I want the Senate back!! - with improvements

[MagisterMilitum]

This is a big one, but I have to elaborate....

The Senate, and the control it exerted over the Leader`s foreign policy, its sensitivity towards it was one of the main aspects of the Republican form of Government on CIVII. That (Republic) was much the opposite to Monarchy or an Absolute Government, where your rule was uncheked and as such, you could push for an agressive foreign policy, investing heavily on the military in detriment to civil works, and geting away with it, since it took 2 or 3 units to impose martial law and crush civil disorder, besides the restricted liberty being inherent to the regime.

But if this very nature of Absolute governments favored the Civ`s initial expansion through military means, also it would affect the maintenance of its established position due to the high levels of corruption, limited economic growth (shields) and slow cientific research.

Compared to it, a Republican regime offered higher and faster production and growth, faster cientific research, a limited rate of corruption and higher tax revenues. However, it restricted an agressive foreign policy, forcing the Leader to decide to cancel or avoid military compromises to other CIVs which might lead to war; in a Republic, a war he/she might not be able to conduct to the desired end, because of a peace treaty or cease-fire imposed by the Senate.

As such, even if the Leader choose to "un-bury the hatchet", declaration of war on other CIVs, on the continuance of it against the CIVs main enemy would be subjected to deliberation by the Senate, where you could hope the "Hawk-party to derail interference" or the passing of a "resolution authorazing the action".

And thats what made playing a Republic the more fun! You had to balance that what you wanted with a Senate who might refuse to give it to you. And I think this particularity of CIVII should come back to CIVIII, and more, it should be perfected. For example:

_like the Senate having a say on the tax rate you want to impose or in the scientific advance you have to choose to research or even the limit of military forces (units) of your CIVs Order of Battle, having the power to disband units.

_and the leader too, influencing the Senate`s decisions with bribes or public works on the most important cities-for a Republic is a Federation of City-States, with every City having its own representation through a Senator with a vote, the bigger cities having more votes, with stronger Senators- and also, your alliances or peace treaties with other CIVs being subject to ratification and approval by the Senate.

The voting system could be like this:
Cities size 16 or more - 4 votes
size 12 - 3 votes
size 08 - 2 votes
size 06 - 1 vote
size 05 or lower - no vote, without representation

the city`s/ senator`s vote could be achieved by:

-building specific public work - vote for 8 turns
-building small wonder - vote for 20 turns
-building Big wonder - vote guaranteed till the wonder gets obsolete

Also, the Leader could buy the vote, in this case
-vote for 2 turns and increase of 25% corruption and waste in the city

the corruption would be attenuated by a court house, but with it, it would be harder or more expensive to buy a vote

if discovered, the treasury would loose the value paid for the vote, the value of the bribery-as compensation to the public coffers;
the city would loose 1 vote, if size 8 or highter, if size 6, the vote would be always negative; or bribery could happen only in cities size 8 or higher

and the more briberies are discovered, the Leader permanently looses votes from other cities, until the Republic collapses, government falls and anarchy reigns. And you cant have another Republic for some 30 turns.

Well, anyway this is just an idea, like so many others that came. In short, my message is: I WANT THE SENATE BACK, THE SENATE IS FUN TO PLAY WITH, I guess other CIV players think like me, I wouldnt be surprised if a thread like this hasnt shown up before.
Comment, replies, out-raged bursts of indignation, just answer to this thread.

P.S.: If "The return of the Senate" happens to have a good answer, can we tell the Infopatchers to work this out on the next version? Can they do it? Will they? Has an idea that came from these Forums been incorporated in the game before? Anyway, as im not a computer programer could this be put in the game? As a patch?

[Inverse Icarus]

i never liked those whiney ass b1tches that told me i can't declare war... but then again i almost never use a democracy in civ3...

[Coracle]

I'd like the Senate back - only if I have the option to declare martial law and shoot Tom Daschle.

[Jethro83]

Why would you want a bunch of wimps running your country and conspiring behind your back to end a war? I remember being at war in Civ II, losing a city and then the senate sign a ceasefire, even though I had the troops necessary and ready to retake the city. Its as if they don't give a damn about the people oppressed by the foreign power from halfway across the world. And here I am trying to hold an empire that spans across the whole continent, and the senate says I can't shoot the invaders that aren't even from my part of the world.

Despite this, there is some potential for the idea of a senate. As long as they are simply involved in civilian affairs, and have no power over your military deployment.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Coracle
I'd like the Senate back - only if I have the option to declare martial law and shoot Tom Daschle.

Making threats against an elected leader in the United States is a federal offense. The Marshal's will be at your door soon. Go with them quietly.

[MagisterMilitum]

Quoting:

i never liked those whiney ass b1tches that told me i can't declare war... but then again i almost never use a democracy in civ3...

UberKruX
_______________________
Why would you want a bunch of wimps running your country and conspiring behind your back to end a war? I remember being at war in Civ II, losing a city and then the senate sign a ceasefire, even though I had the troops necessary and ready to retake the city. Its as if they don't give a damn about the people oppressed by the foreign power from halfway across the world. And here I am trying to hold an empire that spans across the whole continent, and the senate says I can't shoot the invaders that aren't even from my part of the world.

LordAzreal
________________________

About UberKruX:

But thats the point! A Republic is carachterized by the lack of absolute power in the hands of the CIV`s Leader. It comes with the fact that to achieve its performance in economic growth and scientific research, there`s this greater, far greater independence of the people, the cities from the ruler, which is exemplified by the existence of this independent Senate.

About LordAzreal:

Also, as I was explaining in the text, development of a CIV from an absolute form of government into a Republic should come after the CIV has consolidated its territory and has no appetite for more lands to conquer.

That the Senate would go chicken and grant a cease-fire and then peace as LordAzreal pointed out I agree that its something that had to be worked out more, hence I want the Senate back, but with improvements.

[ChaingKaiShek]

I'd have to say that I agree here. It would be nice if at least ONE government in Civ3 was subject to the 'evil' senate. Although it could be a pain at times it did add fun to gameplay to know that you would be unable to do certain things because the Senate would overrule them.

But there would have to be changes. Like a 'grace period' where the leader of a country has x number of turns to play out his conquest before the senate can pull the plug. Much like in our country (US anyway) where the president has absolute power if he wishes to wage war, etc without the approval of the house and senate for 30 days? (or was it 60?) reguardless that would be a fun little safeguard to put in as to keep it from being TOO restrictive.

Also they'd have to add the option to dissolve the Senate - for when those whimpering little politicians stabbed you in the back one too many times.

They also need to add CEASE FIRE agreements along with full peace agreements! maybe you dont want to make peace with someone, but you want them to quit hurling units at you endlessly? heh

Chaing

[ACooper]

They also need to add CEASE FIRE agreements along with full peace agreements! maybe you dont want to make peace with someone, but you want them to quit hurling units at you endlessly? heh

Cease fire is a definate need for diplomacy.

About the Senate, I don't miss it much. I feel it was more pain than it was worth. When I play Civ I want to be a god. (That's how the original Civ was marketed) I want to direct and lead. I don't the Senate telling me a can't kick someone's @$$.

[Thrawn05]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

No senate. This is THE number one reason I would take civ3 over any other civ game.

I'm not going to sit there, while UberKruX stations troopers on every tile around my capital, and not be able to kill them. If that's not a threat, I don't know what is!

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by ACooper


Making threats against an elected leader in the United States is a federal offense. The Marshal's will be at your door soon. Go with them quietly.

Cooper, are you like..a thought policeman?

Just doing what you can to provide a clean and wholesome internet experience?

Also, is it possible to post anything on any subject anywhere at anytime that you will not object to in someway, shape or form?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Cooper, are you like..a thought policeman?

Just doing what you can to provide a clean and wholesome internet experience?

Also, is it possible to post anything on any subject anywhere at anytime that you will not object to in someway, shape or form?

Sorry. Probably not. Keep tryin'.

[Grrr]

No thanks. I have always hated the senate.

[Random Passerby]

My main complaint against the senate was that the AI civs always seemed to be able to ignore it. I'd scarcely be able to force a war, but AI republics seemed to happily attack at will.

[Grrr]

The AI cheats. Live with it. It is not as if Firaxis will make a proper AI that doesn't.

[Cyclotron]

A senate would be a good idea if it weren't so brainless as the one in Civ2. The Civ2 senate based its decisions only on blind chance, and the 100% for peace attitude of a democracy doesn't reflect any realistic country. Ever heard of the gulf of Tonkin resolution?

I would love a senate with some sense, working on the same basic ideas as war weariness. Still, we need some randomness thrown in, because you can never fully predict government.

Also, is it possible to post anything on any subject anywhere at anytime that you will not object to in someway, shape or form?

I'm surprised that you haven't yet mentioned that to your running dog Coracle, for whom ACooper's quote was meant for. He may be testing a new theory that Coracle only responds to threats against his person with the authority of the US government, rather than logic that most of us understand and accept as reasonable people.

[I Am Jeff]

If you were to make a senate it needs to be smart. It can not just go around making cease-fires and peace treaties. If you were in a senate and an enemy power continualy broke treaties and were aggressive to you, would you vote to continue to ask for cease fires, in many different encounters? If you are a powerful civ you would give in to threats or make the enemy feel your wrath to make sure he does not threaten you again. If you felt you needed expansion to keep security for your country or get resources so you would not be dependent on other nations. You would declare war if you thought you could win.

This means a senate would have to have certain objects when it decides to agree to war. It also needs to realize when it should continue a war and not stop half-way thought it. It also needs to realize when war should not be declared. No government stops a war it started unless it has achieved its goals, feels it has been beaten and wants to stop while they are not totaly destroyed, or finaly stop because you do not exist.

I know a few times in US history where Congress encouraged war, which was the Mexican war, the war with Spain, and the war of 1812. In all of these wars, the US declared war on the other country 1st or forced the other country to declare war on them because of the circumstances. I do not need to go into details on US history, so i will not explain the details. The fact of the matter is that in those three cases the Congress wanted land, whether it be Canada, California, or caribean islands. War should be easily declared in a senate when there are clear goals for the war. If you decided to beat up on the little country for exapansion, strategic positions, or a resource, a senate should approve it most of the time. Big wars were common, pre-modern era.

I think with a republican/democratic government it should be easy to declare war before the UN and harder afterwards because of international scrutiny. No one really cared if Big Country X hurt small country Y as long as it did not effect Big Country Z. However in a modern world, if a country were to invade another, it would an international disaster unless there was a solid reason. Would the world like it if the US decided to invade mexico tommarow? Would the US citizens like it? NO, because there is no reason to declare war on a long time friend.

The senate would also have to understand that it should be more easy to declare war on a long time enemy, then a long time friend.

Right now what keeps a repbulican/democratic government in check is war weariness. That is basically your country telling you to stop the war. However I think it would add to the game if they could add this diplomatic stuff, it would really add to the modern age where it does lack, at least for me. Plus it would add something to do besides micromanaging stuff.

In sumation a senate would be very enjoyable and could add to the game, along with a revamped UN wonder, the modern era needs something.

[Trevman]

NO SENATE

There is no point in playing a game where you cannot even control it. That's why games exist. We cannot control the world; we don't won't the same in a game.

[dunk]

I think the Senate can exist. But, in a different way. Imagine this... The Senate says to you (leader) "We have passed a resolution stating that we want an end to war with CIV X on (favorable/neutral/unfavorable) terms." Now, you have a choice here. End the war and comply with the Senate or continue the war and push war weariness through the roof, disable the draft, risk a revolution (simply anarchy for X turns) where you get put back as leader, risk deserting troops, foreign relations go down the toilet, other civs more likely to help your foe.

Now, if your Senate wants a peace with favorable terms, that means you can wage war until your opponent caves and gives you something along with a peace treaty. Neutral means the Senate wants just a peace treaty or the other civ to give stuff. Unfavorable means the Senate is willing to accept making payments to the enemy.

Good idea eh?

[MagisterMilitum]

I think democratic or republican governments should have more inter-action with the the player and vice-versa, I guess theres only war wearines doing that. The kind and level of interaction can be elaborated in many-a-ways.

[nbarclay]

(1) I definitely do NOT want a senate that behaves stupidly; that's one area where I don't want the game to be too realistic.

(2) I think Soren and company have better things they can do with their time than trying to figure out how to make a senate smart enough not to be excessively annoying.

So while in principle, a well-enough implemented senate might be a worthwhile addition (assuming Civ players could agree on what constitutes "well-implemented"), in practice, I'm perfectly happy without it.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ACooper

Making threats against an elected leader in the United States is a federal offense. The Marshal's will be at your door soon. Go with them quietly.

Making threats may be illegal, but engaging in wishful thinking out loud is a constitutionally protected rightl.

Nathan

[PhoenixPhlame73]

rightl???? what is this "rightl"???

[Cyclotron]

It's like left, but more to the side.

[steelehc]

I think rightl is closer to leftl then left. Note the "l"s after each word.

I hated the senate in Civ2. Especially when the AI would attack me, and then after I landed a huge army in the AIs territory, they would ask for, and be given a cease fire, and peace treaty.

Steele

[Gatekeeper]

Can anyone explain why the cease-fire option in Civ II was removed from the diplomatic options in Civ III? Was it some sort of way to "simplify" the game again? Sheesh.

Gatekeeper

[Skanky Burns]

Probably because the same functionality can be achieved by making a temporary peace treaty - and then not renewing it after 20 turns.

[Jest]

NO STINKIN SENATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!