Bring back the Senate, PLUS

I really liked the Senate feature in Civ2 and would like to see its return in Civ4. For those unfamiliar with it, if you were in a republic or democratic form of government, the Senate could overrule you to a certain degree (depending on form of government). It only affected decisions regarding declarations of war. But, this could be expanded in Civ4. Plus, I believe adding a feature for elections would be a really neat addition. Now, how that would work is something we can talk about.

I would be very, very much against the Senate the way it was in Civ2. I was constantly having an AI declare war on me, attack (usually ineffectively after I learned some of their techniques) several cities and then have the stupid Senate declare armistice. If the Senate is added at all, it should only give a suggestion and then cause WW if you failed to comply.

I agree with dojo. If Democracy was as it is in CivIV, democratic nations are unstoppable! We need a con for democracy.

I hated the senate. It was utterly random, too.

I h8ed the Senate, it was a totally horrible concept IMHO and I'm glad it was gone.

In a democracy or republic you should have less control over your civ, because the elected government would have some power.

Instead of the trade off between free and oppresive governments being that free countries can't fight well but produce more, and oppresed countries being able to fight well but not producing much, the trade off should be you have more control the more oppresive it is, but you don't produce as much.

Originally posted by Chieftess
.... . It was utterly random, too.

Click to expand...

Surely, this is something that can be addressed.

If you (general populace) want to war, then war in a government that gives you more control. If you want the benefits of a more productive government, then something has to be sacrificed, and WW is already proven to be ineffectual in Civ3 in stopping a democracy once x amount of luxuries have been acquired. Then add in Universal Suffrage, ....

The Senate is an interesting feature, but IF it will be implemented, it must be improved greatly.

It was the part of Civ2 that people hated most, probably as much as Civ3 corruption.

In my post on new governments I addressed some of this. I would change the WW in Democracy and Republic so that time would also be a factor. I would also cut WW in half if the Civ was the victim of an attack. Also, if there were any senate, they would have to ask the leader to take any peace agreement they could negotiate. One of the things I hate about WW is that quite often I can not even talk to the Civ I am at war with and yet the people are clammoring for peace! Stupid!

I could agree to this of only it would not affect any of the non democratic goverments.

I hated the senate too - it was really frustrating to have your army positioned for an attack only to be overruled. It was one of the few features from Civ2 I was GLAD not to have in Civ3

I hated the senate too - it was really frustrating to have your army positioned for an attack only to be overruled. It was one of the few features from Civ2 I was GLAD not to have in Civ3

No Senate!

Yes Senate!

I never even played CivII very much, and just hearing of this senate makes me hate it (the senate)!!

Edit: But, if they must bring it back, you should be able to influence it in some way, maybe by appointing lobbiests to push the senate to carry out your ideas.

Well, I'd hoped people would offer approaches to making the Senate work. It is a viable concept. In a way, it is similar to what people have been asking for in an expanded UN / diplomacy governing council (similar to SMAC). I hope the same people who disliked the Senate in Civ2 will not become jaded w/ what added diplomacy options arrive in Civ4, particularly if they then find themselves hand-cuffed by a UN rather than their own Senate. Not everyone can be America, at least, not at the same time.

Hmmm, I think that, with the addition of Culture Groups and Civ Characteristics, there IS a way you could bring back the senate-but in a better way than it was implemented in Civ2!
Firstly, if your civ is agricultural or scientific, then your senate might be LESS likely to agree to go to war, wheras militaristic and expansionist Civs would have much more HAWKISH senates. The other civ types would be roughly neutral, with their general character being determined by their other characteristic-e.g. an industrious/scientific civ would be less agressive than a militaristic/religious civ! Other factors which would influence senate interference in war/peace declarations would be:

1) Culture groups: more likely to accept peace with same culture, and more likely to accept war with different culture-and vice versa. So, for instance, a senate in a civ from a European culture group would be more willing to accept your offers of peace, alliances, RoP's and trades to England, say, than to the Chinese!

2) War Weariness: The higher the current war weariness, the better the chance of your senate pushing you to accept or offer peace!

3) Government type: If a civ has your civs preferred gov. type, then your senate will be more prepared to be peaceful towards them, and less likely to want a war-and vice versa. So, for instance, your Democratic, German Senate will probably try to oppose any peaceful overtures you might make towards the 'evil, communist Persians' !!

4) Having the UN: Like in Civ2, you should have a better chance of declaring war if you have built the UN! By the same token, you should have less of a chance of declaring war successfully AGAINST a nation that has the UN!

The senate should also be able to effect other diplomatic agreements, based on the same sort of criteria! For instance, senates from commercial Civs might try to push you into trade deals for resources, gold or luxuries, wheras Expansionist and militaristic civs might, aside from wars, try to push you to sign MPP's, ROP's and Alliances.
Anyway, thats just one thought, based on the current Civ3 model. Another, more radical suggestion is to have some kind of 'absolutity factor' and 'Influence' system. In this system, each segment of your society-from workers to the military to the Wealthy Elite-have a certain degree of influence on your civ. The amount of influence is determined by civ characteristics, current religion and laws and the number of types of improvements you build. The higher the influence, the more chance that group has of forcing your hand on domestic and foreign policy issues.
Base influence is modified, up or down, according to your governments 'Absolutity factor' or AF-the measure of how much Absolute Rule you have! Negative factors increase your control, wheras positive factors give more power to your citizens! Within this system, certain government types would also allow you to build Small Wonders like 'Parliament' or 'Senate'-which improve happiness and culture, whilst reducing corruption and War Weariness. However, they also increase influence of your civs citizens on your decisions!
Anyway either way, in my opinion, would be an acceptable way to bring back the Senate-in a fashion which would be FAR less frustrating that the Civ2 model!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Originally posted by rcoutme
One of the things I hate about WW is that quite often I can not even talk to the Civ I am at war with and yet the people are clammoring for peace! Stupid!

Click to expand...

i hate that too.. but than again what does the common joe knows about the matters of the state..

becouse in the game you are not the leader you are the state..

If the Senate is re-introduced as it was in Civ2, I will not buy cIV. It was simply the most irritating and game-breaking concept of Civ2.

War Weariness is effective enough, IMO. Even with all luxuries, a rampant WW puts a civ onto its knees real quickly. Democracy hasn't stopped nations from waging wars, now has it? It just makes it slightly more difficult.

I liked the Senate. It was nice to know that my people werent just little blips in a game... they were little twits who opposed my will!

I know that if I was a little blip, I would certainly be thankful for a Senate of any kind. Therefore, please include it!

If some people do not want to deal with the Senate, they can simply spend the whole time as a monarchy.

It is simply a part of modern life. Look at Mr Blair. His life is hell right now because of Parliament. If it were up to just him and Mr Bush, there would be far fewer third world countries, and far larger first world countries that had done some creative redistributing of land a la tank.

Senates were a nice bit of flavor. I would also like to see a more active and meaningful protest system.

Demonstrators, flaming Monks, explosions, Tanks stopped by individual protestors, et cetra. You could implement all of those things (and with relative ease if you look at them) and make war (and governance in general) a more difficult and realistic activity.

Perhaps it would be going too far to ask for a randomly generated newspaper highlighting the events of the previous turns every so often? How cool would that be?