Election!

[little_cyclone]

Also, if you are using a Senate or Parliamentary Civic, and you try to go to war, you will have to get permission from the Senate. If you are declared war by another player, the game works normally.

Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure about this.. I still have nightmares of playing Civ2 and having the Senate declare a cease fire/peace treaty with a nation I'm at war with every time we get into a fight...

 

[civ_king]

Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure about this.. I still have nightmares of playing Civ2 and having the Senate declare a cease fire/peace treaty with a nation I'm at war with every time we get into a fight...

NO NOT THE SENATE ANYTHING BUT THE SENATE I had nightmares over those jerks

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

NO NOT THE SENATE ANYTHING BUT THE SENATE I had nightmares over those jerks

If I really wanted to go to war in civ2, would just sack the senate, start the war and then change back. I could then capture a few cities and over extend myself in the certian knowledge that the senate would declare peace before I would have to retreat

 

[civ_king]

If I really wanted to go to war in civ2, would just sack the senate, start the war and then change back. I could then capture a few cities and over extend myself in the certian knowledge that the senate would declare peace before I would have to retreat

well, I was 8 when I started playing Civ II so my ability so strategy was not yet grown

 

[Afforess]

NO NOT THE SENATE ANYTHING BUT THE SENATE I
had nightmares over those jerks

You guys seem to be under the misconception that I'll be forcing you to use Elections. Heck, when have I ever forced anyone to use any of my changes?

Every little of detail of Elections will be customizable, down to the length of time delaying is and how much unhappiness it causes. Promise.

 

[little_cyclone]

To elaborate on my earlier remarks, I have no problem with introducing another variable into the game, and welcome a change in strategy from being (for all intents and purposes) absolute and undeniable ruler of a nation regardless of the type of government I profess to adhere to. But I would want to be sure that it would become a part of the overall gameplay experience, not something to have to continually observe and fear repercussions. Granted, this has already been initiated with the usage of Revolutions, and we have adapted. My main concern is that I simply don't want to be in the position to have to avoid using Republic or Democracy or et al for fear of my Senate/Parliament/High Council running amok, counter to my best efforts.

 

[civhelp121]

would it be possible to extend these elections to the senate? So lets say you manage to just win 51% but your friends in the senate are not so lucky, so you are stuck with a very hostile senate. The same could work but in the reverse where right after an election in which both you and your friends in the senate win you could have a senate that will briefly obey your every whim.

 

[vamperium]

Galciv 2 had elections for the Senate once you switched to a democratic form of government. If your party was in power you received certain bonuses depending on the party you chose, and if it lost elections due to your low approval rating you would lose those bonuses. Not the most ideal system, but something to consider.

 

[little_cyclone]

...If your party was in power you received certain bonuses depending on the party you chose, and if it lost elections due to your low approval rating you would lose those bonuses...

I'd definitely be more interested in elections if we could pull off something like this.. Maybe some kind of bonus if your party retains majority control of the government as opposed to having to put together a coalition government. Happiness, production, commerce... something...

 

[Arrorn]

Quite interesting.... Me likey.... Great work so far afforess... seems as if all the bases are covered so far as i am concerned...

 

[mussbu]

It's not meant to be one. I've decided to leave Republic and Democracy unchanged from RoM's defaults, only adjusting the other civics. It's merely meant to allow you to be a "true" servant of the people, for fun of course.



Now that is a brilliant idea as well. I'll make sure players can customized their parliament to tell them what the parliament can and can not demand, but I will add all of these. Perhaps there could be a bloodthirsty parliament forcing the player into an unwanted war...

For everyone who wants an update on Election's actual status, I'm about 10-15% done, (It's hard to tell ATM), but the ground work has been layed. Now I'm working on getting the popups for the player and I eventually have to add AI code too...

So what happens if you lose an election? (I'm missing something here/can't find it).

Great ideas. The more democratic the civ, the less player control over what he can build. Maybe a pop-up comes up saying "The people want to build a temple instead of a harbor, lose -1 happiness if you continue with harbor". I would imagine the more democratic civ would want to build more happiness-minded buildings, and less militaristic units/buildings? But then again a democratic populace can be very unpredictable or unrational in what it wants.

Great work y'all!

 

[Arrorn]

The AI doesn't need(but it can if the player chooses) to take control of the civ your playing, You could just become the other leader.

i.e:
Bismarck(Player) and Fredrick(AI) are running for re-election and Bismarck loses, the player can choose to:
-go into exile leading a rebel civ(same or similar type)
-take control of Fredrick and keep control of the empire/nation
-or becoming the 2nd in command(not sure how this could be represented though) type thing

Going to make the end game much, much better.

lol no i think he means attributes/traits like imperialistic, industrious, scientific. I think he assumes that if your civ is lacking scientific progress and the people want it then the opponent will have a great chance to have scientific as one of his traits.

Hopefully this will happen.

 

[JosEPh_II]

To elaborate on my earlier remarks, I have no problem with introducing another variable into the game, and welcome a change in strategy from being (for all intents and purposes) absolute and undeniable ruler of a nation regardless of the type of government I profess to adhere to. But I would want to be sure that it would become a part of the overall gameplay experience, not something to have to continually observe and fear repercussions. Granted, this has already been initiated with the usage of Revolutions, and we have adapted. My main concern is that I simply don't want to be in the position to have to avoid using Republic or Democracy or et al for fear of my Senate/Parliament/High Council running amok, counter to my best efforts.

When REVDCM becomes Mandatory (and it's not...yet) to play AND will be when I must bow out from using future versions of AND. But as Afforess has stated he plans to make all his add-ons optional and I applaud that. Once you start making former options quote "necessary to play the mod" (REV is Not mandatory for AND playability) you restrict the fan base for the mod.

Just my 2 cents and MHO.

JosEPh

 

[Afforess]

When REVDCM becomes Mandatory (and it's not...yet) to play AND will be when I must bow out from using future versions of AND. But as Afforess has stated he plans to make all his add-ons optional and I applaud that. Once you start making former options quote "necessary to play the mod" (REV is Not mandatory for AND playability) you restrict the fan base for the mod.

Just my 2 cents and MHO.

JosEPh

RevDCM, nor any other feature will ever be mandatory. You can throw away the pitchforks.

 

[fireclaw722]

RevDCM, nor any other feature will ever be mandatory. You can throw away the pitchforks.

Thh, awww I thought I would get to use those...



On a related note, I rarely use the Democratic civics, as I perfer Monarchy with the civic special units(Imperial Gaurds).

 

[little_cyclone]

A pox upon your hereditary government! Republic/Patrician/Caste or Feudal FTW!

Any update on implementation Afforess?

 

[Nightguard]

Okay, how would the senate function interact with defensive pacts? If I'm not mistaken, the way a defensive pact works is that if one of your allies whom you have a pact with is attacked, you immediately declare war upon the attacker. Will the senate be able to overrule this declaration of war, or would the defensive pact not be affected by the senate (assumed to have the force of law already backing the pact)?

This option could take the gameplay in an interesting direction, one not really touched upon in standard BTS or RoM, but I think we would need to see what the consequences of a lost election could be before we really are able to make an informed decision about whether anyone would actually want to use it or not, and as others have said, I didn't see any explanation of that listed here yet.

 

[NBAfan]

Thh, awww I thought I would get to use those.../QUOTE]You still can if you want to march on Washington.

 

[TechXLtd]

I'm all in favor of it. If I can come up with anything to add, I'll let you know. Does the AI have elections as well if they are running the aforementioned civics?

 

[Afforess]

I'm all in favor of it. If I can come up with anything to add, I'll let you know. Does the AI have elections as well if they are running the aforementioned civics?

Yes, they will.

A pox upon your hereditary government! Republic/Patrician/Caste or Feudal FTW!

Any update on implementation Afforess?

It's still a long way off. I've made some progress, but had to work on getting other more important things out first, and school work has increased, so I have less time to mod.