Alternative "Negotiation System" for Govt Model - opinions needed!!

[LDiCesare]

The issue is not about the model, that is how 1 point moves the effective value, but about the user interface, which is how the player can see and control it. Will players be able to abuse such a system by spending lots of time micromanaging it in order to get a Machiavelic result (like pretending they want more somewhere because other parties consider it important)?
Prioritising 1 issue means, if you have ten possible issues, you will first express what you want and second test 10 possible priorities to check what the result is. Is this OK (provide more choices for the player) or will this cause unwelcome micromanagement? I think it could be a good solution if this couldn't be changed every turn. For instance, a "Ruler, what should our priority be?" panel could be shown every 20 turns (or another number) to set the priority. (This idea comes from Galciv: Every 24 turns, there is an election in which you can lose power - this doesn't have enough effect in galciv to be really interesting, but it provides both an idea of the passing of time and an opportunity to change policies).

[Gary Thomas]

Surely the specific formula used to provide a decision is a relatively trivial part of the issue. Algebra is iincredibly easy to program.

Personally I can see no reason why the various options should not all be available.. Then you could try different ones out and pick the one that felt best.

Alternatively, one civilization cold use one method, another a different one. Could be interesting...

Cheers and polygons forever.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Again i think the best way is to have weighted point distribution. This would stop a player from going to extreme measures to abuse it. He would simply have more points if he had more power, so if he wanted to raise something up higher it would cost him much more than keeping it lower...the same with other power groups, but for them, if they focuzs on 1 issue, then they can spend all their points there...

[Lord God Jinnai]

Ok here's another idea...since the minority have less power the tend to focus it on a single issue...right now coding doesn't seem to represent this very well. If we allow them to pay 1/2 of what the majority pays, but limit them to 1-2 issues, this should balance things out as it would still represent the idea of the model of the minority having some political say, but in a limited manner...and only the minoities could have this (ie those with least political power percentage)

Using the current method, with 5 policities there are 3 pp:
Ruler: 80% wants all at 100
Merchants: 10% wants 1st policy at 0, rest don't care
Nobles: 10% wants last policy at 0, rest don't care
all the policies are at 50

In the current situation of turn taking turns, the ruler would get his way and still have 150 points left over. Even if both had 15% pp (ruler 70%) it would be the same...even a ruler with 65% pp could do this...with more that 1/3 of the powers opposing him...

That's why i'm saying this should be done. In the above situation, if because of their low pp they concentrate their efforts on the one item, they get to pay it for 1/2 cost...now if the ruler wants it at 100, he has to spend 200 points, something he doesn't have. so he either ends up with both at 75, one at 100 and another at 50 or some other combination...

The majoriy's adavntage is not being limited to a single issue.

BTW i know the exact time when a minority would become majority and vice versa would need to be tested....

The real problem is that you think for policy shifrting a ruler with 100 must be able to move anything to anyplace which i don't agree with, but that's not here...what i proposed just gives a way to have both sides have an effect.

[Fosse]

Forgive the possible ignorance of my comments, but I think I understand your government approach well enough that I'm not simply wasting bandwidth...

From what I understand, what you are trying to prevent is the player who gathers a "critical mass" of political influence being able to manipulate the social settings by asking for settings far beyond what they actually want.

What if there is a nonvoting sector of the population, and their desires represent what the majority of the people who have no political clout want? Their values won't influence decisions per se, but if a player's choices are severly discordant with the People's (as would be likely in a strongarming scenario) then the player would have to deal with some consequences. Perhaps a lessening of his power as his subjects lose faith, or general unrest.

This doesn't change the ruler's ability to make policty whatever he damn well pleases (assuming enough political clout), but it does increase the chance of him placing his demands more reasonably, and thus closer to what he actually wants.

Imagine: The player wants Value X at 60%, and because all of the other political parties want it at 40% he would have to demand 90% in order to get his desired 60.

The People want 30%, so the player saying 60% doesn't make them too mad, but if he said 90% they would be very upset.

[roquijad]

Totally agreed, Fosse. What you propose is already there, but in the riots model. If final policies, after any sort of negotiation, are not liked by the people, they'll present their discontent.

[Fosse]

In that case, consider my above post to just be saying, "nicely done."

[Lord God Jinnai]

Yes, yes, I can see that, but it still doesn't solve the situation i mentioned above of a ruler even with most of his power gone, although still a majority, being able to subject his will reguardless of the other political powers.