EC3 New Idea #35 - Domestic Politics

[korn469]

by S. Kroeze

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>DOMESTIC POLITICS: give the people a WILL OF THEIR OWN
(I know this idea is allied to the CIVilians of Doberman and Jon Millers Intercivilization Components; yet I'll expound my view)

In CivII the people are only a passive element in the game, easy to control and almost 100% predictable. They'll never revolt when -like I do each turn- you meticulously control the factors influencing their behaviour. The only influence they ever exert is on foreign policy.

So domestic politics actually don't exist. Apart from SE I would like to introduce the possibility of spontaneous revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, feudal risings, secessions, peasant revolts, colonies declaring independence, famine and tax riots. Most governments spent most of their time just trying to stay in power!

I would like to introduce different levels of political control, like interest, influence, protectorates and actual annexation. And to control a region you would always need the support of the local elite, sometimes priests or the aristocracy, sometimes moneyed interests or local party officials. This would also create the possibility of interfering in the politics of an other great power by supporting the local opposition.

Finally the people should have its own character and loyalty to a religion or civilization, which wil not change easily. So factors like militarism, religiousness and conservative/experimental should be introduced.

GIVE THE PEOPLE A WIIL OF THEIR OWN!!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[Napoleon I]

I think that Domestic Politics is an excellent idea to implement in the game. It could also help stabilize combat. For example, if you captured a city from another civilization that civilization will have an attack bonus when attacking your units in or near that city for a given number of turns to simulate the sympathies of local population and their effect on combat

------------------
Napoleon I

[Ekmek]

I'm for this especially since this could lead to the use of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Use your spies to arm, bribe, assassinate, etc the local elite or and you'll face rebellions or guerrillas or back a foriegn coup etc. Trying to stay in power, with all the intrigue would just as fun as trying to be a world power. But some more sophistaicate govt eliminates would need to be added (a great book for understanding this is Luttwak's COUP DET'AT: A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK) is govt rule by law, centered on a person, or based on backing by the military, or is it an aristocracy where money decides who rules. These are issues that have faced governments since the beginning. I'd love to see this!



------------------
"An army that doesn't use profanity can't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paperbag" - GEN Patton

[don Don]

Not just the people. Often it is the fuedal leaders who make up the domestic politics on a city by city basis.

[S. Kroeze]

final draft

DOMESTIC POLITICS: give the people a WILL OF THEIR OWN!

In CivII the people are only a passive element in the game, easy to control and almost 100% predictable. They'll never revolt when -like I do each turn- you meticulously control the factors influencing their behaviour. The only influence they ever exert is on foreign policy.

So domestic politics actually don't exist. Apart from SE I would like to introduce the possibility of spontaneous revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, feudal risings, secessions, peasant revolts, colonies declaring independence, famine and tax riots. Most governments spent most of their time just trying to stay in power!

We, living in the year 2000, actually cant imagine the very restricted influence most goverments had over most of their subjects during most of history, certainly before the French revolution. Even strong, able and "absolute" rulers like Louis XIV didn't make a great difference. He couldn't for example tax his own aristocracy without serious risk of an aristocratic rising, which always could topple his government. And since that same aristocracy owned most wealth in his kingdom it was nearly impossible to control the royal budget, let alone his kingdom.

And all Roman emperors who didn't understand how to rule in cooperation with the Senate, sooner or later lost their lives. Later that influence shifted to the army, but the actual situation didn't change: work in accordance with the wishes of the army and the ruling elite or lose power!

So in my opinion- though I like the idea of social engineering for gamepurposes- the SE options should be more restricted and your power balanced by the elite and people having their own agendas, heavily influenced by religion or economic interests. I think the population of Civilization is much too easy to suppress, even on Deity level.

Actually peasant revolts occurred almost every second year, mostly as a result of crop failure and the subsequent famine. Tax collecting would be another reason to revolt.
Another constant, more dangerous threat to each government was the aristocratic "cabale". And we should never forget the danger of pretenders within the royal family, possibly encouraged by foreign powers. (for example the War of the Roses or the incountable palace revolutions at the court of the Romanows)

To include these elements I would like to introduce different levels of political control, like interest, influence, protectorates and actual annexation. In this way large, sprawling, quite informal empires can be represented, but also a highly centralized city-state. The relation between centre and periphery will shift constantly; the power of the political centre can diminish or grow again, offering more possibilities for foreign intervention and disputes over control of a minor power. To control a region you would always need the support of the local elite, sometimes priests or the aristocracy, sometimes moneyed interests or local party officials.

This would also create the possibility to interfere in the politics of an other great power by supporting the local opposition. Perhaps that opposition is more willing to make peace or allow trade!?

So instead of the gamers dictating the social conditions I would prefer a game dictating the limits of government. Let people revolt because of crop failure or high taxes! Let the aristocracy thwart your plans and secede, carrying half the kingdom with them. The influence of the priests has also been immense; they could anathematize you or confirm your divine right to rule.

Finally the people should have its own character and loyalty to a religion or civilization, which wil not change easily. So factors like militarism, individualism, religiousness and conservative/experimental should be introduced.

GIVE THE PEOPLE A WILL OF THEIR OWN!!

[The Joker]

Your ideas are always great S.

Might I add that some of the SE effects should be determined by the people in the city. This would mean that each city has a rating from 0 to 10 (or from 0 to 100%, whatever) in certain areas, like Individualism, Militarism, Conservatism and more. Each of these would effect the SE effects in certain ways. Examble: You shouldn't be able to be a democracy if the average Individualism rating was lower than 2. If your individualism rating was between 3 and 6 being a democracy would give a lot of corruption, more if the rating was lower. It would work the same way in all SE categories, the happyness would by default be high in a communist (true communism, not socialism) economy, but if your Individualism rating was more than 5 the happyness would decrease, meaning that communism would give unhappyness if your Individualism was over 6. On top of this a high Individualism rating would give more corruption in a communism. In a capitalist economy the amount of trade generated would follow the Individualism rating, giving more trade for higher ratings. The same could work for the militarism rating. This would determine the unhappyness caused by units away from the city and more.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!