Idea: Over-/undercouncil voting system change

[bread smith]

I thought about some changes to make the voting system more exiting. IMO, it’s a bit boring as it is. First of all the council leader has too much power and the proscription of evil mana (death, chaos, etc.) is too easily established and nearly impossible to get rid of.
So here are some suggestions as a basis for discussion:


1. Votes are calculated according to population (e.g., 10 votes per population point) with a factor for alignment (good civs will have a bonus in overcouncil, evil ones in undercouncil). Plus the already existing vote-affecting buildings, traits, etc. which are already in the game should be changed a bit (2x votes is probably too much of a bonus)

2. Every member can call in a council every 20 turns, the council leader every 10 turns. After a decision there's a delay of 5 turns until the next council could take place and a 20 turn delay before the same proposal could be voted on again. (Just to prevent the AI from spamming proposals every turn)

3. Election of the Council leader comes up every 60 turns and needs a 51% majority. Candidates are the 2 members with the most votes.

4. When a council has at least 3 members, new joiners need an approval by them (51% majority). Also a new proposal “Exclude xy from the council” could be added (75% majority).

5. On a diplomatic way (trade screen), it should be possible to bribe your opponents to vote for you at the next proposal - or to vote for you next time the council leader is elected.

6. If a player defies a proposal, he gets a 25% penalty on his votes (plus unhappiness in his cities) until the next decision he votes with the majority again.

7. Additionally it could be thought about some deeper impact of passed decisions on the players. E.g. if death-mana is banned, every good council member that voted yes could get a little happiness bonus. Or when the global trade contract was established, every member with financial trait would get a bonus, etc…


Would be interesting what you guys have to say. I posted these ideas in the main ffh forum already - with quite limited attention.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would agree in general, but not with everything.


One thing we know about the Overcouncil is that large, powerful empires and small, weak nations have equal representation there. It is a place where vassals and masters are equals. I don't think it should vote based on population, as that would give more power to those who already have more, thus violating the council's philosophy. I also really think that either all members should be valid candidates to lead it or that it shouldn't have a leader but rather let anyone call for votes.


The Undercouncil seems much more structured, so I do think it should have a leader. I do not think that the Undercouncil should have its votes based on population either though, as it is a secret council that does not have the wishes of the majority of commoners at heart. It may be best to have it work like the Apostolic Palace in BtS, using <iStateReligionVotePercent> where the Council of Esus is the religion that counts (that would be easy if we made it to that the Undercouncil has to be founded by a wonder requiring CoE state religion, and might be doable through python otherwise). Another idea (which would require SDK work) would to make them vote based on how much gold each member has, or maybe how much they are willing to pay. Some of their votes could actually be auctions.


Bribing might be hard to program, but it seems like a must for the Undercouncil. The Overcouncil would look upon bribing very unfavorably, perhaps kicking anyone suspected of taking bribes of the council immediately. It could be interesting if we made it possible for both councils but made overcouncil members less likely to accept, and added events that impose sanctions on those who give or accept bribes for overcouncil votes.



Requiring approval to join could be nice, but I'd guess it would be difficult.

A vote to exclude members could be quite good. I tried to program something like that about a month ago, but couldn't figure out how to make the votes be for a specific player. I think you need SDK work for that. You could force No Membership for 10 turns in python, but probably not without stopping them from changing any other civics too so it may be better to do it in the SDK too.

Also, I'd like a vote to disband the council entirely and undo all their resolutions. I may have accomplished that already in my version. You can easily force all council members to adopt the No Membership civic, which doesn't stop them from immediately forming a new council because the forced civic option doesn't apply to those who don't have the proper membership civic. I think that their old votes might even be reset once no one is on the council, but I'm not sure of that.


I don't really like number 6. I think it would be much better to automatically call a &#8220;Exclude xy from the council&#8221; vote against anyone who defies the council. I'm thinking that the Overcouncil should probably only be able to exclude members for this or for accepting bribes, while the Undercouncil could kick members off at a whim.

I'm not sure it should be possible to defy an undercouncil resolution at all. Their votes tend to only affect those who vote for them, so those who don't support the council's rulings would either be ignored or assassinated. Since the council is kept a secret from the civilians, there shouldn't be anger over defying it either (although I suppose they could be mad at all the crimes that might be committed against those whose leaders made trouble in the council chambers).

It could also be a good idea to make defy resolution just kick a member off the council for a while.

I also think that the councils should have more force civic votes, or maybe (if if is possible to code) also having ban civic votes. I can see the Overcouncil supporting either Liberty or Scholorship, while the Undercouncil would like both Guilds and Slavery.


One particularly nasty force civic vote would be to force council members to adopt the council membership, effectively meaning the council cannot be left or defied.

It could be interesting to add the possibility of diplomatic victory, requiring that everyone not on your council has been eliminated.

Another interesting possibility would be an Act of Union resolution, which forces all council members into a permanent alliance.


I think that vassals should be able to free themselves from their masters through Overcouncil votes, and maybe that masters could trade their vassals through the Undercouncil.

 

[civ_king]

It could be interesting to add the possibility of diplomatic victory, requiring that everyone not on your council has been eliminated.

um... I thought you can't have multiple civs winning at the same time (also if you have the Overcouncil into a PA, you would almost guarantee a domination victory)

 

[xienwolf]

You would test for the victory condition to be appropriate, and if it is, force all of the remaining players (who share a council now, as per VC being met) into a PA the moment before tossing victory out.

And yes, if multiple teams accomplish victory at the same time, one is choosen randomly to be THE winner.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I wasn't saying for that vote to make everyone on the council win, just the leader.

An Act of Union would likely lead to a domination victory if that option is on and if your council was strong enough, but not if all the council members had almost been eliminated.

I was thinking that the Act of Union would basically be a victory vote for the Overcouncil while choosing one supreme leader would be it for the Undercouncil. It could also be interesting if the Undercouncil's vote instead made everyone on the council the chairman's vassal.

 

[bread smith]

I would agree in general, but not with everything.

Very deep thoughts, MagisterCultuum!
I just came up with some unsorted ideas. But as I see, you have already done a good load of thinking in that council direction... (thanks for your attention, anyway)

You rightly mentiond the significant differences between Over- and Undercouncil. Thats an important point!

Overcouncil is that large, powerful empires and small, weak nations have equal representation there. It is a place where vassals and masters are equals.

I agree on that! Every Civ should be allowed to join the Overconcil, regardless of alignment or religion. All Overcouncil members are valid candidates to be elected as council leader, every member has only 1 vote, and any member can call for votes. While no one can be excluded from the council unless he declares war on another member or defies a resolution. This would immediately trigger the "Exclude xy from the council" proposal where 75% have to agree.

The Undercouncil otherwise should have only one or two dominating civs as possible council leaders - the one(s) with CoE State Religion. I don't like it that you have to adopt CoE as state religion for joining the undercouncil because it would result in only one or two members at all, which makes voting quite senseless. So, when the Undercouncil membership should be Religion based, I would say that at least AV and OO should be included. And like you said, it should be possible in the Undercouncil to exclude members without any reason - but maybe only the CoE states should have that right. Also, the votes could be weighted according to population with a significant bonus for civs with CoE state religion...

A vote to exclude members could be quite good....I think you need SDK work for that. (...) Another idea (which would require SDK work) would to make them vote based on how much gold each member has. (...) Bribing might be hard to program, but it seems like a must for the Undercouncil. The Overcouncil would look upon bribing very unfavorably.

Bribing might be the wrong word when you look at the Overcouncil. However, I meant that you offer your votes to other faithful council members through normal trade. Although, it's possible, that some conservative thinking members might feel offended by such deal announcements. This would result in an Attintude penalty, I think...
On the other hand, for the Undercouncil bribing is a reasonable diplomatic approach. So, there it should be possible to deal votes just like money...

Unfortunately my python and SDK programming skills are ... ehh not so ... what skills? Is it difficult to make the votes tradable like in Alpha Centauri? I don't want it to become too complex with lots of SDK changes, because I've already got my first CTDs with Orbis 22d. Actually I have deactivated map trading and alliances since the game always crashes when I get the worldmap from someone... It's really sad, that the more complex the mods get, the more often you'll see your desktop. I painfully experienced it with Fall Further (which is a great piece of work, but not playable anymore for me in late games.)

It could also be a good idea to make defy resolution just kick a member off the council for a while.

Excluding a member for just a while would be nice. Nobody should be excluded forever (at least from the Overcouncil), since it has to be possible to bring all players together for a Diplomatic victory at the end.
By the way, did anyone manage to achieve a diplomatic victory. I allways go on domination or cultural and haven't tested it, yet. How likely is it to actually convice someone to adopt the Overcouncil?

the councils should have more force civic votes

Right, IMO there could indeed be a lot more possible proposals besides "force the differnt civics" (esp. the council civics itself!) and the above mentioned "exclusion from the council"
a. In point 4 of the first post I suggested an 51% approval for new members (if there are already at least 3 members). This one would automatically be forced, when a new member wants to join. (Only Undercouncil)
b. I definitely like your suggestion of "freeing vassals" for Over- and "dealing Vassals" for Undercouncil
c. Besides the already existing "X make peace with Y", it could be nice to have a "Peace for all members". Maybe also a "Force war with all non-members.

I was thinking that the Act of Union would basically be a victory vote for the Overcouncil while choosing one supreme leader would be it for the Undercouncil. It could also be interesting if the Undercouncil's vote instead made everyone on the council the chairman's vassal.

These are really good ones, too.

 

[Mylon]

I'd like to see a new mechanic put in. Council projects. Much like the "setup a smuggling ring" for the under council provides a benefit to all council members, what about multiple council proposals that, if voted in, will tax the council members in some way (10% of all hammers produced?) until the quota for the project is reached, and then the effect goes into place for all council members. Think say... The smallpox vaccination to eradicate the disease. Some project that can only be accomplished through the cooperation of multiple civs. Like the ability to coalesce and harness life mana on a grand scale, providing +1 life mana for all overcouncil civs.

The "force X civic" or "ban X mana" votes are a huge turnoff. I want more freedom and fun, interesting votes. And there should be a reason why someone might want to vote "no" for the "give all of us a bonus!" type resolutions.

 

[Colbert30]

I like those ideas ! It could be used tied to armageddon events to thwart or slow the global effects caused by higher AC, that threatens every civilization (interested in keeping a low AC, anyway). Could make the Armageddon idea more involving and the overcouncil, even a necessity in the face of massive destruction. If evil civs were allowed to participate in it, it could give them a clear reason to refuse them, aside from the cost involved in passing those resolutions.

 

[Ahwaric]

Some great ideas in here

Especially MC great insight (and ideas) on Undercouncil.
I really like the council projects - if only someone would code it for me

Population votes are nice idea, but I am ok with the current system. I also think that at least overcouncil would prefer to go with one vote for one member (except chalid etc.) route - so that everyone is equal.

I do not like forcing civics - and I have removed forcing liberty (was it liberty?) from overcouncil votes. Banning i.e. slavery would be great for overcouncil (but requires SDK change I think). I am not sure Undercouncil would care much for your civics, everything important goes behind the scenes anyway But would probably support guilds and slavery.
Buying votes is just great - in case there are any resolutions worth buying.

 

[Mylon]

Some great ideas in here

Especially MC great insight (and ideas) on Undercouncil.
I really like the council projects - if only someone would code it for me

Population votes are nice idea, but I am ok with the current system. I also think that at least overcouncil would prefer to go with one vote for one member (except chalid etc.) route - so that everyone is equal.

I do not like forcing civics - and I have removed forcing liberty (was it liberty?) from overcouncil votes. Banning i.e. slavery would be great for overcouncil (but requires SDK change I think). I am not sure Undercouncil would care much for your civics, everything important goes behind the scenes anyway But would probably support guilds and slavery.
Buying votes is just great - in case there are any resolutions worth buying.

I suppose I could tackle this as my next project. Ideally, I'd like to see project ideas which have a fixed benefit. That is, a benefit that would not scale with empire size. Thus, a larger empire would pay more than a smaller empire, but the smaller empire would see a larger percentage gain from the project. Add in this with possibly the ability to delay the council vote by a turn and add some diplomacy options (ala SMAC) and we might have a much better council system on our hands.

 

[Gelvan]

has anyone tried to make the changes Magister Cultuum has proposed?

what do these figures mean?
<iPopulationThreshold>50</iPopulationThreshold>
<bCityVoting>0</bCityVoting>
<bCivVoting>1</bCivVoting>
<iMinVoters>2</iMinVoters>
<iStateReligionVotePercent>0</iStateReligionVotePercent>

let's say I want to make a vote which is based on city. I suppose I have to change the cityvoting to one and the civvoting to zero, but what has to be written on minvoters and population threshold?

sorry if these questions sound stupid, but I really have now clue

 

[Pazyryk]

Undercouncil votes should be based on money.

1. Vote size proportional to treasury (there should be some incentive for this anyway, beyond just for Khazak).

Or 2. After you vote (maybe in a popup screen that immediately follows), you have the option to put some cash behind your vote.