Played a bit and I think it's a very solid start to a game, given it's still in alpha.
Based on what I've seen I don't know whether there will be anything to determine the style of government/senate/political parties. It would be great if it has, as I like to see some the 'internal' political aspect (I enjoy the 'external' aka Diplomacy too) but rarely found one with a good depth. I think its a good addition to the game that can add a level of challenges, especially to the big dominating empires. Here's my 2 cents (if not happenning, please ignore this, I just like to get this off my chest)
Rather than cookie cutter government structure (republic, democracy ...), I suggest it can be controlled by levers (policies decisions/legislation)
This is probably too complex to work, but I just want to get it off my chest. Hope it still got a bit of merits.
Thanks for you time.
I can tell you put a lot of thought into this, but as a Galactic Dictator I'm not sure why I should want a constitution. I don't want votes, power checks, or regulations regarding my terror star program, military build-up, or the subsequent instantaneous annihilation of a minor race.
While this would be great in a simulator, it's unnecessary in a TBS like Galactic Civilizations where this is all abstracted or ignored. There's already a lot of stuff going already that can strain even the best player's abilities on larger maps, and adding this much 'minutiae' without much cause beyond 'just because' would break the game in my opinion. I'm all for depth and complexity, but it needs to serve a meaningful role and hot be a hassle.
Maybe in the future when we're all transhumans with millions of times the intelligence of our present-day selves this will be done :3
As much as I hope this becomes true, I think it will require more than an increase in intelligence. Human nature itself will need to be modified.
Who knows? Maybe with a technology singularity and the disappearance of ignorance and inequality things will work out for the best.
Or we'll destroy the Earth or something.
One of those two.
I sort of liked how simple politics worked in Galciv2. Choose a party and try to keep it in control of the senate. Bonus if you do, penalty if you don't.
If Stardock beefs things up in Galciv3, that would be awesome! I'm all in favor of getting a little more in depth, but what you (Cheunggkl) suggest seems pretty heavy. Don't get me wrong - it looks neat, and you obviously know your stuff. It just seems a little much for what I want out of Galactic Civilizations.
I'd like to see some kind of tug of war between the player and the planetary governments. Something like the crown authority in CK2 where higher crown authority gets you more soldiers but pisses off your vassals.
I think what you are describing OP, is a great political simulator, but a game unto itself. Dealing with internal politics in that level of detail would really distract from the core gameplay of GalCiv III. I would totally play the game you are describing though, as long as that was the focus of the game.
Sound like this would make a great political game all by itself.
I think having all of that is too ambitious. Some internal politics would be great, though.
Depending on government type, you could have a couple of pseudo-players representing your internal politics. This would work especially well if you can research/build things in parallel.
With a dictatorship, you control 100% of the budget, all of the time. Of course, from time to time, you'll need to put down a rebellion or shoot a too-ambitious underling...
With a democracy, you control on average 75% of the budget, and the rest must be spent to please voters (who of course have different values in different civilizations). If they feel threatened, you get a mandatory defense budget to spend on ships and military starbases, if they feel bored, they'll declare you must build a certain number of morale-boosting planetary improvements, etc. You have two or three political opponents with defined personalities, and if a planet is particularly dissatisfied, a rival party will take it over for a couple of turns to enact their own agenda - though you still can build on that planet - for your own money...
With a federation, you control 50% of the budget, and the rest is spent by the ruler of each planet in the federation, according to each planet's needs. It's easier to get an alien planet to join a federation, since they're more autonomous - but your planets will have a higher tendency to secede, when they're dissatisfied with your rule.
With an anarchy, you control 25% of the budget through the sheer power of your charisma (you're a rockstar or megacorp director or something), and the rest is spent pseudo-randomly, according to population desires.
By way of compensation, the more fiddly government types would get bigger commerce bonuses or cost less in the editor, so they'd be balanced compared to more centrally controlled civs.
Your civ could also come with a number of megacorporation pseudo-players, depending on where your civilization stands on the free-market-Vs-communism spectra. Ship-builders, bankers, pirates... They'd be less planet-bound, maybe spreading franchises to alien planets and eclipsing your own power...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
