Galactic Senate


#1

Here’s a flat-out crazy idea. I understand this may involve too much new stuff rather than the typical tweaks to existing systems… but hear me out…

What if there were a whole new system where players in a game would get to vote on Galactic Policy. “Galactic Policy” could be anything: Maybe a limit on weapons tech levels, maybe making specific types of infrastructure cheaper or more expensive, maybe vote for No Warp Gates, …or anything else that could be tweaked in the options settings. Or that brand-new ship limit on systems, have players in a game vote on it in that specific game. And of course, anything could be changed by future votes!

This system could add more to the diplomatic game by having each players’ vote count, and thus when you are going to propose a vote it will be really important to have spoken with the other players to gain their support. Or those opposed could promise whatever they want in private communications to get your proposal voted down.

I see a few options for votes: Either give each player 1 vote, or have it somehow tied to size of empire. MAYBE introduce a new technology called “diplomacy” or something to give your empire extra votes.

I would imagine some limit should be placed on how many issues can be brought to the Galactic Senate each cycle, or when the Galactic Senate should form (it would make more sense after a few cycles in a game rather than right from day 1, after civilizations have expanded and met each other).

Perhaps this could open new avenues of victory, like a Diplomatic Victory in some RTS games by having 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place spots voted on.

I think it’d be Awesome.


#2

1… I think this could be a fun idea pre-game while waiting for players to join the game.
the settings could be continually modified until game begins.

2… I also think it would be good idea for the game to not begin immediately when all players have join and fill up the game, but should delay 24 hours or some designated agreed upon time to start.

There should be sufficient time for early joiners to receive their notification email
so that players all know when the paused game will be expected to start running.

2.A. It is unfair that the last player who joins has an advantage studying his strategic situation and giving orders, when the early joiners might not be aware that the “waiting to start” is past.

2.B. It would also be unfair to the last player who joins to not have sufficient time to vote in the Galactic Senate on the game settings.

3… IMHO, I believe that once the game begins, most of the game settings should not be altered.
It could be unfair manipulation of the game settings that give an advantage to one alliance or another.
The game settings should be consistent through most of the game for the sake of fairness.


#3

I don’t think this is diplomacy. Voting in an assembly creates a legal limit, not a technical one. You can ‘forbid’ one (or every) player to develop Weapons 9, but you can’t prevent him (them) to overstep your ban.


#4

Hey, I didn’t comment on this yesterday but I just wanted to chime in and let you know I do think this is a cool idea and have been seriously think about something along the same lines.

I used to enjoy a trading card game called V:TES which had a voting mechanic that was cool.

I think something like this would fit well with vibe of NP.