Senate in Republic vs. Senate in Democracy

Ali Ardavan

Mathematician
Retired Moderator
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
2,951
Location
Michigan, USA
I was trying to look something up in the Civ2 paper manual, when I ran into these:

"Republic has been improved in that ... and the senate only concludes unwanted peace treaties 50 percent of the time"

"However, in the senate of a republic the Doves are in power about 50% of the time (in a Democracy the Doves are always a force to be reckoned with)."

Page 38, Chapter on changes from Civ1 to Civ2

A while back this was discussed on the forum and as far as I recall most agreed that the senate in both government forms are the same. This is only discussion I could find by searching:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4011715&postcount=36
but I recall there was more.

Anyways, I was wondering whether anyone has researched this since there are many mistakes in the manual.
 
Merry Christmas, everyone! :)

I don't know how much this helps, Ali, but thinking back to my games 3-4 months ago, I do recall the Senate in both representative forms of govt. overriding me more the worse off my Reputation is.

I have never been able to declare war on anyone in a Democracy without the UN (one important exception: the other nation just stole a Tech from me using a Diplomat -- zero Senate interference if I choose to retaliate for the other nation making an international incident).

In my current TOT game, I am a Democracy of 120+ cities (including Centaurus) with a Spotless Reputation. The United Nations has already been obseleted by my discovery of Robotic Warfare. The Vikings (best advance is Conscription) have kept trying to "speak" to one of my hovering Dreadnoughts 4-5 times (over a 10-13 turn period). I've consistently refused to provide the Viking emissary with an audience. The Senate has yet to sign any type of treaty with the Vikings behind my back.

I am sure of one thing though. If I had offered an audience to that Viking emissary, and the Vikings had offered Peace, then the Senate would consistently override me if I refuse. (I have not specifically tested this yet, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.) I somehow get the feeling that if my government were a Republic instead, then the Senate will not always override my refusals of a Peace treaty. (Further extensive testing is needed for this).

Since I have many many turns left in my current TOT game (and currently researching Future Tech 31), I will keep a lookout for how the Senate reacts in different situations. I might even change my government to Republic for a few turns for tests in that regard.

(On a side note, I'm waiting for the Vikings to try to attack one of my Dreadnoughts -- if Barbarian Partisans aren't scared to attack Entrix and Magogs (behind City Walls no less), then why should Viking Riflemen be scared of an unfortified Dreadnought; after all, they have better odds than those suicidal Partisans did :lol: )
 
Ali: IIRC you and I discussed this very briefly in a GOTM spoiler. I thought the govts acted differently (without much confidence in my opinion) and you thought they acted the same. I don't think anyone else spoke up.

I asked at Apolyton and most people there thought they acted differently. But IIRC their main evidence was the manual, which you may not accept. I'm away from home at the moment, but will try to find links when I get back.:p
 
Do AI civs have a "reputation" factor that you can't see? It would make sense that the Senate would be more compliant when attacking an AI that has a history of sneak attacks.
 
Each civ keeps a "rep" factor (a number from 1 to 99) that rates their relationship with each other civ. Events like sneak attacks or building Eiffel change the number upward or downward between each civ pair affected. You do not "see" the actual numbers, but you "see" an attitude toward your civ by each of the other civs you are in touch with. The attitude is based on the current rep number.

I have not seen anything about a "sneak attack flag" that influences the Senate, but you might check in the Scenario Creation forum if anyone has noticed something like that.
 
Yeah, we'd have to do a lot of mathematical experiments to see if an A|I's past behavior influences the Senate.

It certainly seems that the Senate is more hawkish against untrustworthy AI's, but I don't have mathematical proof.
 
I don't have any data to prove it, but, after playing many games at Diety in Democracy, I have discovered that the senate will suport your war effort after an AI civ has sneak attacked you at least twice. I believe the program keeps a record of how the individual AI civs treat you, too. And after a certain level of nastiness, the senate decides to punish the AI. When that happens, the senate will let you destroy the AI civ without the usual interference.

According to an old Starlifter post (IIRC), in Democracy, with a spotless rep and the UN, the senate is supposed to let you wage war.

I have not read the manual this millenium, but, IIRC, there is a difference in the senate's effect between Republic and Democracy. In one I think you have a 50% change to get a peace emposed and in the other a 100% chance.
 
I've seen stuff in older commentaries about "provoking" the AI into a sneak attack by clogging up his road/rail network with wandering caravans. It does not work very quickly, but the more a nuisance you are the greater chance of their attitude dropping low enough to start something. I have rarely seen an attitude at or above Receptive lead to a sneak attack, but I have seen a few Neutrals sneak attack (particularly the Greeks and Mongols), and one notch below is like open season if they have any reason or opportunity. One caveat to my observations is that I usually play with Marco Polo active, which does seem to have an effect on attitudes beyond just the negotiations. The few games I've played without it I have seen Receptive civs attack without warning.
 
My games have been played in Gold, so the AI has been particularly nasty. It has been known to go from worshipful to enraged in a turn or two.

The van/freight trick works, but it does take a long time. It seems to work better with settlers/engineers, but that is pretty expensive.
 
That's true - the AI in Classic is reasonable, in Gold it jumps levels. Someone pinned down that there was a bug in Gold that caused the "relationship" value to be reset toward Hostile each turn. I saw a patched version that seemed to fix that, but it has not been widely adopted.
 
DoM says he plays mostly in FW now. He used Cedric's patch to convert to FW and reports that you still get the "bells and whistles" from Gold, but the more reasonable AI from Classic. I have set up FW on my computer that way, but have not tested it. I still flip between Classic and Gold. Gold is still my favorite, but, after seeing how much easier the AI is to deal with in Classic, expecially in the BC years, I usually start games in Classic, now.
 
Top Bottom