besides who do you think the people woudld rather have leading their empire, the guy that united them and lead them into space (you), or a stupid little brat or senate wanting your power.

Senate wanting your power and

a stupid little brat

-- look what the people did to Clinton who set up the US for a fantastic economic future -- the people chose a credit card senate who have rebankrupted us!!! -- sorry kept it inside for too many years.


And thanks for the great setup line, rofl.

Or you could just kill everyone and then become the one and only ruler so you don't have to worry about it.

Or you could just kill everyone and then become the one and only ruler so you don't have to worry about it.

Its called "Switching to Imperialism" in GalCivII speak.

Douple Post

This is all a waste of time. Does anyone ever lose an election? I had it happen to me twice ever and I won power back at the next election.

Seeing as one of the key aspects of the game is keeping morale high it makes it difficult to lose the election unless you're already in deep trouble. You'll almost never lose if your approval is above 70% it should be above 70 anyway or your population growth will stop or even reverse. It's worth reducing the tax rate, even if this means you're losing money every turn, the increased population will soon generate enough tax to fill the gap in your wallet.

You keep saying this. I'd love to see the reasoning behind this. Last I checked just because a house (parliment) or legislature (representative democracy) change party majorities doesn't mean the executive is automatically removed.

In crazy countries like America, perhaps.

In the UK, when a new party gets voted into power they get into power.

I've never understood the reasoning behind having somebody in charge who lost the most recent election.

In crazy countries like America, perhaps. In the UK, when a new party gets voted into power they get into power. I've never understood the reasoning behind having somebody in charge who lost the most recent election.

The reasoning has to do with the 18th century liberal thinking, which the establishers of America believed in.

Basically it is based on a fear of absolute power being held by anyone. By dividing up the executive, judiciary and legislative body, they felt they could keep absolute power from being held by any one man.

I think the parties should be balanced better, but actually I think the current system makes sense as far as over-simplified systems go. I think of control of the racial abilities being heavily dependent on individual planets cooperating with the central government.

So, for example,

Technologist party reduce its research below 25%?

By using its resources to follow private agendas, leading to in-fighting and lack of coordination and in general squadered funds and effort.

Or a Pacifist party leader declare war?

By marketing it as unavoidable if the race is to survive. Also, having hippies in control of the senate while you're trying to do research (as Technologists) would certainly impair diplomacy and distract from research, no?

or a Mercantile party leader leave U.P.?

Being limited on trade routes or starbases is what gets me out of the UP, I suppose they'd be good reasons for the Mercantile too.

I think it's stupid for GalCiv to have democracy at all. How do you expect to sell the game in China?

Influence victories. "If I put Cultural Domination centers in my foreign buffets, the enemy city will rebel? Neat!"

Actually, I think the actual political forms are just wrong. Tell me the single difference between Republic, Star Democracy and Federation? (Except the bonuses). None.

The way it is actually implimented, "Star Republic" should work a little like the U.S.A.'s political system. Every planets has a X number of senators representing them, and the winning side of a planet win all senators. This would discourage tierce parties on planets (much like U.S.A.'s discourage non-Republican or democrat). Also, planets more populated would have a decisive advantage (except if you are reduced to count on really minor planets..)

Star Democracy should be like it's actually implimented. Proportionnal representation. This would encourage tierce parties, since their voice could still count. Also, there should be the opportunity of a Minority Governement, where your party doesn't hold the absolute majority, and you have to make some alliances. (Beware, Canadians. You all know the bad effects of minority governements!)

Finally, the Star Federation. Every planet votes for it's representant, and they ALL get 1 vote. Powerful planets would have to throw their influences on minor ones to have them vote for their candidates.


I know, it's kinda impossible, right now, to impliment all these. But it would add a whole political dimension to the game.

They should probably look to this game called Victoria by Paradox Interactive to see election done in a way that should be done on this.

The different parties should have different "issues", and whichever party gets elected is what bonuses or other benefits and detractors that you should get. Their shouldn't be a negative for every party besides your own.

Regarding the original topic, I haven't lost a vote yet. Haven't experienced any aspect of this. I don't have a problem with the government types. They don't seem to do anything but award overall bonuses and introduce the party vote. Not a big deal.

Regarding the original topic, I haven't lost a vote yet. Haven't experienced any aspect of this. I don't have a problem with the government types. They don't seem to do anything but award overall bonuses and introduce the party vote. Not a big deal.

Hence why I suggested that parties have a greater effect on what you can/cannot do.

I don't mind the governments too, they are helpful, but I keep them unresearched until the last 35 techs...