Syndicates (aka Non-Civ Civs)

[yellowdaddy]

Hi,

I'm just starting a thread to see what people think about something that I struggle to think of a name for...
I don't know if this has been discussed before, and if so to what extent, but here goes...

Multinationals:
Ancient - The Hanseatic League
Early Modern - The East India Company(s)
Late Modern - Japanese Zaibatsu and Keiretsu
Contemporary - Intel, Shell, BASF, Komatsu...

Criminal Gangs:
The Mafia
Triads
Yakuza
Medallin Cartels
Pirates

Terrorist Movements:
Ideological - Communists, Fascists, Environmentalists...
Religious - Al Qa'ida, Moonies, David Koresh etc...
Political (sepratist) - IRA, FARC, KLA, PLO, ETA, PKK,
Racial - Black Panthers, ANC, NAZI party,

Other:
Ronin, Daimyo and Onritsu
Hashishin (ancient arab world assasisns)
Warlords (as in China, and parts of Africa today)
any more?...

Is there any scope for these kinds of organisations in the game?

I mean a lot of them function very much like a Civ would, and can command forces, have bases, and policies, dynasties, and economies, though most exist as functioning stuctures across borders and communities as defined by language, religion and race.

some, like the IRA, or even Colombian Cartels control territory, and could theoretcially form new states, or Civs - however you'd like to call or describe them.

surely some could have real affects on the game - you could conspre with one to defeat an enemy, whether it's hiring pirates or mercenaries to attack an enemy in a particular way or bribing a multinational corporation to sack workers or hike up prices in a country to destabilise it.

Any thoughts anyone? (please??! )

[wombat42]

Interesting... Might add additional depth to gameplay, make it more interesting. And the only people who'd complain are the people who don't like barbarians already... Maybe it could be an option, then. Certainly something to look into.

[yellowdaddy]

people who don't like barbarians are the sort of people who build cities in a mathematical grid like a draughts board (UK/US draughts=checkers) A.F.A.I.C./Y.M.M.V. ? (advanced barbarians... hmmm...).

This kind of ties into the kind of extra dimensions I hope that Clash will have that Civ will not...

how many of you are familiar with old Amiga games like "Balance of Power 1990" and "Imperium" ?
(and perhaps Conflict:Middle East too)

These games are all about politics, in BOP's case - it's geopolitics - who to back, and who to oppose, when, how, and by how much.
And in Imperium's case, it's about managers - choosing the right ones to do certain jobs and supporting your own flock of cronies, whilst ensuring your frequent re-election.

I would love to see the sort of features these games posess sprinkled into the Clash recipie.

If anyone is not familiar with these games, let me know, I think I could send a copy of BOP via e-mail (it's about 147k I think) And possibly the other two...

[Mark_Everson]

Hi yellowdaddy:

Some of your points have already been discussed quite a ways back. Too bad the $#!%@ search feature isn't worth much. The ideological stuff is already handled at quite a level of detail in the govt model. Pirates are planned at some level. The characters model may be able to do some of what you want. IMO things like the East India Co are handled well enough by vassal states, which the diplomacy model will support.

I have to say that I don't have much enthusiasm for the rest. The planned game is already so deep that there's Plenty for the player to do. Since we're at least a year from having all the core stuff done, I personally am not into discussing possible flourishes we could add. Been there, done that, got cynical. . . That said, if it doesn't require much coding work to do it (including interfaces) and you excite a coder with your vision, it might happen.

[yellowdaddy]

bit of a long'un (soz!)

the rest meaning sepratists, terrorists or multinationals? or not? if so:

so multinationals are covered by vassal states? ok.
does that mean that they could have effects on the game as i initially proposed?
---
I realise a good deal of this is perhaps coded for in one way or another (though I'm not sure exactly how much and to what extent). I suppose I imagine things like the IRA and ETA to be just giving a name to an insurgent group (guerillas) inside your state...
the dynasties thing can encapsulate warlords, and communists as their purpose is to take over the whole state - but isn't there something missinng if on the fringes of your empire, different groups defined by factors such as race, language, religion and perhaps even politics might want to breakaway or even betray your state?

It stems from an idea that I reflected on - what happens if your state is defeated by another - should that be the end of the game? or should you be able to carry on playing as a guerilla group and hopefully make a comeback!
---
Pirates encapsulates all kinds of criminal groups I suppose, except they are seagoing - I suppose there are a vagueries associated with having things like the mafia, drug cartels or yakuza... how to define their behaviour and effect in the game? and having them as stateless entities doesn't help them fit into the dynastic model.

- I suppose only if you include gangsters in the character model, as being able to draw more resources from more anarchic areas? and thus you can weaken them with increased law and order measures.

It stems from an idea that I reflected on - what happens if your state is defeated by another (all your cities captured) - should that be the end of the game? or should you be able to carry on playing as a guerilla group and hopefully make a comeback!

---

Advanced Barbarians

perhaps having a progressive barbarian tree, with generic crime at the bottom -> organised crime (inc pirates) -> terrorist groups -> warlord warlords/revolutionaries/ayatollahs at the top

as different types of barbarian leader being able to flower into new dynasties who can overthrow the ruling one, or separate from it.

the type, whether poliitcal or religious or military being defineed by the type of state they are "born" in.

perhaps I didn't categorise them very well.
(NB I'm not attempting to express any views, just picking names for categories)

Political Barbarians
-----------------
refugee
dissident
revolutionary

Military Barbarians
-----------------
criminal
gangster (including pirates)
warlord

Religious Barbarians
------------------
zealot
guru
prophet

the highest rank being able to mobilise units and control territory, the middle rank as traditional headless barbarians, and the lowest rank as generic levels of unrest etc...

is this any better?
Or do you just not dig political aspects to the game beyond the simplistic "make treaty" and "set emboargo" kind?
do you not like the idea of aiding insurgents in another state/civ?
-----------------------------------

MARK - perhaps the forum needs a spring clean, and a set of folders to channel topics into, ones like this could go into a general "suggestion box", but hopefully not get totally ignored!

[Lord God Jinnai]

pirates and bandits are suppose to be simulated in similar manners, mearly that one is seafairing and one is landbased. There was talk about having villages and fortresses for powerful groups of pirates as well.

[Mark_Everson]

Re: bit of a long'un (soz!)

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
is this any better?
Or do you just not dig political aspects to the game beyond the simplistic "make treaty" and "set emboargo" kind?
do you not like the idea of aiding insurgents in another state/civ?

I just think the game is already deep enough without these particular ideas. Many of the things you want to do are already handled in other parts of the game. FE aiding insurgents in another civ is already included in the espionage model IIRC. At any rate this is stuff I don't see being coded for a long time. Therefore I'm not that interested in discussing it in depth. When Clash gets to the point where all the main stuff is done, then I'll become interested in talking about "icing on the cake" stuff like this. I'm just burned out on discussing in depth things that might never happen. That's why its good to have some new blood around!

MARK - perhaps the forum needs a spring clean, and a set of folders to channel topics into, ones like this could go into a general "suggestion box", but hopefully not get totally ignored!

Maybe you're right. But I'm not sufficiently motivated at this point to do something like that. For one thing the "folders" would need to be threads, which would give us even more threads we'd need to keep at the top. We've already got too many of those IMO. If that's not what you mean, what do you propose? AFAIK the BB software doesn't support folders.

[yellowdaddy]

don't worry, i am reading between the lines
just gimme some graphics to do and i'll shut up! (not you personally - I mean whoever knows what needs doing...)