Can/Should Civs be able to leave World Congress?

[headcase]

And I haven't seen anyone in this thread propose a penalty for dropping out of the World Congress that doesn't already exist in a similar way as a resolution

True, but it's harder to stop an embargo against you when you (and your seats) aren't in the WC and everyone who is has an additional small diplo penalty against you for leaving.

 

[baptismbyfire]

What if you are placed automatically in a state of war with all countries who voted for the resolution you defied? That would be a pretty big penalty and deterrent for anyone thinking of doing that. In reality, that's what sort of happens eventually, like in Iraq, where it basically became fair game to bomb/invade whenever you want without any real consequences.

 

[Calouste]

What if you are placed automatically in a state of war with all countries who voted for the resolution you defied? That would be a pretty big penalty and deterrent for anyone thinking of doing that. In reality, that's what sort of happens eventually, like in Iraq, where it basically became fair game to bomb/invade whenever you want without any real consequences.

If the penalty for leaving the World Congress is a deterrent to almost everyone for doing so, why bother creating the mechanism? And the cases where war with everyone is not a deterrent are because the civ in question is at war with (almost) everyone already and heading for a domination victory.

The problem making it possible for civs to leave the World Congress is pretty much:
- Make the penalty too low and the World Congress is irrelevant
- Make the penalty too harsh and no one will every do it so why bother implementing it?
- Getting the penalty just right will take too much work, probably duplicate existing mechanisms and still only apply in a very limited number of cases, so again, it's using scarce development time that is better spend somewhere else.

 

[Biologist]

Without seeing the World Congress in action (outside of a brief demo video), my instinct is that leaving the Congress should be an option, but it should carry severe penalties (like leaving the United Planets in Galactic Civilizations). For example, civs that leave the Congress can only trade with other civs that have left. This would be in addition to losing the benefits of any resolutions the Congress passes or any projects the Congress undertakes.

 

[ldvhl]

Without seeing the World Congress in action (outside of a brief demo video), my instinct is that leaving the Congress should be an option, but it should carry severe penalties (like leaving the United Planets in Galactic Civilizations). For example, civs that leave the Congress can only trade with other civs that have left. This would be in addition to losing the benefits of any resolutions the Congress passes or any projects the Congress undertakes.

Then everybody quits and it's pointless. The WC has to stay with no option to leave if it's going to have any effectiveness or point as a game system.

 

[Biologist]

Then everybody quits and it's pointless. The WC has to stay with no option to leave if it's going to have any effectiveness or point as a game system.

If the goal is to make the Congress as influential as possible (i.e. all resolutions are binding), then I think the best course is to have some way of counteracting non-beneficial resolutions. If I happen to be playing a warmonger civ (which I don't always), I don't want my entire strategy neutralized permanently simply because a majority vote banned me from making nukes and imposed a huge tax on my army.

Hopefully, the system of building influence and acquiring delegates will be balanced well enough that each civ has a shot at protecting their interests (GalCiv's system and the Civ 4 UN often end up with one civ unilaterally passing resolutions). If that isn't the case, we should at least have a repeal option so that civs that gained influence since a measure passed can move to repeal it.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, my reason for wanting a quit/repeal option is that I don't want my gameplay dictated by the Congress in the event that I'm not playing a diplomacy-focused civ/strategy. Of course, maybe the system will be well-designed enough that even non-diplomatic strategies can amass a decent amount of influence.

 

[Talcove]

To all of the warmongers saying that they don't want to have to change their strategy because someone else is playing diplomatically... Well, you should know, diplomatic players have to change their strategy because someone starts warmongering.
/Karma

 

[Arachnofiend]

To all of the warmongers saying that they don't want to have to change their strategy because someone else is playing diplomatically... Well, you should know, diplomatic players have to change their strategy because someone starts warmongering.
/Karma

This is the brunt of the issue and why I support the idea that civs should not be allowed to leave the Congress. Domination as it is now is unique in that you don't have to care about what other civs are doing beyond their own ability for combat; the solution to every problem is to go to war, which is something you were going to do anyways! The peaceful victories all have to drop what they're doing and focus on defending themselves if they get dow'd. WC resolutions and cultural city flipping now force domination players to react to the actions of their opponents too.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think people are forgetting the most important aspect of World Congress.. you have the POWEr to INFLUENCE how other civs vote, so while you may end up suffering from negative effects, you can attempt to sway the others to vote in your favour at all times, I see WC as an attempt to take away the war aspect of the game and make it more like a board game/strategy game as opposed to just "expand and conquer". I love WC and now that we can sway others it makes it like a mini Big Brother U.S/Survivor game, where you form alliances and voting blocs.

 

[ldvhl]

If the goal is to make the Congress as influential as possible (i.e. all resolutions are binding), then I think the best course is to have some way of counteracting non-beneficial resolutions.

There is. You can later propose a prior resolution be removed. Otherwise, work diplomatically with your civ and CS allies during the voting period to make sure it doesn't pass.

If I happen to be playing a warmonger civ (which I don't always), I don't want my entire strategy neutralized permanently simply because a majority vote banned me from making nukes and imposed a huge tax on my army.

As others have said, people who play diplomatically have to change their plans when someone goes warmonger on them. This is just the same thing in reverse.

If that isn't the case, we should at least have a repeal option so that civs that gained influence since a measure passed can move to repeal it.

We can.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, my reason for wanting a quit/repeal option is that I don't want my gameplay dictated by the Congress in the event that I'm not playing a diplomacy-focused civ/strategy. Of course, maybe the system will be well-designed enough that even non-diplomatic strategies can amass a decent amount of influence.

So you want the system in place only if you can dominate it? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a challenge?

 

[Biologist]

There is. You can later propose a prior resolution be removed. Otherwise, work diplomatically with your civ and CS allies during the voting period to make sure it doesn't pass.

Fine. It seems information has been updated since I last looked, or I just missed that point. Glad to hear it.

As others have said, people who play diplomatically have to change their plans when someone goes warmonger on them. This is just the same thing in reverse.

Fair enough.

So you want the system in place only if you can dominate it? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a challenge?

Er, no. I'm hoping that the World Congress won't have problems similar to the much-despised (at least if forum posts are to be believed) CS coup system. Where no matter how hard you try, the AI can just repeatedly take stuff away from you with no realistic recourse. If there's recourse (i.e. a chance to gain influence and repeal resolutions in a timely manner), I'm happy.

 

[Bloop]

my only problem with is that it comes a bit too early

should come in modern era

as long as the AI diplomacy is fixed I really don't mind it

 

[78stonewobble]

RE: Alpha Centauri remake
There could be challenges since that series was separated from the CiviliZation series and at least partially is in the hands of another company. It has Sid's name, but it's not completely his.

Sorry for the off topicness and thanks for the reply. I thought it was something like that preventing one. Well I just got thinking off it.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Er, no. I'm hoping that the World Congress won't have problems similar to the much-despised (at least if forum posts are to be believed) CS coup system. Where no matter how hard you try, the AI can just repeatedly take stuff away from you with no realistic recourse. If there's recourse (i.e. a chance to gain influence and repeal resolutions in a timely manner), I'm happy.

To be fair that very same coup system we all hate so much could potentially affect Congress. Unless they fix coups to not be as derpy/totally remove them you could still potentially see situations where you have enough votes to get what you want but then the AI coups all your CS allies the turn before the vote.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, coups definitely need to be improved. (perhaps less of a penalty ie you lose/gain fixed amount of influence)

A bit off topic, but spies in general do. You should be able to see enemy techs earlier than stealing them.
They could make coups tie into the Ideology system (CS get an Ideology, Coups switch that Ideology to yours (you get a boost, all of original Ideology civs lose Influence). CS ideology could increase influence loss per turn or influence gained or elections.

 

[awesome]

Yes. but with huge diplo hit and embargo.

And unhappiness and probably even guaranteed war. If your people hate you just as much as therest of the world because you're not playing by the rules, I'd say that's a good deterrent.

 

[pilot00]

Call me a pessimist but I think it is a mechanic that will be shoved down peoples throats, will earn many complaints and it will be revamped by constant patches till it gets plausible. And they made the mistake by having it start early (relevantly that is).

It worked on CiV 4, to have the UN because it was a late optional road and its resolutions (as far as I remember) were not going to make or brake the game. Now it seems once all CiVs are met are tied up to the rulings of the congress and more or less a Diplo victory race starts to unfold turn by turn. You are denied the option of been an Isolationist nation, you are denied the option of ignoring the congress, the prices by winning the various events are laughably (IMHO) one sided (to the winner got the spoils) and if you were bee-lining for another type of victory that involved, science or domination plans you are bound to be thrown penalties and have the constant threat of a diplo victory. Plus I cant see it working in multiplayer other than grinding runaways to a halt. In essence it gives the other civs the option to diplomatically gang on the runaway. Whether that is good or bad is subjective.

I can see CiVs that have gold or City-State abilities go up several tiers (Greece for example will be a major candidate for Victory it seems), and in MP the guy with the most city-states will effectively passing the rulings.

Yes you can buy votes, but realistically speaking, why should I sell you my vote and help you progress with your plans if I have a decent chance at victory?

The only dubious benefit I can see coming from this is the ganging up on the runaway but I wont hold my candle if it will be working thataway.

Sorry for the doomsday altitude but I just fear that the mechanics of these wont be as advertised. I really want to be proven wrong.

And unhappiness and probably even guaranteed war. If your people hate you just as much as therest of the world because you're not playing by the rules, I'd say that's a good deterrent.

I don't think it works exactly like that in real life but I would trade unhappiness for the option of effectively rebuffing the council.

 

[Biologist]

Call me a pessimist but I think it is a mechanic that will be shoved down peoples throats, will earn many complaints and it will be revamped by constant patches till it gets plausible. And they made the mistake by having it start early (relevantly that is).

It worked on CiV 4, to have the UN because it was a late optional road and its resolutions (as far as I remember) were not going to make or brake the game. Now it seems once all CiVs are met are tied up to the rulings of the congress and more or less a Diplo victory race starts to unfold turn by turn. You are denied the option of been an Isolationist nation, you are denied the option of ignoring the congress, the prices by winning the various events are laughably (IMHO) one sided (to the winner got the spoils) and if you were bee-lining for another type of victory that involved, science or domination plans you are bound to be thrown penalties and have the constant threat of a diplo victory. Plus I cant see it working in multiplayer other than grinding runaways to a halt. In essence it gives the other civs the option to diplomatically gang on the runaway. Whether that is good or bad is subjective.

I can see CiVs that have gold or City-State abilities go up several tiers (Greece for example will be a major candidate for Victory it seems), and in MP the guy with the most city-states will effectively passing the rulings.

Yes you can buy votes, but realistically speaking, why should I sell you my vote and help you progress with your plans if I have a decent chance at victory?

The only dubious benefit I can see coming from this is the ganging up on the runaway but I wont hold my candle if it will be working thataway.

Sorry for the doomsday altitude but I just fear that the mechanics of these wont be as advertised. I really want to be proven wrong.



I don't think it works exactly like that in real life but I would trade unhappiness for the option of effectively rebuffing the council.

I'm not sure it will be *that* bad. After all, you don't need to dominate the Congress, you just need to get enough delegates to block votes you don't like. From what I've seen, there are lots of ways to get delegates. I'm also going out on a limb and hoping that the bar for a Diplomatic Victory via the Congress will be set high enough that the game doesn't simply end the moment a Congress is held. If nothing else you could just turn off Diplo Victory and have the Congress become simply an organ of international politics.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

A few points
1. Diplovictory won't be availble till mid atomic age
2. Almost all of the resolutions are buffs. (To another member)
.... The exceptions either cost you
Gold. (Embargoes, army tax)
Happiness (Luxury ban)
Or an OP mechanic (Nukes)

As for Selling votes. If you pay me 2000 gold to reverse the nuke ban to help you win, perhaps I will use that gold to buy a spaceship part sooner and win myself.

Something that does need to be improved is the CS mechanics. But that's the same as saying combat should be improved because wars can make you lose cities.

 

[awesome]

I don't think it works exactly like that in real life but I would trade unhappiness for the option of effectively rebuffing the council.

Right, but it's a viable alternative to forcing everyone to be part of it.