Search
Forum Home | Login
quixotecoyote
quixotecoyote
Join Date 04/2006
0

Difference in Galactic Senate (or whatever its called) from the demo

Has it been changed?

April 8, 2006 1:53:41 AM from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
I remember playing the demo awhile ago and really liking it. One thing that grated on me was the yearly vote every december. There were 4 options, and votes got spread out to make wierd choices, such as 2 races voting to heavily restrict starbase modules, 1 voting on no restrictions, and another for barely any with the decision going to heavy restricions.

Has this aspect of the game been improved/fixed? I remember reading thread about it at the time, but I don't see any now.
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
xFlukex
Join Date 02/2006
0
Reply #1 April 8, 2006 3:57:28 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
No, the U.P. hasn't been fixed yet. They should make those elections two-staged, so you first vote yes or no and then vote on how much. The U.P. is a great idea, but poorly implemented in GC2.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
SmackleFunky
Join Date 02/2006
0
Reply #2 April 8, 2006 4:59:44 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
such as 2 races voting to heavily restrict starbase modules, 1 voting on no restrictions, and another for barely any with the decision going to heavy restricions.


I don't see what is wrong with this... more people voted for heavy restrictions, and then it happened.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
andrewas
Join Date 03/2006
0
Reply #3 April 8, 2006 5:50:29 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
Its more of a problem in the other direction, One vote for heavy restriction, another for medium, another for light, two for no - the nays have it, despite the ayes having more numbers.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
Rct2mad
Join Date 03/2006
0
Reply #4 April 8, 2006 5:54:11 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
Actaully, to me, it just seems like real life
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
Ezlbeth
Join Date 07/2004
0
Reply #5 April 8, 2006 6:38:25 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
despite the ayes having more numbers.


If the ayes can't agree then they don't get what they want.

Why should the galaxy go with the 3 that all want something different when there is a large group that does agree on what they want?

I see it as picking an option on a scale, as opposed to a yes/no type thing. I mean really. It was important enough to bring up a vote on it, so its not like its a vote of should there be restrictions, its a vote on what the restrictions will be.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
SmackleFunky
Join Date 02/2006
0
Reply #6 April 8, 2006 7:11:26 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
I think the problem is that some votes are more of a scale thing. And so an "average" of what people voted for would make sense. Which I think is obvious that the API for the UP doesn't allow for, as it sees all the options as discreet options. Not a game killer, and one I don't particuarily have an opinion on. But I can see how in some cases it would make sense.

Personally I think you are lucky that you have more than 2 options. Not often in real life do the voting public get more than two options on a political decision.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
Chas2006
Join Date 03/2006
0
Reply #7 April 8, 2006 7:13:58 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
I think one problem is that you don't know what the others are going to vote for. You might decide to compromise to at least pass some kind of law through, as opposed to no law getting passed. But if you don't know what others are voting for, you can't do that...

Also, I don't like the idea how you can't influence what is voted for You may want to pass a law through allowing allies to use each others StarBases, but due to chance, it never comes up during the game.

Charlie
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
MegaVolt
Join Date 07/2004
+3
Reply #8 April 8, 2006 8:19:09 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
i second that

lets say there are 4 possibilities: 0, 2, 4, 8
three votes, one votes 0, one woted 2, one votes 8
the 8 guy has slightly more influence, so 8 gets voted
that sucks imho
it should be: 0 + 2 + 1.2 * 8 ~= 12
12 / 3 = 4
so 4 gets voted (1.2 * 8 coz he has a little more influence)
that goes for starbase modules, restrictions for evil races and many other things

influencing what topic will come up next would also be awesome
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
Quitch
Join Date 03/2006
0
Reply #9 April 8, 2006 8:49:37 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
If the ayes can't agree then they don't get what they want.


Well, unless you get a chance to negociate with the other ayes before-hand to agree to support each other on, say, medium, then it should be a two-stage vote.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
Juason
Join Date 03/2006
0
Reply #10 April 8, 2006 10:10:48 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
I find some of the Senate choices to be downright game destroying. Up the limit on starbase modules from 2,4,6 to like 6, 12, 20... There is no purpose in having a starbase with less than 6 modules on it. So, if that resolution passes in any way other than no, I have to reload and pray....

It was said in the instruction book I think that spying would help you catch wind of the upcoming vote. Unfortunately I've never seen that to be the case. It would be cool if you could allocate money to spying on the senate and get a heads up.

Furthermore, a diplomatic option needs to be there for "Vote with me". Pay off another leader to get their civ's votes for example.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
dystopic
Join Date 10/2005
+41
Reply #11 April 8, 2006 10:51:09 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
the idea of voting in two stages on certain laws seems good. so for some laws, like minimum constructor speed, first vote on whether to change it, and then vote on how much. regarding the second vote, i'm not sure if it's better that the result is the median (value closest to average) vs. the mode (most commonly voted value). i'd say the median would be more in line with the idea of a UP.

to me it just seems like the UP didn't have enough work put into it at all. in Alpha Centurai, you could contact other factions to attempt to buy their vote. you could also propose different laws (but only 1 per 20 turns, or something like that), and even elect a leader (who got extra votes). i'd like to see some things like that worked into the UP.

i mean, here's an example. i started a game, and the first UP law voted on was if everyone should be switched to democracy. it passed (and oddly enough, seemed to switch me to Federation....). well, that early in the game, it had a huge impace on my economy and the other players' as well. it seems like that law shouldn't be available until someone has at least discovered certain gov't techs. the democracy tech seems most logical.

i get the "end all current wars" law when there aren't any wars waging, but when galaxy war 1 breaks out it never comes up.

the list could go on. i also don't understand who the AI bases its decision. some things seem logical. evil empires vote nay on protective measures, etc. but i've never seen an AI leave the UP over a vote. and i've never left the UP, either. i wonder if it causes a ding on your diplomacy with other civs. that seems logical, and if it is or could be the case it would provide incentive for staying in the UP and abiding its laws. MOO3, for all its failings, did have the option of ignoring specific senate laws - another good idea for the GalCiv equivalent. maybe ignoring one or two laws could cause a ding (with civs that abide them), while leaving all together might cause two. throw in punishments to civs that do ignore laws but remain in the UP, and maybe even UP dues moddled after the real UN.

go go gadget HS MUN club: UN dues are figured based on the UN budget, which drawn up in the 2nd committee and ratified in the General Assembly (i think... it's been a while). member nations with weaker economies are expected to pay a smaller percentage of the budget, richer ones more, all within the bounds of a floor and a ceiling. when i was in HS i think it was 0.25% - 25%, but they were thinking about lowering the ceiling since the US never paid its 25% (until 9/11). sans the bureaucracy, this seems like a pretty good model for a UP budget/dues structure. it could help off set some of the economic boost caused by unused social production going back to the treasurey.

just an idea, since i know the folks at stardock tend to lurk around...
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
quixotecoyote
dystopic
Join Date 10/2005
+41
Reply #12 April 8, 2006 10:53:56 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
*impact* on economy.... *how* the AI bases its decision.... sorry guys, i know i need to proof read more, but it's Sat. morning here.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
About us | Contacts | Privacy Statement | Register
©1995-2025 Stardock Entertainment. Galactic Civilizations is a registered trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Bank Gothic is a trademark of MyFonts and may be registered in certain jurisdictions. All rights reserved.