Tweet
Hi guys,
I´m still struggling over the governmetnal thing, you where right, Mark,
when I started to flesh it out it became much too complex, most factors had
4-5 pre-requisites, some more; some made other factors
obsolete/unavailable, and so on. I´m currently trying to make it a bit
simpler, I still think the general idea is valid.
>
>I have a problem with agents based on classes only. It would be more
difficult to
>treat real cultural problems, such as religious or nationalist, cause this
would mean
>we would have to split the agents when such things occur. Moreover, I
think managing
>the different cultures only through ratios in a given class would mean
loss of
>suppleness and quite a sophisticated software mechanics to handle the
ratios and
>effects. In fact, I think the whole behviour of the people should be embedded
>together, I mean not seperating the quite stricly political behaviour of a
class
>(revolting or not) from the social and cultural facts. Through this, we
could simulate
>revolts, strikes, religious/nationalist wars etc.. with some coherence -
IMHO these
>facts are rarely disjoint...
>
Well, I think this is just something we have to swallow, by reducing the
number of agents the system becomes simpler, there is nothing we can do
about that. Although I agree that making each class an agent makes it
harder to implement cultural changes, IMHO I think it´s OK to make each
class (agent) homogenous. Historically, many important cultural features
Did align themselves according to the class structure and those of the same
ethnic group/faith etc. Did group themselves together in one area. F.e. in
the War of Religion in France most of the protestants where in the
South-west region, in Poland the majority of town-dwellers where Jewish
well into the 19th century, in Bohemia and parts of Austria in early 17th
century the majority of the peasants/townsfolk where protestant, while the
nobles where catholic. I know this isn´t Always the case, but for
gameplays sake I think this would be OK and it wouldn´t be too far off the
realistic mark. So, my opinion is that basing agents on classes could work.
>About your ideas :
>
>I think you have a good idea with the one/many-rulers model with factors.
I think u
>have to precise some points :
>- how far will the player have control on the government shape, on
moreover on the
>government changes : real government changes rarely occurded by the Will
of the
>ruler...
I think I´m right in saying that players don´t actualy represent the ruler
hi,self, they are some shadowy figure manipulating things behind the
scenes. So players can, if they want, make all the changes to the
government they like. All they must make sure of is that whoever is in the
ruling seat at any given time has power to do things.
>- how the control of the player will be implemented, I mean : will he
namely choose
>such factor in such gov form, or will his discrete actions in a given gov.
form set,
>unset or modify the attributes of the gov. (for exemple, in a Monarchy, he
could
>namely hire a governor for a province, choosing him between a Noble or one
of its
>administrators, such shaping wether a centralized or a feudal Monarchy type.)
This would all depend on the amount of micro-management the player wants.
Our goal is to allow players Both to set only the general course or to
manage a lot himself (by choosing general course I mean f.e. choosing a)
the preferred gov.form b) the preferred ruling class c) some short/long
term goals to accomplish (more money, more stability, better/more recruits,
etc. We haven´t done any of this yet.) The exact level of details are also
undecided yet, but the general idea I have at the moment would f.e. include
your example (although maybe in a little bit more simplified terms) on
choosing a local lord or a government agent. I´ll let you know when I got
more on this (i.e. when I´ve gotten it from my head and down on paper :-)).
>- Back to the particular case of gov. change. First : will there be a
"Revolution"
>Button like in CivI/II or Ctp, or will the revolution be the result of the
>inadequation between the gov form and the social mood/aspirations at a
given point? In
>this last case, will the ruler have direct choice for the succeding gov.
form (this
>should be, assuming that as soon as the revolution has occured - and
succeeded, the
>player takes the place of the winner and thus decides of the new gov.
form). However,
>will there other prerequisites than tech for a given gov. to be available
after a
>revolution, for exemple social prerequisites?
>
About the 'Revolution Button' the answer is yes and no. Players Will be
able to change the government, whether this happens through a revolution or
not depends on the situation (such as who is being usurped, who is the new
ruler, etc.) If f.e. a King is usurped through a Coup d'Etat staged by some
nobles the chance of a massive riot/revolt are rather slim, this would
probalby be based on the power wielded by the new ruler(s). If, OTOH, this
same King would be overthrown by dissatisfied peasants/citizens, the
chances of a bloodshed are very much increased. Now, the chances of a
Civil War occuring is very much based on the different cultures found
within the state, we´ll talk about this later.
Only bad players should be taken by surprise by a revolt. Even those
who have little interest in the government aspects of the game should get
ample warnings before a revolt/rebellion breaks out, and preferably some
options in how to handle this (this is of course our, the designers, job :-)).
As I said above, the player isn´t actually the ruler himself, so yes,
players start puppet-mastering the new ruler(s) as soon as the gov.change
is through. As gov.changes most often are made by player´s initiative they
should generally control what type of new government evolves, I haven´t
thought much about this, but now that you mention it we could include a
(small) chance that the new government isn´t the one they wanted. This
would then be based on the distribution of power in society. F.e. a
democracy is besieged by troubles and the player decides to risk going to
Communism, however, the Military Class has the same pol.power as the Labor
Class (which the Comm.gov. would be based on) and while the state is in a
turmoil the Military takes control and sets up a military Junta. Is this
what you mean?
I´m sorry, but I don´t understand your last question, could you please
rephrase it?
>- Concerning the Class support point, if we finally turn out to use
agents, all this
>should be embedded in the agents. This way we could mix
social/political/cultural
>behaviours. Maybe we could use a separate slider for the political
involvment case - a
>good idea IMO - or just compute the stuff through other sliders. This way,
fe, the
>involvment of the religious class would be linked to the state/Church
relationship,
>not only on quite-random factors.
>
Yes, I agree. I had already envisioned using the pro/anti schematic for as
many things as possible (unrest created, administration, etc), so I think
it fits well into the agents model. As you´re more knowledgable about the
MAS, maybe it´s better you try to model it in, OK?
>PS : one historical point : if we only consider the "citizens", the
Ancient Greece was
>a Democracy, not a Republic. Moreover, with a very rigorous definition,
this is the
>only ever democracy. All contemporary gov forms we use to call democracys
are not
>democracies, only different forms of representative governments.
>
>
Maybe in the very beginning a true Democracy was found in the Greece
City-states. I think that soon party politics and, especially, money began
to rule who was chosen as leader. I agree with you that modern society is
not a true democracy. Most people can only at most only affect their local
government. But lets not forget that democracy is not just a question on
how much power the people wield, but also how much restraints are on
governmental behaviour. I´m sure we can argue endlessly on how much
excactly this restraint is today, but I think we can all agree that with
modern media and instant communications whereever and whenever governments
are much more in the limelight today then ever before in history. Big
Brother isn´t only watching us, we´re watching him too :-).
Probably the only true democracy today exists somewhere in the Amazon,
where a lost tribe of 25 souls experience the joys of joint rule :-).
Keli.
I´m still struggling over the governmetnal thing, you where right, Mark,
when I started to flesh it out it became much too complex, most factors had
4-5 pre-requisites, some more; some made other factors
obsolete/unavailable, and so on. I´m currently trying to make it a bit
simpler, I still think the general idea is valid.
>
>I have a problem with agents based on classes only. It would be more
difficult to
>treat real cultural problems, such as religious or nationalist, cause this
would mean
>we would have to split the agents when such things occur. Moreover, I
think managing
>the different cultures only through ratios in a given class would mean
loss of
>suppleness and quite a sophisticated software mechanics to handle the
ratios and
>effects. In fact, I think the whole behviour of the people should be embedded
>together, I mean not seperating the quite stricly political behaviour of a
class
>(revolting or not) from the social and cultural facts. Through this, we
could simulate
>revolts, strikes, religious/nationalist wars etc.. with some coherence -
IMHO these
>facts are rarely disjoint...
>
Well, I think this is just something we have to swallow, by reducing the
number of agents the system becomes simpler, there is nothing we can do
about that. Although I agree that making each class an agent makes it
harder to implement cultural changes, IMHO I think it´s OK to make each
class (agent) homogenous. Historically, many important cultural features
Did align themselves according to the class structure and those of the same
ethnic group/faith etc. Did group themselves together in one area. F.e. in
the War of Religion in France most of the protestants where in the
South-west region, in Poland the majority of town-dwellers where Jewish
well into the 19th century, in Bohemia and parts of Austria in early 17th
century the majority of the peasants/townsfolk where protestant, while the
nobles where catholic. I know this isn´t Always the case, but for
gameplays sake I think this would be OK and it wouldn´t be too far off the
realistic mark. So, my opinion is that basing agents on classes could work.
>About your ideas :
>
>I think you have a good idea with the one/many-rulers model with factors.
I think u
>have to precise some points :
>- how far will the player have control on the government shape, on
moreover on the
>government changes : real government changes rarely occurded by the Will
of the
>ruler...
I think I´m right in saying that players don´t actualy represent the ruler
hi,self, they are some shadowy figure manipulating things behind the
scenes. So players can, if they want, make all the changes to the
government they like. All they must make sure of is that whoever is in the
ruling seat at any given time has power to do things.
>- how the control of the player will be implemented, I mean : will he
namely choose
>such factor in such gov form, or will his discrete actions in a given gov.
form set,
>unset or modify the attributes of the gov. (for exemple, in a Monarchy, he
could
>namely hire a governor for a province, choosing him between a Noble or one
of its
>administrators, such shaping wether a centralized or a feudal Monarchy type.)
This would all depend on the amount of micro-management the player wants.
Our goal is to allow players Both to set only the general course or to
manage a lot himself (by choosing general course I mean f.e. choosing a)
the preferred gov.form b) the preferred ruling class c) some short/long
term goals to accomplish (more money, more stability, better/more recruits,
etc. We haven´t done any of this yet.) The exact level of details are also
undecided yet, but the general idea I have at the moment would f.e. include
your example (although maybe in a little bit more simplified terms) on
choosing a local lord or a government agent. I´ll let you know when I got
more on this (i.e. when I´ve gotten it from my head and down on paper :-)).
>- Back to the particular case of gov. change. First : will there be a
"Revolution"
>Button like in CivI/II or Ctp, or will the revolution be the result of the
>inadequation between the gov form and the social mood/aspirations at a
given point? In
>this last case, will the ruler have direct choice for the succeding gov.
form (this
>should be, assuming that as soon as the revolution has occured - and
succeeded, the
>player takes the place of the winner and thus decides of the new gov.
form). However,
>will there other prerequisites than tech for a given gov. to be available
after a
>revolution, for exemple social prerequisites?
>
About the 'Revolution Button' the answer is yes and no. Players Will be
able to change the government, whether this happens through a revolution or
not depends on the situation (such as who is being usurped, who is the new
ruler, etc.) If f.e. a King is usurped through a Coup d'Etat staged by some
nobles the chance of a massive riot/revolt are rather slim, this would
probalby be based on the power wielded by the new ruler(s). If, OTOH, this
same King would be overthrown by dissatisfied peasants/citizens, the
chances of a bloodshed are very much increased. Now, the chances of a
Civil War occuring is very much based on the different cultures found
within the state, we´ll talk about this later.
Only bad players should be taken by surprise by a revolt. Even those
who have little interest in the government aspects of the game should get
ample warnings before a revolt/rebellion breaks out, and preferably some
options in how to handle this (this is of course our, the designers, job :-)).
As I said above, the player isn´t actually the ruler himself, so yes,
players start puppet-mastering the new ruler(s) as soon as the gov.change
is through. As gov.changes most often are made by player´s initiative they
should generally control what type of new government evolves, I haven´t
thought much about this, but now that you mention it we could include a
(small) chance that the new government isn´t the one they wanted. This
would then be based on the distribution of power in society. F.e. a
democracy is besieged by troubles and the player decides to risk going to
Communism, however, the Military Class has the same pol.power as the Labor
Class (which the Comm.gov. would be based on) and while the state is in a
turmoil the Military takes control and sets up a military Junta. Is this
what you mean?
I´m sorry, but I don´t understand your last question, could you please
rephrase it?
>- Concerning the Class support point, if we finally turn out to use
agents, all this
>should be embedded in the agents. This way we could mix
social/political/cultural
>behaviours. Maybe we could use a separate slider for the political
involvment case - a
>good idea IMO - or just compute the stuff through other sliders. This way,
fe, the
>involvment of the religious class would be linked to the state/Church
relationship,
>not only on quite-random factors.
>
Yes, I agree. I had already envisioned using the pro/anti schematic for as
many things as possible (unrest created, administration, etc), so I think
it fits well into the agents model. As you´re more knowledgable about the
MAS, maybe it´s better you try to model it in, OK?
>PS : one historical point : if we only consider the "citizens", the
Ancient Greece was
>a Democracy, not a Republic. Moreover, with a very rigorous definition,
this is the
>only ever democracy. All contemporary gov forms we use to call democracys
are not
>democracies, only different forms of representative governments.
>
>
Maybe in the very beginning a true Democracy was found in the Greece
City-states. I think that soon party politics and, especially, money began
to rule who was chosen as leader. I agree with you that modern society is
not a true democracy. Most people can only at most only affect their local
government. But lets not forget that democracy is not just a question on
how much power the people wield, but also how much restraints are on
governmental behaviour. I´m sure we can argue endlessly on how much
excactly this restraint is today, but I think we can all agree that with
modern media and instant communications whereever and whenever governments
are much more in the limelight today then ever before in history. Big
Brother isn´t only watching us, we´re watching him too :-).
Probably the only true democracy today exists somewhere in the Amazon,
where a lost tribe of 25 souls experience the joys of joint rule :-).
Keli.
Comment