Diplomatic System Should Be Preferential Voting

[gladoscc]

Major Civs:
Rather than just picking one (and the AI always votes for themselves), rank each other major civ from best to worst.

EG: Egypt might:
#1: Egypt (+3 pts)
#2: India (+2 pts)
#3: Germany (+1 pts)

India (UN builder) might:
#1: India (+6 pts)
#2: Egypt (+4 pts)
#3: Germany (+2 pts)

Germany might:
#1: Germany (+3 pts)
#2: India (+2 pts)
#3: Egypt (+1 pts)

City States
Rather than voting for the player with the best CURRENT relations, vote for the player with the best AVERAGE relations over the entire game + half of current relations. A bonus 20 points per quest completed, 50 points if that quest was eliminating another city state.

Sydney (City State):
India's average relation with us is 2. Current relations is 40. Completed one quest. Score is 42.
Germany's average relation with us is -1. Current relations is 0. Score is -1.
Egypt's average relation with us is 35. Current relations is 30. Score is 50. Completed no quests.

#1 Egypt (+1 pts)
#2 India (+0.5pts)
#3 Germany

Tally
Most points win the diplomatic victory!

Egypt: 9 pts
India: 10.5 pts (wins)
Germany: 6 pts

This system is much more fair and it retains the "AI is playing to win", but turns diplomatic victory into 'be friends with everyone' rather than 'have the most gold'

 

[Gucumatz]

Interesting I like this! But, I still think a certain amount of "points" needs to be had for a clear goal to win.

 

[Kurtbob]

I like this idea a lot! Averages over the course of the game makes a lot of sense to me.

What is the criteria for a Civ not to vote for itself though? IE when should a civ drop out of the race and vote for the other guy? I would think a formula that takes into account relations / game score would be best. If two civs have scores well above the rest, the other civs shouldn't be voting for themselves but for whichever high scoring civ they kept higher relations with. Unless of course the high scoring civs never had good relations with their civ, then they should simply abstain.

Like Gucumatz suggested, having the most votes shouldn't equate to a winner. I think a civ needs at 75% of votes to win a diplo victory. Anything below this would be too easy.

Also, bring back the population vote! Or mix it up with a pop vote (House) and 1 vote per civ (Senate). American point of view I guess...

 

[gladoscc]

I like this idea a lot! Averages over the course of the game makes a lot of sense to me.

What is the criteria for a Civ not to vote for itself though? IE when should a civ drop out of the race and vote for the other guy? I would think a formula that takes into account relations / game score would be best. If two civs have scores well above the rest, the other civs shouldn't be voting for themselves but for whichever high scoring civ they kept higher relations with. Unless of course the high scoring civs never had good relations with their civ, then they should simply abstain.

Like Gucumatz suggested, having the most votes shouldn't equate to a winner. I think a civ needs at 75% of votes to win a diplo victory. Anything below this would be too easy.

Also, bring back the population vote! Or mix it up with a pop vote (House) and 1 vote per civ (Senate). American point of view I guess...

You're not going to get 75% of the votes with the AI playing to win. Never.

 

[Kurtbob]

You're not going to get 75% of the votes with the AI playing to win. Never.

I guess got ahead of myself and ignored the fact that your system allowed for the retaining of the current 'AI playing to win' strategy by using a second and third choice to create an average, which is a pretty practical system. Yes, you are right, 75% could NEVER happen. Maybe my earlier idea came from the oddity of having a winner based on the most votes instead of a majority of votes. But thats how the game is designed, so what are you going to do?