Paths to glory

[Hrafnkell]

So far in my design of the government system I´ve kept the possibility open that players would want to rule a state where rigid control of every social aspect means more stability and more control for the ruler, but with little economical growth as a side-effect. This is more or less what historic states such as China and Persia (to name but a few) more or less did. Now, the question is, what rewards (in gameplay) would this approach give the players? All civ-type games so far have taken it for granted that the only true way is the Western way, everything else leads to certain doom and oblivion. Is this the path we want all players to follow, always? Do we allow players to follow f.e. example the Chinese path? If so, how can we balance this and make it as appealing as the Western way (if we don´t no-one will take this path except once out of curiosity)?
Here are some thoughts on the matter. First of all, the ‘paths’ I´m talking about is not something players choose a the start of the game and then must follow until the end, switching from one ‘path’ to another is very much possible. Secondly, the basic triats of the two paths I´ve mentioned, the Western way and the Chinese way (the naming is just for simplification) should be fairly obvious, that is, econimical growth and technological innovation with high degree of danger of social disturbances (riots, revolts, assassinations, wars) vs. rigid, formalized society (caste system often) with tight governmental control over the most important aspects of society and little chance of serious social uprisings, but where economical activity is severely restricted.
By simplifying greatly one can say that the Western way is better for the long-term, the Chinese way better for the short-term. I would, f.e., imagine that it´s better to wage war with the Chinese way: better access to recruits, less chance of social uprising to worry the ruler while abroad fighting and so on. But I´m not sure that the advantages the Chinese way has is enough. We could of course give players VP bonus for keeping a stabile society, but I think it´s a lousy way, very few players would be content to sit a twiddle their fingers and count the VPs rolling in for their ‘dull’ society. As Glak&Dominique said in some other post, what players want is Action, and I very much agree with this. The Action can of course come in many forms, not just by war, as Dom. points out, but in many cases the Chinese way could be lacking in Action. If we could ensure that players would enjoy going the Chinese way as the Western way then half the success is accomplished. What do other think? Is this something we should strife for, or just go with the other games of this kind and make the Western way the Right way?
I for one would want more than one way.

[Mark_Everson]

Wow, what a profound question. I'm not sure history has even given us the answer yet as to which is better from a civ-level standpoint. In another hundred years the situation might be very different from what it is today.

I think you can certainly make a case that there would be good reason to follow the unified, authoritarian way for at least much of history. Provided you could switch over to a high-growth phase at some point while keeping society stable. History has only been run once. IMO if the authoritarian states hadn't all been in stages of relative decay when the industrial revolution got going things could've turned out somewhat differently.

I guess my inclination in terms of playbalance is to make the authritarian unified route generally inferior to the other, at least moving into the modern age, but close enough so that in some circumstances it might be the better choice.

[Lumpkin]

Well, one advantage of tight government control of the economy is that it is far more stable. The free market system may result in much more rapid growth but it is very vulnerable to catastrophic collapses like the Great Depression. Since the economy has always played a crucial factor in social behaviour, an unplanned economy would also lead to social and political instability too. This was why the Bolsheviks thought they would win out in the end because the Western system was inherently self-destructive - also remember that Stalin performed a remarkable feat in transforming agricultural, feudal Russia into an industrialised superpower in such a short space of time. So authoritarian control isn't all doom and gloom for the economy.

Finally, authoritarian methods may simply be the only option. If Russia wanted to transform into an industrialised superpower in time to fend off Hitler, than it may well have been unable to do this with an unstable, often indecisive government. Russia needed decisive stability and I doubt whether a fledgling democracy in a country just released from seven centuries of brutal feudalism could have achieved that.

[Lumpkin]

Another thing, an important weakness in democracy is that when it occurs as a sudden change, replacing old authoritarian government, it often means to the citizens of the country that the symbol of authority has been removed. What I mean to say, is free, democratic government should only be viable in stable political climates. This should be possible in one of two ways:

1) Stable social and economic circumstances: A successful economy and/or a culture which is less prone to rebellion.

2) Was the new liberal government formed by revolution of by a gradual ceding of power from the old authoritariangovernment. By this I mean an authoritarian government which progressively becomes less authoritarian without actually experiencing a revolution. The prime example of this is of course Britain. Queen Elizabeth II is descended from King Egbert of Wessex in 802AD and I think this continuity was vital in England's success. When the the constitution became progressively more democratic in the nineteenth century, ppl still saw that the new democratic government was still the same government that ruled them in the past, it was still officially "Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, unlike with countries where the democracy was formed from revolution or sudden changes, British never had the symbol of authority removed and thus never suffered the instability of other countries.

My point is that where neither of these conditions are present, democracy may simply not be an option, with revolutions being forced by the masses.

[Mark_Everson]

We've got #2 in the system already. #1 is covered on the econ end, but I don't think the model considers cultures that are "prone" to revolution. Do you think such things really exist? Can you give me some examples?

[Lumpkin]

I was thinking of African and South American nations. You only need to look in an eclyopedia to see how many revolutions they've been through. True this had a great deal to do with economic problems, but there are plenty of Asian and Arabic nations which have also suffered great poverty, but do seem more stable. Take India for instance, huge place, massive amounts of poverty yet no revolution. I think it is these countries were not created out of colonialism, highly orderered and civilised cultures existed in Asia well before colonialism, whereas in Africa it was mainly tribes.

[Mark_Everson]

Point well taken... How we put such a thing in the world "model", well, I have no clue unless it is to be arbitrarily assigned.

[Hrafnkell]

One of the main differences between Africa and more or less the rest of the world is the legal rights. Property laws (remember that 9/10 of the laws deal with property) were Very poor in most African countries, and, although it may not be clear at first sight, property laws form the basis of stable society needed for democracy.

[Lumpkin]

I seem to remember a cultural attribute called something like "tradition". Well, I think tradition, a general culture and a sense of identity and purpose, are very important in creating a stable society. So if there is an attribute like this (or something like social responsibility), then I think propensity to rebel should be based on this.