Election!

[Afforess]

New Gameoption: Elections. When you are using a Republic or Democratic civic, each 50 turns (scaled for gamespeed), you face an election, with a random number of opponents.If you are doing a good job as a leader (If your nation is in the top 50% of all nation's, your chances of losing are slim. Other factors are happiness, health, and financial stability.), you will be re-elected. If not, one of the opponents will win.


New Election Popup:
Esteemed @LeaderName Goes Here@, It's time for your re-election. Current Polls suggest that you have a 62% chance of winning the election. Our opponent, @LeaderName Goes Here@'s Pro-Science Agenda* has gained some popularity, giving him a 38% chance in the polls. What should we do?

Proceed with the Elections
"Purchase" the Elections (Costs X** Gold)
Assassinate the Opponent***
Delay the Election (Causes Unhappiness)
Elections!? Crown me King! (Switches to Monarchy)


*Each opponent will have a specific agenda that they are running for. It will usually be something that you are currently weak at. If you are at war, the opponent will run on an Anti-War agenda. If you are really unhealthy, it will be a environmental agenda. The worse you are in that specific area, the higher your opponents chances are.

** Gold cost based on your total population and the opponents chance of success.

*** Could have widely varying results. If it is traced back to you, could destroy your chances of success. However, if you have enough espionage points per turn, you run unopposed in the election and win by default. Technically legal...

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.

The senate war proceedings:

The senate is unlikely to allow a second war if you are already at war.
The senate will likely allow a war with a hated enemy
The senate will not allow war with a big trading partner (If you have a lot of trade routes to the player)
The senate will not allow a war if the population is unhappy with you


The goal of the election option is to take power away from the player and give it to the people. This is so that players no longer value democratic civics as much, since the boosts from them are mitigated by the loss of power.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The senate war proceedings:

The senate is unlikely to allow a second war if you are already at war.

Even if the proposed war is in defense of an ally - someone who is also at war with the civ you are currently at war with but not a vassal?

 

[Afforess]

Even if the proposed war is in defense of an ally - someone who is also at war with the civ you are currently at war with but not a vassal?

Relationships with other civilizations will be factored in.

 

[soup567]

Wow those sound really awesome I hope they come out soon.

 

[zeph2k]

i look forward to it

 

[paperfire]

Pretty cool changes, now it will actually feel like a democracy.

 

[konradcabral]

I like the Senate and Parliament voting for wars, but I dislike the election concept, as I dislike the leader changes by Revmod. IMHO, if you'd simulate elections, you'd have to simulate the leaders' deaths as well. In Civ, leaders are eternal, that's one of the base concepts of the game, a necessary poetic license that makes possible a same player ruling one Civ for the test of time.

 

[Afforess]

I like the Senate and Parliament voting for wars, but I dislike the election concept, as I dislike the leader changes by Revmod. IMHO, if you'd simulate elections, you'd have to simulate the leaders' deaths as well. In Civ, leaders are eternal, that's one of the base concepts of the game, a necessary poetic license that makes possible a same player ruling one Civ for the test of time.

To each there own. It will be a game option though, not default either.

Well, I only need to simulate the leader's deaths if the player attempts an assassination on the opponent and it succeeds. I'm not 100% sure how that's going to work, I may have to throw that feature out.

 

[Arrorn]

If leaders are supposed to be eternal...

WHAT IF: You it is so that if you get kicked out of your civ -- i.e. lose election, country anrevolts d you get exiled, etc. -- you can chose to become the leader of one of the civs in the bottom 50% or so and you get to keep your leaderhead and characteristics of that leaderhead -- i.e. Organized, Scientific, etc. -- but you lead the other civ. So the leader is eternal. The civ your leading is not.

It would be realistic because if your a experienced leader and you lose an election, or get exiled, and move to another country you could possibly take it over, by military means or otherwise. Napoleon did it... so why couldn't you?

Just my thoughts on this matter...

 

[Arakhor]

Senatorial interference in my wars blighted my Civ II games, which of course means I want it for my Civ IV games

 

[NBAfan]

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.

Keep the pesky Civ2 Senete out of this!

 

[Xoatl_169]

ohhhh this is amazing, cant wait.

 

[Killtech]

To each there own. It will be a game option though, not default either.

Well, I only need to simulate the leader's deaths if the player attempts an assassination on the opponent and it succeeds. I'm not 100% sure how that's going to work, I may have to throw that feature out.

so if it's optional it can't be used as a balance instrument since not every player will have it active. to be hones i'm a bit reserved about election right now.

however the thing about parliament having the ability to deny you a war with someone else sounds good enough to be an universal feature of Better RoM, one you cannot turn off. i think some further influence of the parliament might be considerd. for example it could force you for some culture spending, enforce production changes in your cities and all that kind of harassment - just like you and the AI both share control over your civ.

 

[Afforess]

so if it's optional it can't be used as a balance instrument since not every player will have it active. to be hones i'm a bit reserved about election right now.

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.

however the thing about parliament having the ability to deny you a war with someone else sounds good enough to be an universal feature of Better RoM, one you cannot turn off. i think some further influence of the parliament might be considerd. for example it could force you for some culture spending, enforce production changes in your cities and all that kind of harassment - just like you and the AI both share control over your civ.

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...

 

[damunzy]

Interesting idea. I look forward to trying it but I am glad and hopeful that it stays optional.

 

[Draakon]

Hint: FfH2 has this. Kinda.

 

[vamperium]

Would it be possible as well to change from democracy to despot as well? Doesn't seem like it should be limited to monarchy.

 

[Arakhor]

Why would you *want* to change to Despotism? Even Monarchy is far better.

 

[Afforess]

Would it be possible as well to change from democracy to despot as well? Doesn't seem like it should be limited to monarchy.

Why would you *want* to change to Despotism? Even Monarchy is far better.

Monarchy was an example, I'm not hardcoding anything. It trys to find the best alternative civics.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Why not allow a propaganda campaign so that I can get the senate to approve. Eg get war quest to capture a resource but are a republic and senate does not like the idea so you run a propaganda campaign "their leader eats babies" so you can get the senate on side. Eg WWI. Just another option somewhere when you try to declare war with a cost related to era and size of your civ.