Poll: Would you like to see a return of the senate

The_Aussie_Lurker · September 3, 2002, 01:54

Hi Everyone,

I know I've brought this up before, but I thought I'd put it in the context of a Poll, so I can gauge "public opinion" on this issue.
For my part, I liked the concept of the senate in Civ2, but disliked how it was implemented (too random!) What I would like to see is the reintroduction of the Senate, but with some Civ3-specific features, which would make it less random in nature.
Like Civ2, the primary role of the senate would be in Diplomacy. Whether the senate attempts to oppose your will on diplomacy will depend primarily on your Civs characteristics.
For instance, the senates of militaristic and expansionist civs will tend to oppose formal peace treaties with newly encountered civs-unless they want an RoP or declaration of war on a 3rd party, oppose the ceasation of wars and try to get you to declare war on other nations. They will also urge you to adopt an aggressive tone in any negotiations.
The senates of Religious and Commercial Civs, on the other hand, will push for peace treaties and try to end existing wars as much as possible. They will urge you to take a concillatory tone in negotiations, and will urge you to make trade and/or MPP agreements.
Lastly, the senates of industrious and scientific civs can go either way, with the prevailing mood being decided by the civs Secondary characteristics (militaristic, commercial, etc).
These characterisics would also effect what types of trade deals the senate will push for!
For example, "military/expansionist" senates will push for cities/units, gpt and maps.
"Comercial/religious" senates, on the other hand, will push for luxuries, communications and gpt.
"Industrious" senates will seek strategic resources, shields/turn (see below) and technologies.
Scientific senates will push for techs, science pacts (see below) and communications.
Obviously these attitudes would not be set in stone, but would be modified according to other criteria, including:
1) International reputation of other Civ.
2) Similar cultural type (Asian, European etc).
3) Major differences in size and/or cultural, economic, military or technological strength.
4) War Weariness.
5) The government of the other Civ (i.e. non-democratic governments will be frowned on, other democratic governments will be more favoured).
Things would get interesting when you have more unusual combinations of civ traits. For example, a civ with Commercial/Militaristic traits might normally be quite peaceful, but the senate may be quick to urge a war with another civ if you don't recieve an acceptable trade agreement from them (probably hoping for a quick, decisive war, leading to a better negotiating position!) Another possibility might be a Religious/Militaristic or Religious/Expansionist civ, whose senate might urge you to go to war with Civs that have a different culture to yours (citing "religious differences"!)
The way I'd envisage the senate acting would be 3-fold.
1) The Senate can declare war/sign peace behind your back (though you may veto them in the same turn)
2) When you make an offer to another civ, a pop-up box would appear if the senate does not approve of your deal (the box would say "Senate is trying to block this agreement). Again you can veto this decision by pressing the "Veto" button on the pop-up.
3) In the diplomatic screen, their could be a "Senate" button. When you press it, the senate's preferred settlement will appear on the negotiating table!
If you veto or ignore the senate's attempts to block you three times (non-consecutively) then you would trigger anarchy and have to form a new government.
Obviously, if this idea were to work to it's fullest extent, I'd like to see the following new ideas in the game:
1) As in Civ2, the U.N should allow you to veto the senate on peace/war issues 50% of the time, without counting towards your 3-time limit.
2) Civil War! Senate dissolution should not only lead to anarchy, but also serve as a potential trigger for civil war
3) More diplomatic options, such as science pacts, units trading, multilateral deals, protectorates and full alliances.
4) The ability to "vector" food and production shields to any city or civ on your trade network (this might allow you to sell food for gold or shields for gold and vice-versa to represent commodity trading!)
5) The ability to "vector" finished improvements/units to other cities, allowing you to build units/improvements in one city and have them shipped to another city.

Anyway, there you have it. I look forward to hearing what other people think and, if you have any of your own ideas on how the senate should work, I'd be glad to hear it!
Sorry for such a long post!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Tiberius · September 3, 2002, 02:46

You have some good ideas, Aussie_Lurker

If the senate came back, I'd like them not only to be more useful (and you gave us a few ideas how it could be done) but also to keep their funny attitude.

WarpStorm · September 3, 2002, 06:50

One assumption it seems you are making is that religious and commercial civs want peace. I don't think that history bears this assumption out.

Overall, not a bad idea though.

des-esseintes · September 3, 2002, 08:42

Bleh. The senate's role is already depicted realistically enough by War Weariness (Good consequences from being attacked, bad consequences from attacking - you have to think twice before attacking a civ.)

Example. If you asked a senator on sept. 1st, 2001: "Hey man, would you vote "yes" if GwB asked you to go to war with Afghanistan?" What do you think he would answer? And less than a week after sept 11th (the "first strike" in civ terms) the Senate not only had their qualms about attacking Afghanistan removed, they even passed a bill that gives gwb and his hawks near-dictatorial rights.

Civ1 was bad enough. In that game you could never attack a civ unless provoked, and if the agressor asked for peace you had to accept, no matter how much suffering he had given you.

I haven't played civ2, but from what i read here it seems that you could go to war 50% of the time (...?) which is even worse than never being able to go to war, and much more unrealistic.

I have to agree with bush admin on this 1... screw the senate

dunk · September 3, 2002, 10:03

I like your ideas. A couple suggestions.

I don't think the Senate should be able to sign treaties behind your back. If you oppose the Senate in any way, unhappiness in your empire should increase in varying degrees depending on the disagreement. If it's over war, the result should be more drastic than if it is over a trade agreement.

WarpStorm · September 3, 2002, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by dunk
If it's over war, the result should be more drastic than if it is over a trade agreement.

Why? People get pretty riled up when they think their money is being affected.

Galvatron · September 3, 2002, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
One assumption it seems you are making is that religious and commercial civs want peace. I don't think that history bears this assumption out.

Yes I agree with you: Religion was always a strong factor for wars (think of the Crusades or the terrorist attacks nowadays). Furthermore the Commercial fraction will always push for war the same goes for the industrial one (they want to see all their bombs get used so they can produce new ones) and the scientific one (science always gets important in war time--> new weapons). As of course WW II was a really tragic event it also boosted the field of science in many ways as in these years more new accomplishments were made than in all the years before so in my opinion: a war always will boost science.

Back on topic: I voted no because I'm more or less a warmonger and I always disliked the naughty senate signing treaties and hamper me in realizing my expansion planes in not let me declaring war (I always build the UN as soon as possible to get rid of them so I could do what a like best: being at war with the whole world) I'm more than happy that these guys are gone forever and they should stay away.

Inverse Icarus · September 3, 2002, 10:57

i don't play as a Republic / Democracy often enough to give a fair reply.

the few times that i did play as them, war weariness (especiall in dem) was more than enough to stop me from declaring war until i was ready.

plus, a senate would give YET ANOTHER benefir to religious civs. Switch to communism, declare war, switch back to Dem. blah blah blah.

Traelin · September 3, 2002, 11:10

Nah I say leave the Senate out. I envision a clickfest occurring when the Senate disagrees with you and you continually hit the "Veto" button. Not to mention that fact that the Senate is needed to declare war (at least in the US), and quite frankly I want to be the leader of my Civ.

I honestly feel the reason the Senate was removed is because we as the human players are acting as the leaders of our Civs. We are the dealmakers and dealbreakers, and we don't just represent the leader image. That is, we as the players represent the ENTIRE government, albeit in a watered-down fashion.

Kangy · September 3, 2002, 16:27

Absoloutely not!

I go to war waay to much to have a senate pushing me around, tellin' me what to do!

Leave 'em out.

Hagbart · September 3, 2002, 16:55

I don't like the Senate, it's more fun being a dictator.

Q Classic · September 4, 2002, 09:46

i like being a democratic dictator. the senate sucked arse in civ2, when it strung my hands around my back... oy.

but i do like those ideas.

dunk · September 4, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm

Why? People get pretty riled up when they think their money is being affected.

And even more so when they feel their lives are being affected.

TheStinger · September 4, 2002, 11:11

No i think war weariness is a much better substitute

hetairoi22 · September 4, 2002, 12:28

I would like the senate if: it doesn't have any direct control and doesn't make any agreements with foreign civs. They are only able to advise you, and maybe turn the populace against you if you don't do what the "people" (read: senators)" say.

Firebird · September 4, 2002, 16:18

No, we do not need the senate. Boy, did I hate when those pesky doves blocked my war against the evil ____ when I was just about to take the strategical very important city of ____.

Please, fill in the blancs.

Firebird · September 4, 2002, 16:21

I could however be persuaded if the senate could be turned off via an option.

I just love options

neonext · September 5, 2002, 03:37

yes, options are never a bad thing

Gangerolf · September 5, 2002, 08:29

the senate was one of the most annoying things in civ1&2. pissed me off

hetairoi22 · September 5, 2002, 10:18

In Civ2 they were definitively to powerfull! If they are to be in they should have fewer powers. Maybe they could represent different cities and give advise on what that city needs etc...?

dunk · September 5, 2002, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
No i think war weariness is a much better substitute

That's what I suggested. Just, if you go against the Senate, your people become more war weary than now. If the Senate, and therefore your people, agree with your war, then war weariness is lessened.

Panag · September 6, 2002, 13:41

hi ,

it should be back , with the option to be turned on and off , ....

and it should be more advanced , inovated and it should be usefull , ....

have a nice day

N. Machiavelli · September 6, 2002, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by dunk

That's what I suggested. Just, if you go against the Senate, your people become more war weary than now. If the Senate, and therefore your people, agree with your war, then war weariness is lessened.

I'll agree with that. It's certainly a decent Civ3 application of the Senate. Would republics and democracies then need an additional bonus to offset this potential handicap?