I know that, having picked them, all the Races in the game I'm playing are going to exist and that I should meet them at some point.
Therefore it's logical I can't have diplomacy with a Race I have yet to say Howdy to.
But it's not logical that although I have yet to met the Drengin, I can see they are part of the UP and that they have 22% influence. If I know that then it makes sense I should know how they have that 22% - planets, influence blah blah - and if we're going to have access to that information, we may as well have Diplomacy from the get-go, which therefore makes a lot of the early Governance Techs - Universal Translater etc meaningless. If I'm only getting this because I'm playing Terran and I have this as a gift, then the Terran should at Turn 1 get Universal Translater and a couple of other Techs in the Governance Techs tree Researched so they know the reasons for the Dregin's 22% power in the UP.
Whatever the reason, it's a bit of a weird middle point approach to starting Race Knowledge for me as it now stands.
I think all information should be clouded/dark until you actually come across a Race's planet or ship. At least for now until you developer folk confirm Race Abilities etc etc.
And maybe a kind of penalty at the start where at Turn 1 you don't start as a member of the UP until you meet another Race and that Race Invites/Nominates you. It makes sense if the Race's Relations with you are good (and because they genuinely like you, not because of those 4 Lost Cutters you found and they're actually scared of your superior military.) This would discourage being an evil warmonger from the get-go and encourage patience, grasshopper before unleashing aforesaid evil warmongering.
Cheers and thanks for all the hard work.
But how do you know of other races w/ like ideology? You're right back to square 1, I would be fine with multiple UP's if someone can suggest a good reason to keep it from spiraling out of control to many small UP's. There needs to be a way to eventually consolidate them
Because as races can introduce other races we haven't met according to you. Then having them join the ideology UP (because it would be cool to have one) will be just as simple.
Honestly the idea multiple UPs is not working out and adds a confusing layer to the game. The "friend of a friend" method seem like the best way to get more race in the UP faster.
DARCA ;- )
Exactly, I would be all for it if someone could come with a good suggestion that didn't raise more questions.
Two thoughts:1) Players or AI can choose or not choose to start in the UP, if they choose to start alone they have to be invited in (or apply in the case of the player), and that gets voted on.
2) For the big games, 2 or 3 possible UP's, even simply a rebellious UP that breaks away from the main group sounds quite fun, trying to get races out of one and into the other, also it would naturally define itself by ideology, because different ideologies would invite their friends there? Which is why 3 might make a good fit.
As a side note I still don't see any relationship penalties or bonuses by ideology which I thought odd. Bonuses would make sense at least, so races do tend to group together, before the inevitiable betrayal if you are evil
-edit
I missed some of the comments on this page, but I've yet to see anything not working or working? Nobodies really discussed it. How is adding a group confusing?
Confusing may be the bad word to use. Here are all my thoughts on multiple UP's...
What is the point of a Galactic Council if a half or two thirds of the races aren't part of it?
Think of the UP as the UN, the UN has many countries many of which do not see eye to eye (example China, Russia, US, France) Why is it so hard to believe that there would be only 1?
I can respect the options to have a second or third UP trying to start up, however, then you get into all sorts of other diplomatic issues. Would there be trade options between the different UP's or other restrictions?
Other Questions that come up, If you want to be a part of UP A then you can not communicate with any UP B race unless through UP diplomacy? As if you're communicating you could be seen as a spy or traitor? If you look in the diplomacy screen would you only have members to your UP in there?
This is why I support 1 UP at this stage of this conversation.
It's an organization of many races in the Galaxy designed to help give some sort of order to chaos. This helps provide general guidelines to the races even if not everyone always agrees to it.
Some races may not agree with it and stand alone, however, then they don't get any bonus's from the UP, they are free though to do their own alliances, treaties, and so on to attempt to offset this.
More than 1 UP's tend to defeat this purpose and then essentially turns more into a group of several alliances versus a larger overseeing party which is what the UP is.
This is Why I would think about changing my mind to more than 1 UP.
Larger Galaxies with 100 races, it may be forever before you would be come aware of this. (Argument: If your race isn't large enough to run into a race that's part of the UP or for you to start it on your own, you most likely aren't large enough to really matter)
Opens up extra options depth to the game. (True but, also creates more divisions in the galaxy)
I don't want to barge in on the conversation, but I think it's worth noting that Galciv2 had this option; it allowed finer granularity by selecting starting relations per-civ, whereas a single option to show all races at game start might be appreciated by some players, myself included. As long as it's optional it shouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately on reflection an option box would be best for this option.
Consider a very large game of let's say 30 races.That's still 10 races per UP, sharing diplomatic exchanges. This is what I am thinking about. not a huge galaxy with 6 races in it, but excessive, or insane with 30. The point of it is to allow rival or competing groups to form, and allow the player the chance to run his own for example.
Because there isn't in real life.Here are a few dozen:http://www.un.org/depts/los/Links/IGO-links.htm
Trade isn't effected as it is a separate mechanic, unless someone passes a vote which is a nice touch.
Diplomatic contact isn't effected as it is a separate mechanic.
Divisions in the galaxy along ideology should exist in a war strategy game, this just enhances it if you are fed up with the current UP
Should I have contact with some races I'll never meet? No sorry that doesn't make sense either the more I think about it.
You want to run your own, get elected in. Leaving because you aren't the leader doesn't make you a better person or leader, it makes you a cry baby (lack of a better term). I'm still not saying it wouldn't work, I'm just saying how do you divide the power? How do you determine why UP A can give you a class 14 planet but UP B can give you a class 18?
Yes there are many organizations out there that do various different things, however, the UN is a general governing guideline which is more similar to the UP than any of the other world organizations. Most of the others are trade treaties or communication, farming, health, ect... So therefore there is still only 1.
True, however, if you start opening the option up for more than 1 UP then you start bringing these questions up. Put it this way if you had two groups of competing companies would you want one of those companies talking to one or more of the companies which you are competing against? The answer is no, unless they had specific reasons to do so that the rest of the group was aware of (transparency). Otherwise you would be thinking why are they really working/communicating with them?
Alliances are different from the UP, being part of the UP doesn't prevent two races in the UP from going to war or having separate alliances groups inside of it that are trying to gain power. An example here is the US party lines, you see that Democrats/Republicans are always fighting for who has power, sometimes a third party will get in but those are the main ones with power right now.
There is one main group the United Nations that tackles general governing guidelines. The others that you referred to on the link above were climate/trade/interstellar groups.
I'm not saying that alliances may not exist along these lines, however, look at it this way, Race A is a powerful "good" race but is on the opposite side of the galaxy from the other "good" races, does that mean that they may not form an alliance with several moderate races that are sharing their borders? The answer from a governing standpoint is "no" it would be dumb not to seek out relations with the neighboring races. So the whole standpoint of having alliances/UP's based along ideology lines does not fly. Alliances should be able to form along many variables depending on the situation. The UP should just be a general oversight committee that you may not always agree with. If you don't approve, kill the races that are making it unbearable After all the UP doesn't restrict war, it may frown upon it depending on the UP measure passed or prevent it for a number of turns.
Now an amendment to my original proposal I would add that if Race B leaves the UP (specifically to colonize planets or go to war when prevented or for whatever reason) They should have the opportunity to re-apply or given the option to rejoin the UP at a later time. They may have penalties ect but, then again they may invite them in with open arms depending on the situation.
That's why I say that once you're a part of the UP, you become aware of them, if you're not a part of it then you should only be aware of the races you have met.
The crybaby label is meaningless. I am not even sure what point you are intending to make with it, other than to get me to reply with a label in kind.You might leave for strategic reasons.You might leave because your powershare is too small to have an impact.You might leave so you have a better chance of running a different group.You might leave because the current laws are too strict for you.You might want diplomatic isolation from some of the races involved.
etc, etc.
Now to the other point. You are overcomplicating the idea in almost all you've said so far, it's very simple.Group 1 has one set of laws.Group 2 has another.Group 3 has another.That's it. That's the only mechanics change needed. Don't like one group, switch or start your own. No further complication is needed, only optional.
The EU, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union would like a word with you, among others like the commonwealth.
So therefor, please define your terms much more clearly if you want to state some kind of distinction.
True, however, if you start opening the option up for more than 1 UP then you start bringing these questions up. Put it this way if you had two groups of competing companies would you want one of those companies talking to one or more of the companies which you are competing against? The answer is no, unless they had specific reasons to do sothat the rest of the group was aware of (transparency). Otherwise you would be thinking why are they really working/communicating with them?
No you don't. This is an overcomplication and not required for the idea, but it would work as a voting mechanism and add an additional nice layer of diplomacy between the organisations if a developer wanted to add it.Diplomacy and Trade would function as they currently do, unless someone wanted to add more features to it.
Switch the word alliances with whatever term fits your political situation at home. To mean groups with some shared interest. Note shared interest doesn't mean they get on all that well, I think you'll find you get plenty of infighting in your two major political parties from time to time. Alliances where I am from can be covering a variety of subjects, not just military.
I'm not saying that alliances may not exist along these lines, however, look at it this way, Race A is a powerful "good" race but is on the opposite side of the galaxy from the other "good" races, does that mean that they may not form an alliance with several moderate races that are sharing their borders? The answer from a governing standpoint is "no" it would be dumb not to seek out relations with the neighboring races. So the whole standpoint of having alliances/UP's based along ideology lines does not fly.
Maybe upon researching the universal translator, you get or can research the locations of everyone else's homeworlds... or even just a random % of them with a minimum. Establishing trade routes and things are vital to certain non/low combat strategies, but it's a crapshoot if you can actually do any of them because there is no good way to judge which direction to send the freighters off in. you can research trade routes early on & have multiple trade routes with your species having no idea who, if anyone, is out there.
The EU, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union would like a word with you, among others like the commonwealth.So therefor, please define your terms much more clearly if you want to state some kind of distinction.
Thoughts...
Again you're stating smaller regional trade/economical groups that also have regional governing restrictions. The UN is as a whole is global. The UP is as a whole is Galactic.
Examples that you gave...
The EU (European Union) is Europe I can give you the definition of what it does if you'd like, started as an economic treaty to become more interdependent/prevent war. Has a delegation to the UN, so by that I would put them below the UN.
The AU (African Union) is Africa, mainly to create a more stable solid Africa. As this is based in a region I put this along with the EU below the UN, however, they work with the UN they don't have a delegation to the UN.
The OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) Is a group to safeguard and protect the Muslim faith, help unify their voice. Have delegations to the UN and EU so by that I would put them below both of those groups.
So basically with this information using our planet as an example I would see governing bodies as such, going top down, and game examples to compare.
UN (United Nations) = UP (United Planets)
EU/AU (European Union/African Union) = (Regional alliances currently no good comparison in game)
OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) = (Groups of races identified by values [ideology]) / (no current option in game that matches this, separate alliances are the closest)
OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) = (Trade alliances)
Countries (example United States, China, Russia, France, ect) = (Thalans, Drengin, ect....)
States/Providences (example Florida, Ontario, ect) = (Earth, Po, ect...)
Follow-up
Now to your other points I would put them into either of the two groups where there isn't a great comparison in the game to match either the EU/AU or the OIC. Now could they add some type of governing party to go between the general races and the UP sure, is there really a need, no. Arguments about the UP being too strict or not agreeing would mean that you as race need to work to change that, to ease restrictions.
Final Thoughts...
There has been talk of having the miner races in the UP, being that as a whole they are small and have limited say maybe add a group to speak for the miner races similar to the OIC. Something where they can organize their voice to the large whole being they will never be a dominate race in the Galaxy. I also wouldn't mind something similar to smaller groups of larger races as well for regional or ideological views that may take on certain issues.
Overall though I still think one UP is the right way to go. They make work with several small groups and many individual races but is working to a overall better galaxy.
Personal Notes...
I hope you're not taking anything personal as I'm enjoying this discussion even if we aren't agreeing
For the purposes of a strategy war game, you are getting way to hung up on the details. There are several Intergovernment Organisations, and they have different laws and boundaries, to say one is above the other, is speaking for the entire planet and i'm sorry but that is flawed reasoning. You won't get the UN overriding the laws of the EU any time soon I can assure you, things might be challenged on both sides from time to time however.
The UN, while a large organisaton, has very few controls over governments involved compared to say the EU, more guidelines and a general set of agreed upon laws, which many choose not to follow. There is no such option in the UP, once a law is passed, that's it I implement it or leave. I can't veto it, I can't go to other AI empires and offer them bribes to overturn it, I can't take a diplomatic hit for not doing it, there is no personal or strategic choice. It's be in a majority or get out. - It's much more like the EU than the UN.
I think from what you've said you are from America, speaking as a citizen who lives in europe and from my perspective, the EU is much more relevant in setting laws (much to peoples joy or ire), than the UN is, also in enforcing those laws. It is a much more relevant organisation in that regard, for the countries involved. So while the UN has more members it has much less influence or mindshare here.
The AU (African Union) is Africa, mainly to create a more stable solid Africa. As this is based in a region I put this along with the EU below the UN, however, they work with the UN they don't have a delegation to the UN.The OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) Is a group to safeguard and protect the Muslim faith, help unify their voice. Have delegations to the UN and EU so by that I would put them below both of those groups.
I can't go into specifics of these two organisations as my knowledge of them is not sufficient, I would pick the Commonwealth of Nations (British Commonwealth) instead if you wanted another example, given that it is still expanding, it has a lot more power and influence than you give it credit for in your summary having 53 member states. You can't define it as a regional entity as it covers many parts of the globe, and you can't dismiss it as having nothing but trade in its mandate, it has a lot in its mandate.Should I bring other regionals into it however?
Like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Cooperation_DialogueOr the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_MediterraneanRegional sure, as breakaway UP's would likely be in the game, smaller organisations of friends, allies or disgruntled UP members.
If you wanted to work with it sure. Playing the diplomatic race, great.If you wanted to roll right over it with military might, that should be an option too.If you wanted to bribe other races to get your way, why not let players?If you wanted to ignore it completely and create your own group, why not, why not have that as an option? I still don't understand the fundamental concern here, it's not mechanics as i've covered nothing changes except the UP screen, it's not reality as i've covered that there are many different groups on planet earth even, let alone across a thousand star systems. Gameplay is enhanced by giving the player options not negated, and making diplomacy more unpredictable in a strategy game (unpredictable not confusing), is all good.
It wouldn't even take much more development as all it'd be as a carbon copy of the UP screen with different members, and 2 or 3 buttons on the interface. 2 should be sufficient the UP and it's competing sister organization.So what's the concern?
I never said the EU didn't have more influence in Europe compared to the UN, in fact I stated that it may not be a bad idea to have something somewhere between the current UP and the individual race alliances. This would speak to what your suggesting here. The fact the UN has an overall influence on a lot of things globally however, regionally may have a limited effect as the EU is working in that area, however, individual races can still speak for themselves in both, but the EU also has delegates to speak for them if needed.
Maybe build something in where groups of this order can impose similar rules to the UP currently but, with limitations such as (territorial effect, area trade bonus's, military back up, ect...)
I think there should be more options to sway the vote in the UP or smaller groups by having other diplomatic options similar to the following...
The UP is up for vote to ban lasers (example not actually a UP option)
You can attempt to bribe or sway different races by offering them something or opening up diplomacy prior to submitting the vote. If there is a organisational group that you are a part of as well for your views (ideology group A) or (territory group or both then you can maybe also hold a side vote with that group of races to attempt to get that side group to support your view. (Mind you with all of this being said, it may still not work your way and you'll have to work to get yourself into power, through military might or other diplomatic options.)
They've been stating in the dev streams for a while that Ray intends to include Minor races in the UP, exactly how hasn't been said.
On the second point, I was always hoping that they would do something in Galactic Civilizations II that would turn a minor race to major through some sort of event. Frogboy, however, came out and said it wasn't possible in Galactic Civilizations II. Hopefully with that said they bring that into the game in Galactic Civilizations III, once again I know Ray has talked about in an expansion or DLC he would love the Snathi to turn to a major race.
I have similar thoughts that there could be more to the UP screen.
Hmmm...
You would lol
If you were to split from the first UP and form your own, there's a perfect source of conflict right there.
You form your own UP with the Drengin. Fine, the Original UP don't miss you anyway, couple of evil tin-pot races and good riddance. But then you try and get the Alterians, a major race with lots of money and resources and a few major (16+) planets to join (something like a culture flip mechanism related to espionage - bribes, getting spies to spread propaganda etc - is what I'm thinking would work well)
At that point all the other members (and the loyalists amongst the Alterians) declare war on your UP.
Even something that causes a split in the Original UP: You leave the OUP, the Terran disavow your existance but the Yor still honour the economic treaty they have with your race. This causes conflict between the Yor and Terran which you can exploit - helping the Yor.
In order to harmonize this system a new option should enter the diplomacy screen, International Organizations. A list of existing international organizations should be listed; clicking on a name would allow the player to see the founder, current president, voting system, and enumerated powers of the organization, as well as any requirements for membership (location, ideology, etc.). An option should also exist for players, human or AI, to create their own international organizations as well and define these factors for themselves. Voting power could be determined by any one of population, wealth, influence, industry, research, military power, or one-empire one-vote. Most decisions, including deciding on the presidency of the organization, in such bodies would be made by majorities; changes to voting system, membership criteria, or enumerated powers would require a two-thirds vote, as would expulsion of members. If two players in a given international organization have not met each other directly, they can work together within the organization but cannot engage in one-on-one diplomacy.
It should be possible to induce other races to join various international organizations (whether or not you yourself are a member) through the Diplomacy screen. International organizations are not necessarily mutually exclusive with any others unless the membership criteria specifically enumerate organizations that a member cannot be part of (e. g. cannot be part of any other military alliance).
A UP victory should work as follows:
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
