Political Parties: Reform Party
Too many third parties!
from
GalCiv2 Forums
When it comes time for Senate votes, I generally don't feel that much tension as to who is going to win (my party of course). But this tension is even lower considering the "opposition" splits its vote between all the other parties.
My personal preference would be:
1) Fewer (and more distinct) political parties
2) Your average approval rating (or weighted average) over the entire x years is what determines the election.
3) Losing the election means you get penalized, but also acquire the opposing party's bonus.
But those suggestions could lead to lots of other changes.
I think the quickest fix would be to simply have the "opposition" parties automatically unified for the purposes of the main election. The leading opposition party would be the automatic winner in that case. That way the player would actually lose in a plurality.
-----------
Ideally, I think there should be maybe only maybe five major parties. That way you could actually associate them with strategies, personalities, and attributes.
Militarist: (conquest victory) -- attack, defense, HP, soldiering, military production, logistics, loyalty
Industralist: (conquest victory) -- social production, military production
Federalist: (alliance / influence victory) -- economics, trade, trade routes
Technologist: (technology victory) -- technology, espionage, sensors
Universalist: (influence / alliance victory) -- greens / planet quality, contentment, influence, diplomacy, pop growth
It would be almost like an additional package of racial attributes... (which maybe could shift with the elections).
Stardock should do a poll on how many people actually choose the pacifists, or the trade / espionage party, or the diplomacy / influence party? They just don't seem to be as useful as the federalists, industrialists or technologists. I also suspect the AI -- if it gets stuck with a loser political party (mercantilist?), ends up doing worse.
I think fewer choices can sometimes mean more meaningful choices.
My personal preference would be:
1) Fewer (and more distinct) political parties
2) Your average approval rating (or weighted average) over the entire x years is what determines the election.
3) Losing the election means you get penalized, but also acquire the opposing party's bonus.
But those suggestions could lead to lots of other changes.
I think the quickest fix would be to simply have the "opposition" parties automatically unified for the purposes of the main election. The leading opposition party would be the automatic winner in that case. That way the player would actually lose in a plurality.
-----------
Ideally, I think there should be maybe only maybe five major parties. That way you could actually associate them with strategies, personalities, and attributes.
Militarist: (conquest victory) -- attack, defense, HP, soldiering, military production, logistics, loyalty
Industralist: (conquest victory) -- social production, military production
Federalist: (alliance / influence victory) -- economics, trade, trade routes
Technologist: (technology victory) -- technology, espionage, sensors
Universalist: (influence / alliance victory) -- greens / planet quality, contentment, influence, diplomacy, pop growth
It would be almost like an additional package of racial attributes... (which maybe could shift with the elections).
Stardock should do a poll on how many people actually choose the pacifists, or the trade / espionage party, or the diplomacy / influence party? They just don't seem to be as useful as the federalists, industrialists or technologists. I also suspect the AI -- if it gets stuck with a loser political party (mercantilist?), ends up doing worse.
I think fewer choices can sometimes mean more meaningful choices.