An idea to change the Planetary Council

[Kirov]

Hello, recently I was thinking about a simple way to improve the Council election just a little. You see, always there are two runners for the office, those with the most votes, which usually means the two highest populations. This certainly adds to the "the strong get stronger" issue prevalent in most strategy games and painfully obvious in SMAC or Civs. So what do you think about changing the ballot so that everyone is eligible? In this case, even the weakest player can win through a skillful diplomacy. Further, it allows for some interesting diplo choices, like player 3 and 4 voting for player 5 so that 1 and 2 don't get even better. What do you think? I think the GUI is there, as in the case of a tie, the number of candidates extends and may in theory cover all 7 factions. If we get some feedback here, maybe we could try to put in on the next Yitzi's to-do list and try it out in some MP. I'd also like to hear from Yitzi if this is feasible at all.

[Geo]

If it would be feasable, I'd be all for it.

[Linamints]

I think that'd be a really interesting idea. I very rarely wind up on the council ballot myself due to play style, so it'd be interesting to have a shot at it every once in awhile.

Any ideas on how to make it happen?

[Mart]

It is possible to have all 7 factions in voting when all have the same number of votes. There may be some kind of condition or 7 conditions to check.
It may be more complicated too. It can be checked how it works, when there are various types of a tie.

[Yitzi]

If the UI is feasible (apparently is), then this should be doable.  Not sure how feasible it would be to teach the AI to vote for a serious contender rather than itself, though.  It's also a fairly minor part of "the strong get stronger", as these things go...it's not making the short list, but when I start taking requests (which I do expect to get to sooner or later), it's certainly a possibility.

[Kirov]

While I agree with the literal statement that it’s not the most important part of the snowball effect, I’d encourage you to consider this issue a bit more interesting.

Firstly, free infiltration to everyone is a very powerful thing in MP, one I feel sometimes is underrated, as in single player it is obviously next to disregardable. I believe intel is not just “soft power”, a small leverage useful in some combat situation. Even much before an actual conflict, it can be easily translated into hard cash, for two reasons. One, it allows you to save a lot of minerals. You no longer need to focus a bit on every facet of your empire – vertical growth, horizontal growth, exploration, defence, etc. If you see that the others don’t have Doc:Flex, you don’t need navy patrols of your borders. If you don’t see probe teams, you don’t need to set up probe defence. If you see that the enemy is low on pop but good on formers, you can catch up with that more easily. Long story short, you know exactly what to build in order to be prepared and don’t have to try to cover all your bases. Second, you can simply sell info from datalinks to two opponents, an action which not only nets you some income, but makes both enemies more vulnerable and more obvious targets. This is why in every game I play I move either to ban or to build myself the Empath Guild.

Another thing is, this can make for more interesting diplomacy. As it is right now, there are only two contenders, usually the two strongest guys. You already have some preferences – you want to help the weaker or the less aggressive one, so now it’s just a matter of striking a deal. Hell, with four more or less equal and reasonable players, you can probably make a reasonable guess on who will vote for whom just by a quick glance at the map and the power graph.

This would change drastically if everyone was eligible. Player no. 1 could want not to appear too strong and would vote for Player no. 4 in exchange for detailed intel. Or he could want to surprise his enemies by voting for somebody else. And the weaker guys would have more aces in their hand – OK, maybe I’m not in the lead, Mr Big Guy, but we both know you won’t get the office, so maybe you can vote for me and I can repay with intel or something else.

I believe I could convince some MP players to try it out, so I’d be very grateful if you thought about it. I’m no expert, but if the UI is there, isn’t it just one or two variables to change? I have no idea, so please tell me.

[Kirov]

I forgot one thing - another interesting option is that in each election, every player has a choice to either sell or try to buy his votes - much more interactive, I would say.

[Geo]

I forgot one thing - another interesting option is that in each election, every player has a choice to either sell or try to buy his votes - much more interactive, I would say.

You mean a council participant needs to choose between either trying to buy votes from others to get the Governor seat, or sell his own? Not a combination of the two?

[Yitzi]

Firstly, free infiltration to everyone is a very powerful thing in MP, one I feel sometimes is underrated, as in single player it is obviously next to disregardable. I believe intel is not just “soft power”, a small leverage useful in some combat situation. Even much before an actual conflict, it can be easily translated into hard cash, for two reasons. One, it allows you to save a lot of minerals. You no longer need to focus a bit on every facet of your empire – vertical growth, horizontal growth, exploration, defence, etc. If you see that the others don’t have Doc:Flex, you don’t need navy patrols of your borders. If you don’t see probe teams, you don’t need to set up probe defence. If you see that the enemy is low on pop but good on formers, you can catch up with that more easily. Long story short, you know exactly what to build in order to be prepared and don’t have to try to cover all your bases. Second, you can simply sell info from datalinks to two opponents, an action which not only nets you some income, but makes both enemies more vulnerable and more obvious targets. This is why in every game I play I move either to ban or to build myself the Empath Guild.

On the one hand, it is quite powerful.  On the other hand, it's something that you can get anyway, if you really want it, by throwing enough probe teams at it (or units to clear out enemy probe teams and then one probe team of your own, if you don't mind war.)

Another thing is, this can make for more interesting diplomacy. As it is right now, there are only two contenders, usually the two strongest guys. You already have some preferences – you want to help the weaker or the less aggressive one, so now it’s just a matter of striking a deal. Hell, with four more or less equal and reasonable players, you can probably make a reasonable guess on who will vote for whom just by a quick glance at the map and the power graph.

This would change drastically if everyone was eligible. Player no. 1 could want not to appear too strong and would vote for Player no. 4 in exchange for detailed intel. Or he could want to surprise his enemies by voting for somebody else. And the weaker guys would have more aces in their hand – OK, maybe I’m not in the lead, Mr Big Guy, but we both know you won’t get the office, so maybe you can vote for me and I can repay with intel or something else.

I believe I could convince some MP players to try it out, so I’d be very grateful if you thought about it. I’m no expert, but if the UI is there, isn’t it just one or two variables to change? I have no idea, so please tell me.

You've convinced me that it's a good idea; it still won't be in 2.5, because that's got enough big things either there or planned, but it will probably be in 2.6.

I forgot one thing - another interesting option is that in each election, every player has a choice to either sell or try to buy his votes - much more interactive, I would say.

That would get to be a mess in terms of UI, and would be a lot easier to just do via diplomacy in the forum.

[Kirov]

@Geo and Yitzi - I didn't mean any changes to UI. What I simply had in mind is that as it is, only two guys buy votes and the rest sell. With the change I mention, each election is a strategy choice - I can either approach the stronger ones to try and get something from them in exchange for my votes, or I can try to buy their votes for something. Voting would be of course still the same. In theory, you can always buy votes and vote for somebody else yourself, but it's hard to imagine a situation where this is useful.

Yitzi, thanks for considering that for 2.6!  I hope people will be interested enough to give it a shot.

[Yitzi]

@Geo and Yitzi - I didn't mean any changes to UI.

Without changes to UI, how could anyone except the top two even be voted for?

[Kirov]

Without changes to UI, how could anyone except the top two even be voted for?

Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here. You guys made it sound as if buying and selling votes in one election was a special, distinct feature, and I only meant that this would be a natural, strategic implication of the change I propose. So yeah, I think we're clear now.

But this reminds me of another issue which could use some improvement in SMAC - during a game, there is some status info which should be displayed or otherwise be accessible, but isn't. For one, after the election, you have no means to check who actually holds the seat now (apart from the commerce bonus, but you may be at war with the governor). What is more, once 20 years of term elapse, you have no means to check this without summoning the council (in other words, you can check if it is possible to summon the council only by actually doing it, there is no 'let's just see if it's possible' option).

Other info which is absent and every now and then results in problems:

- status of other council options - is the chart in place, etc.
- is anyone embargoed for atrocities and for how long (this should be available to everyone)
- when the effects of nerve stapling go off (this is really stupid that you have to actually remember when you nerve stapled your own base)
- in general, status, number and ecological effects of your or anybody else' atrocities
- status of sunspots (if in place and when started)
- status of perihelium (as above)
- status of fungal pops (if and how many - this really drives me crazy in scenarios available online which start early- to midgame - you never know if the creator triggered a pop)
- status of "Secrets" technologies (as above for scenarios - you get the tech choice screen and never know if SotHB yields that additional tech or not)

In short, this is all info which comes to you at some point in the game, and you better put it down somewhere or keep track of those atrocities - otherwise it's bound to slip your mind. And some of this info should be in plain sight as much as the pop count. The lack of it can sometimes be a serious impairment in replacement games, when you take over after a guy who is long gone.

What is the easiest way to put it in game, if there is any? Is it possible to have a separate screen, or maybe even export it to an external file, whichever is the easiest? Or is it 'forget it, no chance'?

[Yitzi]

Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here. You guys made it sound as if buying and selling votes in one election was a special, distinct feature, and I only meant that this would be a natural, strategic implication of the change I propose. So yeah, I think we're clear now.

But this reminds me of another issue which could use some improvement in SMAC - during a game, there is some status info which should be displayed or otherwise be accessible, but isn't. For one, after the election, you have no means to check who actually holds the seat now (apart from the commerce bonus, but you may be at war with the governor). What is more, once 20 years of term elapse, you have no means to check this without summoning the council (in other words, you can check if it is possible to summon the council only by actually doing it, there is no 'let's just see if it's possible' option).

Other info which is absent and every now and then results in problems:

- status of other council options - is the chart in place, etc.
- is anyone embargoed for atrocities and for how long (this should be available to everyone)
- when the effects of nerve stapling go off (this is really stupid that you have to actually remember when you nerve stapled your own base)
- in general, status, number and ecological effects of your or anybody else' atrocities
- status of sunspots (if in place and when started)
- status of perihelium (as above)
- status of fungal pops (if and how many - this really drives me crazy in scenarios available online which start early- to midgame - you never know if the creator triggered a pop)
- status of "Secrets" technologies (as above for scenarios - you get the tech choice screen and never know if SotHB yields that additional tech or not)

In short, this is all info which comes to you at some point in the game, and you better put it down somewhere or keep track of those atrocities - otherwise it's bound to slip your mind. And some of this info should be in plain sight as much as the pop count. The lack of it can sometimes be a serious impairment in replacement games, when you take over after a guy who is long gone.

What is the easiest way to put it in game, if there is any? Is it possible to have a separate screen, or maybe even export it to an external file, whichever is the easiest? Or is it 'forget it, no chance'?

External file would be difficult, as would separate screen.  Easiest way would be if you can find some existing text or menu where you would like it placed.