makes that the maximum speed as well. If my ships can travel faster due to their engine tech, they're stuck at the voted "minimum" speed. Probably wrong forum for that, but I thought I'd say it while I remembered.

I would love to see it just be a round robin: Each civilization gets a turn in order. As you discover new races, they would just get added to the end of the line for who would get to pick a resolution to vote on. (You would pick the resolutions from a list.) But I don't mind it much as it is now - so if they add it great, but if not I won't mind.

You can already buy votes. Votes at the UP is influence. On the trade screen, you'll note that under bc is a tab for influence. Influence are esssentially votes. just trade goods, tech, whatever for influence. I've done this before, when an ally needs tech, ships, etc, but doesn't have any money or useful tech or goods. I need them alive, so i traded tech for influence. Has anyone else done this???

I too think it needs to meet more than once every 50 turns. That is too long between meetings.

Maybe have 3 quarterly meetings where 'lesser' bills are voted on - and vote on long term props in the end of the year meeting.

At the lesser meetings there would also be a vote to choose which prop is discussed at the next meeting, say from among 4 choices - you would not know the result until the next meeting, but you would know the four candidates so you could determine the practical value of selling/buying influence.

Temporary Boycotts of the UP should be allowed - so you can ecape the effects of a prop for a short period until the next quarterly meeting. There would be heavy penalties involved - and the other races must vote on whether to reinstate you on your return - (you could also buy your way back in.) If you are not allowed back, then the penalties would continue.

This stuff would take a lot of coding/balancein to get it right for the ai - and I would not expect to see it (Except for the more frequent meetings) until a major expansion pack or GC3.

I would like to chime in and say I would love to see more flesh on the UP bones (as well as added stuff to general diplomatic actions such as threatening war if they don't hand over something or cease doing something).

Even something as simple (relatively speaking; coding might be an issue) as have a pre round of votes for the resolution (sort of a committee meeting to determine WHICH resolution will come up, in say, 1 weeks' time) prior to the actual resolution vote. Each committee vote could present 3-5 reslutions, and the one with the most votes goes to the floor, so to speak. In the interim week, you can trade for influence per normal diplomatic channels to influence that floor vote.

This is an exiting part of the game and I would like to see if lot more put into it and it be a lot involved. A series of drop down menus could give you hundreds of combinations on what votes you could suggest and they could be programed in toeach have avarying degree on the game - please guys, give this some thought and make it more often; at least twice as often as it comes up.

I would also like to see a much more involved UP, but my biggest complaint about it is probably easier to fix than expanding the model...

I hate that a complete ignorance of how or why the AIs will vote on particular resolutions can ruin a voting session.

I would like some ability to coordinate votes with allies. It's extremely annoying when a majority of votes are in favor of doing something to different degrees, but because that vote is split (say, the good civs vote for 3, 4, and 5 trade routes for the evil ones, giving each option 20%) the plurality goes to the other side (the two guys who vote none to give it 40%) so nothing happens.


Any politically interesting decisions (such as, in the "starbases in foreign influcence" resolution, voting for a 1 BC fine instead of a 5 BC fine because it has more chance to pass) are pretty much nonexistant because there is no discussion. Being able to tell ask or bribe AIs (and them being able to do the same to each other), or sometimes getting an indication of what they'll vote for (another espionage element that would be neat) would make some votes less of a crapshoot.

Another way to eliminate this particular frustration would be to have two part votes. First we vote on whether or not to impose fines on foreign starbases in another race's influene, and then we vote on how much that fine will be if the first resolution carries.

All in all, I enjoy the UP but would really like to see something closer to the Planetary Council of Alpha Centauri. Different factions could choose to bring up resolutions when they wanted to (no more than every 10 turns if I recall), you could ask or bribe AIs to vote a particular way on any possible future resolution, and you could do the same to current resolutions for a heftier price. The AIs would pay each other and offer the player. Of course, the AIs would often vote stupidly, and the design gave the human the advantage of seeing AI votes before casting their own. Also, ALL decisions were YES/NO decisions (except to elect a leader, which was still a choice of two candidates).

Bringing GalCiv 2 resolutions into a model more influenced by SMAC would be my dream. But since that's something of a redesign, I'll stick to suggesting two-part votes.

You can already buy votes. Votes at the UP is influence. On the trade screen, you'll note that under bc is a tab for influence. Influence are esssentially votes. just trade goods, tech, whatever for influence.

When you buy influence you are permanently buying votes; I was proposing buying votes for a single vote.

I hate that a complete ignorance of how or why the AIs will vote on particular resolutions can ruin a voting session. I would like some ability to coordinate votes with allies. It's extremely annoying when a majority of votes are in favor of doing something to different degrees, but because that vote is split (say, the good civs vote for 3, 4, and 5 trade routes for the evil ones, giving each option 20%) the plurality goes to the other side (the two guys who vote none to give it 40%) so nothing happens.

I agree! This is why I started this thread!

Another way to eliminate this particular frustration would be to have two part votes. First we vote on whether or not to impose fines on foreign starbases in another race's influene, and then we vote on how much that fine will be if the first resolution carries.

I like this idea!

Bringing GalCiv 2 resolutions into a model more influenced by SMAC would be my dream. But since that's something of a redesign, I'll stick to suggesting two-part votes.

I had SMAC voting in mind when I created this post.

Bump.

Bump.

Bump.

Web POLL: What is the Difference Between "more advanced diplomacy" and "more politics"? I think they should be combined in which case this would be the #1 feature request with "Tactical battles" being a close second.

Having played games which include "Tactical battles" like Space Empires IV, I think Stardock made the right choice to leave it out. A good human player performs better than any AI in tactical battles. Including this feature will weaken the AI and increase the game micro-management as experienced players will feel to need to take control.

i think a more powerful UP would be great, but i'm not too sure on having them meet more often, i do love the UP meetings, but 4 a year and we would get through the options pretty fast, and the UP is something to look forward to

I think the UP should be a bit bigger in the game, such that there's occaisonally some reason you'd want to leave it (other than the "Should we make starbases utterly worthless?" and "Should constructors be incapable of moving at a reasonable rate?" resolution). Also, if that happened, there should be more complicated mechanics for when you're out of it--negative diplmoacy modifiers would be a good start, but being to negotiate your way back in would be even better. Also, "black market" trading while outside the UP--where other races attack your freighters and give you negative relation modifiers if they see them--would be nifty.

Finally, we should be able to cheat on the resolutions. "Warning! Building this module will put you in violation of UP orders--other races may go hostile if their ships see this base. Are you sure you want to continue?" or "Warning! Your constructors will anger other races if seen! Do you wish to decomission your constructors?" Also, there should be stealth materials to try to hide illegal ships.

I actually voted for politics on the poll, but I didn't really understand the difference between that and "advanced diplomacy." I considered boh options to be approximately the same thing. Adding the results makes sense ... or repolling with some definitions as to what the devs mean by "politics" vs. "advanced diplomacy."

I actually voted for politics on the poll, but I didn't really understand the difference between that and "advanced diplomacy."

Neither did I. Frogboy/Brad later explained that politics refered to domestic politics and diplomacy, external politics.

this was a feature in moo3 i liked.. though like everything else is got short changed