SI: A working system for including your people in the management of your civilization

[Quartz Dragon]

[quote]Originally posted by The Joker on 06-04-2000 08:30 AM
amjayee:

Thanks. I was kinda hoping it could be the basis of what we could use in OC3, as Firaxis is propably too conservative to add anything this different.

Firaxis is not precisely conservative. They try to make their software simple enough that low-end platforms can handle them with ease.

Now if this model could be togled on or off (there by dertermining the amount of memory required) I could see Firaxis including it.

It is a good idea though.

[MidKnight Lament]

I think I'll leave this up to you guys. This thread has far too many ultra-long posts for me to keep up with it.

- MKL

[The Joker]

Quartz Dragon:

I agree that the game should provide a togle on and off function for many of the more advanced functions, including the domestic politics.


Par4:

quote: Me gusta me gusta! I've been reading about Tropico and whatever that russian republic game is called where you have to keep your popularity up or you die! Maybe you could release things to people, give speeches, throw parties(midnight at the colosseum! be there or be thrown to the lions next week!) A people interaction=people trust you=you do what you want=+++absolutivity, absolutivity should come from basic trust in you by the people, religions and stuff if you back them a lot will give you a big boost too, but that can be dangerous if that religion opposes another and loses pop support.

I don't think that you would handle this in a microlevel with speeches and parties and such. But it should be possible to use propaganda and possibly also give presents to groups, which would highten their trust in you, and so give you a possibility to rise your leg level.

quote: I want to be able to support a religion and have it back me completely and give its percent to me, lowering the religion percent and highering my percent.

The religion and coorporations groups could both be linked together with the religion and coorporation systems in the game, if such are included. The religion's agenda would be determined by the religious HQ, which would be an independant AI working independantly of any civilization.

It should be possible to make a reformation of any religion, which would give a lot of unstability for some turns and cost some money, but afterwards the religion would always do whatever you wanted. Like what happened in Northern Europe in the early 16th century.

Another thing could be the religious wonder: The Vatican. This wonder should be constructable once for every religion, and would give you total control that religion, not only in your civ, but in all civs! If one religion is really powerful then it could be of great advantages to construct such a wonder as it could give you a lot of power over the internal politics in other civs. Of cause this would now work in a civ that has reformated that religion.

quote: Army's support is big, very very big as big as religion, more so in modern times. If your not losing a lot of people in wars in recent history, if are advancing military units to stay with level of other nations near you, some other stuff you will have military support and it will tend to back you. If it goes real bad, like you piss off the public but you have been real good to the military you could install marshall law, but if you haven't been good to the military too, then they might turn rebel too and fight. Military clought in government for units, increase in budget, wars to continue, stuff like that.

Yeah, it could be realistic to need the army's support to install martial law. But I don't think that the army should have a lot of power in modern times. At least not in the modern democratic countries.

quote: Slave masters, goes pop group away if you vote for abolition of slavery. Former Slave masters around to be against you for 100 years. Agenda against you, not sure former slave masters oppose anything you say.

I think that the most realistic way for this group to loose power would be in a gradual change in the production process. In the early middle ages slave based labour gradually became less profitable than labour by free workers, and so the slave owners automatically lost power. At the same time the nobility gained power.

quote: Nobility is different from rural population, 2 categories in different ages. Serfs never had political power. rurals don't like pollution and drastic changes, nobility likes having power away from the people.

I thought that the more people that are working in food production the more power would the ones being in control of this - the nobility - have. This doesn't mean that the serfs should have any power, although they could have if you were supported by the people.

quote: blue collars in industrial age up. Guilds as political political power in colonial age. Trade Guilds and production guilds are different. Pro trade and industry, don't like cutting down on trading and cuts in industry.

I think that the bourgeoisie should want as free an economy as possible: Laissez faire economy, no labour unions etc. to a large extend they would have almost the same agenda as the coorporations. Should there be an individual group named guilds?

quote: Government workers, mainly affects budget, they might want pay raises or for you to nationalize hospitals. Generally support you.

They wouldn't necessarily always support you. The Soviet union was very based on the admins, but that didn't mean that it's leaders necessarily were very absolute. Well, at least not after Stalin, but he was absolute because he made lots of purges in the administration, army etc. The admins would have their own agenda, which would be more government interference in society, higher tax rates and such.

quote: Unions, depends on system of economy, if you don't allow unions but unions take control then they won't like you, you like unions corporates won't like you. Speed construction up. May want minimum wage, worker rights laws.

I think that some SE choises should remove certain groups. If you outlaw slavery then the slave owners will become powerless, if you outlaw labour unions then these will become powerless, in a socialist economy there would be no wealthy people of any kind, no coorporations and propably no labour unions either. But maybe outlawing labour unions would create unhappyness and unstability with the people? If they are in power then they might force you to put the labour unions back on, and if they are not then they will become unhappy and rise the chance of revolution and civil wars.

Police:

quote: um I don't really get this

Well, the police might be a group of their own. The Soviet union was pretty much based on the police. And if you have a high police rate (ever played SMAC?) then the police will have more authority over your people, which will make them more powerful.

quote: Mob behind you, good. You against mob, bad but less corruption, everyone else likes you more. Mob can give you lots of money but disrupt inferstructure a lot if you turn on them. Not sure for agenda.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one either, but it would be pretty nice to have all the corruption actually mean something and not just be wasted. Maybe they will want lower police rate and work against any attempts to rise efficiency, as this would decrease corruption and so make them less powerful? I agree that the other groups should be less fond of you if you base your power on the org crime.

quote: Direct wants of people? not really sure whats the diffence between this and thing below?

There is a significant difference between the direct democracy of Athens and the modern representative democracy. The people directly would, as the people representatively, have the most complex agenda. It would be determined by the Militarism, Acceptance of distance to power and Individualism ratings of the people. A high Militarism rating would make them want to go to war, a high Individualism rating would make them want a Laissez faire economy with no labour unions and such.

The main difference between the people directly and representatively would be that the direct people would change agenda much more easily than the representatively. Give them a little propaganda and they do what they say. A parliament with professional politicians in it would not be so easily fooled. The people directly would also be very fast at wanting peace in a war, if it did not go well.

quote: I want to see stuff like lobbies with lots of money or support come to you too, so shift support from corps to unions for 20mil, or keep support in corps

Yeah, that would be a great addition.

quote: I like, but give religions a few major ones, very important that different ones in your country.

Do you mean giving them major AI's? I'm not sure I understand...

quote: I would like to see power shifts, and catch 22s like pick corps or unions, or military or green peace.

Ehmm, I don't think I understand here either. Could you please explain?

quote: I like starting out with no idea which religions will come out on top, wheter supporting the military but neglecting the people will turn out well, gives flavor to the game.

This is a must. I think the religion's conversion rates should be hidden from the player, so he could only work in blindness when picking which religion to pick. He would only be able to see the percentage of his people worshipping that religion, and this might change. I also think that the best gov type should vary for each game. In some games an army based dictatorship might be the best, while in others a peaceful democracy could be best.

quote: I think if support for you falls below 50% in a government a revolution happens and you will have to cope with a new government and lots of power in the people changing stuff, lowering industrial capacity, lowering the military budget, power to the power and political groups!!

I agree with the 50% rule, but it shouldn't be that simple. Even when your support is way above 50% revolutions would still happend. I think that there should always be a chance of revolution, but a higher support percentage should lower this chance.

quote: Cooperation between certain groups like corporations and unions and religions, religions traverse country borders, combined groups need to have more power, and have clought from a foreign civ too.

Yes. Groups within the civ might also work together to gain control. Like I said before religions should be controlled by the religion HQ, and coorporations could be linked with a coorporation model, so their power is determined by the amount of trade/production the coorporations in your civ make.

quote: I see Leg level as a trust in you and if they like you, getting to know the people will give you a higher level in a democracy, supporting corporations for a long time will and if they stay powerful will give you leg level raises. Goes for any group, sometimes they lose power then you lose power too, especially if they are a big supporter.

Hmm, I think I agree. If you are very succesful in wars, economy and such then people might give you higher leg levels only because of that, even if this means less power to themselves.

quote: Yeah support special groups on laws, increased industry or other things will raise their support for you. People will be easier and easier as mass media comes around, TV should basically give you the support of the population but they could be part of political groups like Unions that will lower your support from them. Say you make Unions mad and they are 15% of population, population not power, then 15% of the people in the people rating aren't going to support you.

Oh yeah! Besides from the power of the groups in your civ each group should also have a numerical representation in your civ. So if you upset the information age wealthy and they are 10% of the people then 10% of the people would become unhappy. GREAT!

I also agree that mass media should make it easier to use propaganda against your people. But maybe the internet should make the propaganda less effective?

quote: I see sort of a trade thing, like Union-we give us this bill for higher minimum wage then we give you support(1 level up in leg level) and 1 million dollars You-Ok but this will make the corporations mad and hurt the economy possibly.

Yes. This type of trades should also be possible.

quote: I like, changes in policy and backing of groups will change societies gradually. They have to happen slowly. rich, poor, middle class too, not just wealthy.

So there should be 3 classes per age? Hmm, this could work. Even the slaves could be a class. If they become too powerful they will create unstability and demand more units to supress them.

[The Joker]

Mark:

I was thinking: When reading through Clash's gov model should I check out all the links in the beginning of it to discussion threads and more, or would it be enough to just read the model itself?

I am in the middle of reading it now. And WOW, it's good! Not only have you included domestic politics to a large extend, it's all ready to play!

When I have completed reading it I will post my replyes, and I am also looking forward to seing your new model.

[StormLord]

Hi,

This model sounds really good, but doesn't the whole support thing make the leg level a bit redundant?

Also, I have thought of a dynamic city population model which, coincidentally, can be combined with this model to be even more realistic.

I won't give a full description of the model here (I'll probably post it later somewhere), but the basic idea is this:

Each city has a desirability rating, and depending on this rating, the distances to other cities, your transport techs etc., people will move from city to city depending on this desirability rating.

If we combine this with your model, a city could have a few desirability ratings (one for each pop power-group), so that a city with many religious facilities will attract religious people from less religious cities etc.

This would mean that if a power-group decides to revolt, it would do this in a city where it has lots of power. Also, in the case of some disasters, their power will change the effects; for example: A city is experiencing famine and the food storage is empty, so the power-groups try to secure food for themselves, therefore the weaker groups lose more people to the famine. This disaster thing might be taking it a bit far though...

I hope this message arrives in good condition
StormLord

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Joker,

I am very pleased you brought this important matter up. I have to say though, that this is a rather complicated affair, so for the moment I only will make some casual remarks. I really have spent some time thinking about it, but the subject matter proves itself quite stubborn to grasp.

Firstly I think you make things rather complex by introducing so many social groups. Some of them, e.g.the scientists, as a rule are so small and wield so little power I don't think they need to be represented as a separate group. My suggestion would be: peasants, workers, traders, large landowners, entrepreneurs, priests and the nobility, which is usually in control of the army, perhaps also the bureaucracy.

On the other hand I think the influence of regional sympathies should be included. The nobility of Normandie and that of Gascogne could have conflicting ideas about government and division of spoils. Especially the second should never be forgotten: apparently the various political elites may seem to be divided on political issues, but very often more careful analysis will show they are actually in competition for favours and offices. Because anyone in a position of power can reward its own clientele -more or less like the Mafia does. People out of royal favour will have the natural tendency to join the opposition. The machinations within the EU make this regional/national tendencies manifest to every observer.

quote: Making decisions: This would all not give any sence if if wasn’t because you would need all these groups when making decisions. The lower your leg level the more you would have to consult your supporting groups when making decisions. Making this work, however, is the tricky part, and one of the main reasons why we have not yet been able to make a system in which you don’t have absolute control possible. There are many possible ways to do this. Unfortunately it seems as if the most easy-to-implement ways are also the ones that are the worst. You could, for instance, have it so that if your leg level was 6 then 6 out of 10 times you made a decision then you would decide, and 4 out of 10 the computer would decide. This is, of cause, an incredibly poor solution, offering none of the things we want a system which interacts with the people to do.

It may surprise you, but I don't have a problem with this suggestion. The decision of the computer could be based on the current characteristics of your people; on their individualism, militarism, nationalism, conservatism, religious sympathies and whether you were at war or at peace. It would enormously decrease micromanagement, which has been a bone of contention to many of the posters on this forum. It could also help to handicap a large, sprawling empire, where the various elites often will have incompatible interests. Instead you would be glad when you actually can influence some local decision making.

To represent this I would propose the introduction of power/influence points(IP). Every decision you want to impose by force, that means against the will of the locally ruling elite, would cost you some points and loss of political support. It should be possible to exchange money/gold for those Influence Points. You could use those same points to 'buy' influence in foreign countries, perhaps sometimes even influencing decisions there too.

Did you read Sikanders post about giving up your control of the army to compensate for the AI's stupidity? I wouldn't go this far, but I think the possibility should exist that part of the army -(due to regional resistance?)- disobeys military orders. Every enforced order would cost you power points. It would make a revolution, where you would lose all control, something dreadful!

On many issues I completely agree with you, e.g.that religions should have their own AI and make their own decisions. Nonetheless one other point of criticism: I think your depiction of history is too Marxistic (slave-holding society, feudalism, capitalism etc.). This schematic representation of history may help thinking, but it does distort reality too much. In many ancient societies slavery was the exception, while in many countries (Russia, Poland) serfdom did increase sharply during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Nor is the difference between Roman aristocrats and medieval nobility that well-defined: essentially both were hereditary and based on landed wealth.

It seems you have done a moonlight flit. I miss your contributions on the forum. I hope all is well? Perhaps I should have reacted sooner, but I really find this matter, though important, difficult to grasp.

Sincere regards,

S. Kroeze

[phunny pharmer]

I agree that Joker's view of history is a little to concrete to allow for absolute historical accuracy. However, since there were shaded periods where there was no one group in control, this system still works. Anyway, programming a non-Marx system (or one that is not as defined) would probably be a nightmare.
However, is a class type system really needed? There has always (at least thus far in history)been some form of aristocracy that controls more than its share of the wealth. There has been some form of middle class, usually made up of traders, artisans, etc. There has also always been commoners/city dwellers that are poor. However, I think this system leaves something out.
Rural workers, such as farmers, herders, and small villagers are left completely out of the proposed system. Up until the industrial revolution, these people had tremendous power? After all, how long can the city last without the imported food? The farmers (at least collectively) had power. I think that this should be incorporated into the proposed model.

[phunny pharmer]

up...

[S. Kroeze]

Hi Joker!

Welcome back! I really feared you were emigrated to Kamchatka!

I admit that my contribution to your idea hasn't been impressive so far, but why did you abandon your own thread?
[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited July 23, 2000).]

[The Joker]

How nice to see this thread again!

My main reason for more or less abandoning the Civ3 forum is, that to me it seems more or less dead. Virtually all ideas posted here has been posted and debated before. Therefor I did not see much use in me coming here. It was not untill I saw the new interest in my favorit Civ topic politics that I returned.

But I have not been gone. If you look down to the bottom at the forums list you will find the Alternative Civs Forum. And there I have been a brave little poster. I and some others are currently working on our own civ game - OpenCiv3. We are trying to make it the ultimate civ game, by going back to basics and doing everything better. I have just finished the rough start of an economy model (like with this first version of the SI model it is too complex compared to what should be in the game) unlike any seen in a civ game. You should come and check it out!

And I can not say this too much: Please join us! Everybody is welcome! The more the better! And unlike Clash we don't expect you to spend your entire spare time on the project. You can do as little or as much as you like. Post one comment and we will be grateful. Especcially you, S. Kroeze. I don't really know the other people here, but I know that your huge historical knowledge and visions for civ games could be of great use to us. But everybody is of cause welcome.

Well, I better get back to comment on your posts:

Kroeze:

I agree that the negotiation with all classes is too much. I myself has come up with a new system in which each class with power has a certain happyness level (0-100), where all acts from you has an effect on this value. If it drops too low the class will stop supporting you. The leg level will then determine how low the happyness level can go before a class will complain. This will mean that you wont have to negotiate with everybody, just that you will need to check the class' happyness level once in a while. This system is not at all done, though. I have not worked on it for a while to free time to do the economy model, but I will work on it when I get time.

I am pretty surprised that you think that my historic depiction is too marxistis. I wouldn't call myself a marxist! But when thinking about it I see what you mean. But I must also agree with phunny pharmer, that we can not have a historic version in which nothing can be put into any "boxes" at all. That would just mean chaos.

My new suggestion for the classes in the model would be:

Workers, farmers (individual farmers), little bourgeoisie (individual producers), bourgeoisie, nobility (land owners), administrators, military, religion and intelligentsia.

I am not sure whether the intelligentsia should be in. But could it be possible to describe the russian revolution (1917) without them? I don't think it was the product of the workers and farmers alone.


I think this covers all of your comments.

Nice to see this thread up once again.

[The Joker]

Phunny pharmer:

Classes:

Well, the main thing in this system is to show, that it changes throughout history who is the upper class, who is the middle class and who is the lower class. We will therefor need more than 3 classes to describe this.

Farmers:

I know. And there should be a farmer (pharmer? ) class. If you look at my previous thread you will find it to be there.