[GS] Does anyone else hate the World Congress?

[criZp]

I think it's bad, yeah. There was some guy here who proposed a change where one player is elected the congress host for a session (would been to win a vote to be elected), and then that guy chooses what proposals will be up in next session, along with who/what is the target of the proposals. That way there would only be one vote (like it should be), not the current two-in-one solution that is currently in use.

 

[acluewithout]

I think it's bad, yeah. There was some guy here who proposed a change where one player is elected the congress host for a session (would been to win a vote to be elected), and then that guy chooses what proposals will be up in next session, along with who/what is the target of the proposals. That way there would only be one vote (like it should be), not the current two-in-one solution that is currently in use.

The Devs have explained why they didn't design the WC to allow for player initiated resolutions - see here. Personally, I think their reasoning is pretty solid.

You also can (potentially) control the outcome of the second part of the vote if you spend enough favour. If you choose to vote for a resolution, but don't invest enough favour to also guide the target, well then that's a risk you choose to take.

 

[KayAU]

This is clearly a problem. You are blind not only with regards to how much favor is needed to push something through, but also to an extent with regards to what you are actually voting for. This means you could actually end up voting to directly harm yourself. This doesn't make much sense to me, neither logically nor as a gameplay mechanism.

 

[Karmah]

The current world congress system is that
You can only choose outcome A or B, and it first decides whether to have outcome A or B, then decide which one being the target.

The problem is that

1. you cannot downvote to maintain the current situation, and have to choose from A or B.

2. If you choose A then your vote count for every outcome of A, which may include outcomes that you're not willing to see.

For example, A: A certain Religion get culture bomb when building district. B. A certain Religion cannot spread.

You definitely want your religion to get A, while preferring B to target other religions when the final target of A not being your religion. However, upvoting A for your religion upvotes the whole A, helping A to beat B, and, in A your religion does not get enough vote, other religions get that bonus, nothing good to you.

Your vote, your works on diplomacy, although you vote for your goodness, it actually helps other religions to gain A, which is negative for your development. This design is bad .

I think the design is good. And pretty well reflects lobbying politics. You push in one direction with some allies, but you have to make sure that you are the one benefitting at the end.

 

[7daysofwar]

I just wished they changed that the world congress only start when somebody has met all the other civilizations in the game because it is annyoing when I have to vote for something while be landlocked and don't know for what the all decided to vote. Also I remember a game where I was playing as Australia and tried a religion for fun. I only met a few civilizations when the first world congress arrived and the world religion one showed up. My religion somehow won it because other civs I haven't met yet decided to support my religion even if they probarly never heard of it.

 

[acluewithout]

This is clearly a problem. You are blind not only with regards to how much favor is needed to push something through, but also to an extent with regards to what you are actually voting for. This means you could actually end up voting to directly harm yourself. This doesn't make much sense to me, neither logically nor as a gameplay mechanism.

I think the design is good. And pretty well reflects lobbying politics. You push in one direction with some allies, but you have to make sure that you are the one benefitting at the end.

I agree with @Karmah. I like that the WC is to some extent unpredictable.

That said, I think the mechanics would work a bit better if (1) resolutions were reworked a bit, so you didn't have quote so many disparate targets (the mechanic is much more manageable when there are a smaller number of targets, and (2) you could work out a bit more easily how people are going to vote.

I'm not sure how to do the second thing without making the AI give you information a human player wouldn't, which is a bit of a problem.

I just wished they changed that the world congress only start when somebody has met all the other civilizations in the game because it is annyoing when I have to vote for something while be landlocked and don't know for what the all decided to vote. Also I remember a game where I was playing as Australia and tried a religion for fun. I only met a few civilizations when the first world congress arrived and the world religion one showed up. My religion somehow won it because other civs I haven't met yet decided to support my religion even if they probarly never heard of it.

Seems to me there is some low hanging fruit with the World Congress. e.g.

• Have the WC triggered by someone building a certain Wonder or some other trigger (e.g. everyone researches Diplomatic Service).
  
  
• Have the WC upgrade to the UN or something after some other modern era trigger (e.g. another Wonder).
  
  
• Have a President, with being President giving you some advantage to earning e.g. Diplo Favour, Grievances, Envoys, whatever.
  
  
• Have the first x Civs to develop Nukes become "Permanent Security Counsel Members", who gain additional Diplo Facour, Envoys, whatever.
  
  
• More Emergencies, perhaps connected to particular victory conditions (e.g. a Cultural Hegemon Emergency for CVs).
  
  
• Governors you can assign to other Civs or maybe Allies, which effect Diplo Favour etc.

 

[Karmah]

This is clearly a problem. You are blind not only with regards to how much favor is needed to push something through, but also to an extent with regards to what you are actually voting for. This means you could actually end up voting to directly harm yourself. This doesn't make much sense to me, neither logically nor as a gameplay mechanism.

I disagree. This is diplomacy, it's subtle. It's a guess game and it is not random. You can not know the outcome outwards because you are lacking initial condition unlike the other mechanisms that are, as they should be, deterministic. Yet you can have enough hints on what to push by learning how each AI votes and why. Since they are always resolutions (plural) to be voted, since you can guess if they have favors by looking at their overall relationship (guess grievances, look at recent CS history ) and the previous votes(how strong favor generator they are), you can guess their tendency by observing and from then conclude if you have your chances on a given resolution.
But you need to pay attention. It is not the same player skills involved in the min/maxing. For some good players winning early, they suddenly have to learn a new game of inductive inferences with incomplete information. It can be a hard thing that requires humility. It has a steep cognitive learning curve imho.
To be a bit harsh : 'get better and don' t cry n..b'. (take this one as a the bit of tease to push you to try harder)
Granted sometimes they vote out of their patterns. But on the vast majority of cases I know exactly the outcome of the vote everytime (immortal, normal or large maps). Rather I guess it right. Unless I was not paying attention because I decided to play a whole red (denounced by everyone) game. But as @Victoria already said, you can now wage wars and not throw down your diplo if you have skilled up enough in this aspect of the game.
I would not want the game to become more predictable there.

 

[Victoria]

This A/B decision first is a little subtle, perhaps more subtler than appreciated.

I want my religion to get +10 combat but if I don’t win I want another religions apostles to be stomped on with impunity is the crux of the thread.
So you should be thinking, how much do I need the +10 and what is the effect if another religion gets +10?
Maybe Because I do not have enough to guarantee it I just throw 2 votes in the B pool and let another religion get stomped on? .., oh damn, they chose me to be stomped on.
Who has most votes? Have they a religion? Because they will likely spend lots.
Am I the biggest religious threat out there? Will I be targeted? This is to me the key thing.
If you have not won an RV by the time this vote comes around you will likely be deemed a major threat so would I rather everyone freely stamped on my units or that one of the opposition got +10 for 30 turns.

As for not wanting any resolution, tough. The Congress has decided there should be a world religion, so there is going to be one. Maybe there should be an abstain vote and without a quorum it does not get passed but beyond that I can see nothing of value. The game needs little bits of spice.

I think this thread is a storm in a teacup. The design is different, and subtle. Not game changing. It is good to bring up as it makes us think more about why it is in place. To say it is bad I disagree. A simple A vote with no B would be clearer but I sort of like this twisty logic mechanic, it is cheeky.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Accidentally helping a single rival isn't nearly as bad as accidentally hurting yourself.

Unless one of my rivals is completely running away with the game, I usually vote A just to be on the safe side, and this seems to be how the A.I. behaves as well.

The system's not bad, really. You just have to be cautious with your diplomatic favor. Don't gamble it all away unless you absolutely have to or you have so much that you can afford to not care.

 

[Karmah]

I think this thread is a storm in a teacup. The design is different, and subtle. Not game changing. It is good to bring up as it makes us think more about why it is in place. To say it is bad I disagree. A simple A vote with no B would be clearer but I sort of like this twisty logic mechanic, it is cheeky.

Yeah to be a bit picky, I find resolutions to be important when they occur at the right time. 50% reduction cost in faith buy when I get the corps is really helpfull if I can pass it. Culture bomb on new district is just too good around the time I'm crazily expanding (in the vicinity of feudalism) , with very few gold income from trade to support greedy grabbing of new tiles (if only to have room for a farm triangle, ancestrall hall cities starting with a mine and a farm triangle usually ends-up well with little attention for a while). When going religion and having this nice neighbour for trade I don't want to war with, swarming me with apostles, sinking my fresh new religion , killing religious unit while at peace is just a welcome breath. so they are a few of them that usually occur at the right time that can be very nice to know if you can go all-in and still get them , or wait for the next congress where probably another one of those will be there.
I don't know if those boosts are necessary to win , as I usually get them every game at least once so I'm used to it (even addicted to them maybe) . But I'd say they do have an non-neglectible impact on my games.

 

[Bitterman]

I disagree with the majority here I guess.

I find the entire system the most annoying thing in the game by far, as I already stated in other threads. If I have to talk about the design in particular, I don't like the double outcome decisions and find them extremely anti-intuitive and with potentially ridiculous results, like ending up damaging yourself.

The randomness of the system is probably the worst for me. In a diplomatic congress, which is supposed to be about making proposals and taking decisions, you don't decide that much. Proposals are not even proposed by anyone (see the irony here?) and thus many votes are irrelevant in my particular situation, which I often don't find to be fair when I'm playing the diplomatic game and investing resources into it. If I invest in something, I want something in return. Voting for an outcome I don't give a damn is a poor reward, I'm sorry. The system seems to be specially designed for those who didn't invest much in diplomacy have regardless a chance, but for me that's just unfair. If don't build an army should I have a chance to win domination then? or cultural without theaters? religion with no GP's? No. If you have few diplo favour, then you should be bound to what the ones with most diplo favour want.

Also the DV in general is still a mess. Again, it rewards points for just guessing the winning vote, for which you don't need that much diplo favour and thus making some people winning accidental DV's (as I read here). It also rewards points for sinking literally thousands of gold in those aid emergencies (talking about not making DV a economic victory right?). When it comes to vote for winning points directly, either they dogpile against you or against someone else, so even if are not winning but want the 2 points regardless, you still don't have a chance, since you are voting for outcome A (winning points) and they for B (making someone else losing them) and since 3 very weak diplomatic players can destroy with no problems a very good one in the congress, you'll be damned whatever you do.

Summary: too random when it shouldn't be (why is no one making proposals? why do I have to vote for things I don't care for?. Doesn't reward for strong diplomatic game (why do I need allies if they vote against me?, why do I need CS's if diplo favour does not matter that much in the end?) DV winning system it's an entire mess.

 

[Victoria]

agree DipV is a mess, disagree on A/B style voting. Also having played other world congresses and having DipV so bad can tarnish ones view understandably of WC in general.
I disagree that the subjects are pointless but do not expect them all to be right for me (some have said they are pointless). Disagree that its bad we cannot choose them although I am quite happy with a round robin where each civ takes it turn to table a vote. I really struggled with the OP ness of Civ 5's WC and the trouble is it could be fun playing it in Civ 5 and that can bias views.
I guess something like this area everyone has differing views and that's good for debate.

 

[gcampono]

I just begun playing Gathering Storm, but so far I really don't like the WC, especially the following two points:
1. random proposals: I would really like more a system where some civ select the proposals to discuss (it could be the 2 civs that have the most diplomatic favor, or a round robin or something else)
2. selecting a specific target for the proposals I don't really get it and it leads to very counter-intuitive results; I would really like more to be able to vote on either a targeted proposal (e.g. I would prefer voting on improving campuses rather than voting on improving some sort of district selected among those voted by the various civs) from the start or a non targeted proposal (e.g. it applies to all civs and not only one)

 

[Karmah]

I just begun playing Gathering Storm, but so far I really don't like the WC, especially the following two points:
1. random proposals: I would really like more a system where some civ select the proposals to discuss (it could be the 2 civs that have the most diplomatic favor, or a round robin or something else)
2. selecting a specific target for the proposals I don't really get it and it leads to very counter-intuitive results; I would really like more to be able to vote on either a targeted proposal (e.g. I would prefer voting on improving campuses rather than voting on improving some sort of district selected among those voted by the various civs) from the start or a non targeted proposal (e.g. it applies to all civs and not only one)

you can do number2 when you are good enough at your diplomacy to assert when it's possible and when it is not.

 

[returnofbabylon]

I definitely agree with the OP that this is a problem.

To me the fundamental issue is the World Congress picks winners as if there are 2 rounds of voting when there's actually 1. As far as I can tell, doing it this way has no discernible benefit; yes, as some people defending the WC have mentioned, it is possible for the player to use the information at her disposal to make predictions within the system as it currently works, but that doesn't imply that the system itself is well-designed, and those types of strategic considerations would still exist within a system that tallied votes the same way they were cast.

I think there are a few ways to fix it, the simplest being the specific option with the most votes winning (as opposed to the current system, where the specific option with the most votes wins, as long as that option's category also received more total votes than the other category, otherwise the specific option with the most votes within the other category wins). Another thing that I think might be interesting is if each proposal gets both an A and B winner, with each player only being able to vote for one or the other (i.e., one religion will get +10 religious combat strength, and one religion will have their units condemned by all other players - possibly even the same religion, depending how the voting goes). The second idea would necessitate rethinking the DV resolution so it wouldn't end up giving the leader -1 point net every time, however.

The other stuff being mentioned (the proposals not being interesting enough, the congress starting automatically instead of being triggered by something, the lack of interaction between the WC and the alliance system, etc.) all seem to me like they're likely to be fixed as FXS continue to improve the game.

 

[KayAU]

To be a bit harsh : 'get better and don' t cry n..b'. (take this one as a the bit of tease to push you to try harder)

I generally don't have any trouble dealing with it, I just don't think it is a well designed mechanism. I also don't buy into the idea that it is somehow a good reflection of how real world diplomacy works. It's not like the UN meets, votes over whether or not someone should have sanctions imposed, followed by another vote to decide who the target of those sanctions should be.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's completely nonsensical because everyone is voting for different things. They should vote for proposal selection first, and then we should vote on the proposals that make it.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I generally don't have any trouble dealing with it, I just don't think it is a well designed mechanism. I also don't buy into the idea that it is somehow a good reflection of how real world diplomacy works. It's not like the UN meets, votes over whether or not someone should have sanctions imposed, followed by another vote to decide who the target of those sanctions should be.

Things like sanctions are better reflected by the emergency sessions.

The regular sessions are more representative of the day-to-day bureaucracy. Bureaucrats making unnecessary proposals and insisting they be voted on immediately seems pretty realistic to me. Bureaucrats pushing very hard for a specific outcome but getting their cause coopted by an opportunistic rival is also something that happens.

If I were going to make any change to the World Congress to make it more realistic, I would give players the option to either follow or ignore the world congress after they see outcome of each vote.

Players who chose to follow will have the chosen outcome of the vote affect their civilization, but will only be able to make trade deals with, send trade routes to, and declare friendship with other players who chose to follow until the next world congress session. Any active deals, trade routes, friendship declarations, or alliances with players who chose to ignore will be instantly cancelled. Players who chose to follow will also receive a loyalty boost in each of their cities, an influence boost toward earning city-state envoys, and slower grievance decay against players who chose to ignore until the next session.

Players who chose to ignore will not have the chosen outcome affect their civilization, but will only be able to make trade deals with, send trade routes to, and declare friendship with other players who chose to ignore until the next world congress session. Any active deals, trade routes, friendship declarations, or alliances with players who chose to follow will be instantly cancelled. Players who chose to follow will also receive a loyalty penalty in each of their cities, an influence penalty toward earning city-state envoys, and faster grievance decay against players who chose to follow until the next session.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The short answer is YES: The World Congress is designed very poorly, even counterintuitively. It's a mechanic I can use (somewhat), but it doesn't function like a realistic world congress would.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Overall I like the WC concept because of the well thought out favor mechanism, I just don't believe it is executed in the end all that well. Specifically, the lack of choices, the lazy rehashing of previous iterations like "let's ban this resource or that" ... "let's make this cheaper or more expensive" make a decent mechanic extensively boring and irritable after years of the same old same old. A firmer foundation in geopolitical studies would go a long way in helping move along what they are attempting to do in somewhat of a hamhanded way.