Govt Model v.2 (contd.)

[Yoav Sissman]

roquijad:

I see things completely differently.

Now to your main criticism: It's true, the biggest problem with the govt model was that the player was forced to "cheat" and to go into trial and error in the interface to get what he wanted.

I hardly consider this to be the biggest problem.

What you bring up here is an interface issue, and your solution only addresses the interface problem. Instead of having the player try-and-error his way every turn to get the policy he wants by 'cheating' the system that grants bigger effect to extreme factions, he just input the value he 'really' wants, and perhaps lets the system cheat for him.

Let's assume he has 65% pol.power and assume that level of power gives him a maximum modifier of 20.

I must join LDiCesare's question here; how do you calculate the size of the modifier?

It can't possibly always be the modifier the player can reach using try-and error, because that modifier won't generally be equal in both directions. FE if the preliminary government profile consists of 40% PP and the ruler have 25% power, he will be able to fiddle with the actual PP% and push it as low as 30% (by inputting 0% in the ruler preferences) or as high as 55% (by inputting 100%). This means that the player can raise the PP% by up to 15% but lower it by only as much as 10%. The total boundary of control the ruler has will also be equal to his rate of political power, but its allocation between the two directions changes with the preliminary government profile.

I don't see much sense in enabling the ruler to act within a special set of rules; I think that he should have the same ability to nominally influence the DNPs that any other PB would have (I'm not talking about his goons here).

Also we should remember, that since the weighted-average system rewards extreme political powers by granting them more influence, it is probable that if we decide to use it, every political power will use the same try-and-error method that the player would have wanted to use. FE a marginal political power would also want to use his 'preferences menu' and set his policy on each DNP to 0% if his desired percent is lower then the existing one, and to 100% otherwise.

If we calculate the government profile relying on that assumption, the policies we get will tend to be centered around 50%.

But I think the current system is better because, as you yourself said it, in your system ruler's pol.power is irrelevant and I have to admit I don't like ruler's pol.power playing no role.

It seems that you have misunderstood my suggested system. I have said:

Of course that the ruler's chance of having the deciding voice still increases with his relative power. Also in the game there will often be much more then 4 distinct opinions, so the ruler's margin of freedom will increase more gradually when his power grows.

The larger the ruler's pol.power, the more far away from the median of the preliminary government profile he will be able to push the DNP.

Those are the main gameplay advantages of the median system.

LDiCesare:

Actually, the only thing which bothers me is that 51% polpower means you always get what you want with this system,

It may sound unrealistic, but this is indeed often the case in RL.

Think of the French government structures of the 18th and 19th century that assured representation to various social classes. Couldn't, FE, the Aristocracy and Church team up against 'the third class' and ensure it has null de-facto influence (if they ignore the possibility of riots)?

What about modern parliaments? Blocks of parties that include the majority of the house can form a coalition and dictate the government policies (the opposition can offer an alternative to the public, but doesn't have much nominal power).

The only places in where a 51% majority can't do as it wants, is where some constitutional limitation requires greater majority. I believe that those issues can be mostly attributed to the people traditionalism and their reluctance to accept radical changes. It also has a sense of protecting the rights of the political minorities, but since we don't implement such constitutional limitations in our DNPs (for simplicity reasons) we might as well ignore that.

Of course that a majority of more then 51% may be required for certain decisions (abolishing/allowing slavery).

Lord God Jinnai:

Well i LDiCesare i think that should only be used in cases where there is only a yes/no or 1/2 type question. Like, do we declare war on country X?

The question of median vs. average is of course only relevant when we don't use a plebiscite for the decision making.

This is an unrelated matter, but I don't think we should use yes/no votes as little as possible, because few opinions can be truly represented in a binary manner.

FE what if the people strongly feel that they want a world wonder, but since they have different preferences no wonder will win a majority whilst the people speculate that their favorite one might be chosen instead? Sure we can present them with a list and choose the wonder with the most votes, but perhaps another WW is preferable because almost everybody consider it to be their second best?

Or in your example, perhaps the people rather war with civ X, but still prefer fighting with Y if the only alternative is maintaining peace?

It should also not be used in every type of governmental systems, reguardless of pol. pow.

What do you mean?

[F_Smith]

As some of ya'll may remember, this topic and suggestion came up once before. I would love to revist the discussion, because I much prefer the 'voting' system be included.

I personally like a 'voting' system, or '50% + 1 rule' being a govt option. It seems far more realistic in many instances.

The suggested system at the time was that the player can select a 'govt type'. Some govt types -- 'Parliment', maybe for example? -- negotiated values in the way that is suggested for the basic model. But other govt types -- 'Republic', maybe? -- use a 'voting' system. And still other govt types -- dictatorship, or kingdom? -- were just always totally player controlled. Of course both republic and kingdom still have to worry about the effects of ignoring the desires of social classes, riots and happiness and such. But the choice is up to the player, not decided for the player.

That, specifically, is my complaint about the 'negotiated' system. It takes the actual power of govt negotiations out of the hands of the player. All factions have a say, even if the player doesn't want to negotiate with them. I want the option of ignoring the requests of, for example, a radical group of religious extreemists.

And please remember that I only suggest this for 'expert' level govt control. If a player chooses to stick with 'basic' govt, then I would stick with the negotiated system since it's simpler for the player.

[roquijad]

Yoav: Somehow I'm not getting what you say and you're not getting what I say...

I don't understand where you concluded in my system the ruler's modifier is different in the two possible directions. I'll try to explain my self again:

A given policy P is negotiated between political blocks ignoring the ruler and takes the value X.

As a function of ruler's polpower, we compute a maximum modifier M. The exact function to be used (to respond to LDCesare) isn't important. Just a function that increases with ruler's polpower.

The final value for P is, then, possible to be set by the ruler anywhere in the range [X-M, X+M]. Then, the ruler can increase the preliminary value X in the same magnitude he can decrease it.

The ruler's preferred value does not affect the magnitude of M, just his polpower does, so there's no point in extreming the values (lying to the interface to get what you want). The ruler gains nothing if he puts a value greater or lower than the one he really wants.

Now to your system: Now that I understand it more, I've to say I don't like that sharp shift it promotes. The ruler, when passing from 50% to 51% power goes from a position of negotiation to BOOM! absoulte despotism. I don't like this and even considering your examples and a few others FSmith has given in the past, I find it a lot less realistic than the system I propose.

As FSmith said, this has been a topic of controversy in the past and I suggest those of you interested in the subject to go back and read some of what's already been said. I have to say I haven't seen yet an argument that convince me the "51rule" is good. And here I've to remember to you all that I was trying to create a system that could be used in any type of government. The 51rule looks too specific to me. I don't think we need to create different systems for different types of govts, as FSmith proposes, if one system can work for all and, even better, for all the varieties in between "typical" govt types.

FSmith wrote:

That, specifically, is my complaint about the 'negotiated' system. It takes the actual power of govt negotiations out of the hands of the player. All factions have a say, even if the player doesn't want to negotiate with them.

Taking power out of the hands of the player was exactly the idea behind the model. The model is able to simulate scenarios where the ruler doesn't have total power. But at the same time it can model despotic regimes. You just need a suffciently large polpower (the M modifier will grow so much that the X preliminary value becomes largely irrelevant). And you can have all the degrees in between!

I admit both Yoav's system and FSmith's system allow an scenario of "negotiation" and one of "despotism". It's just the radical shift from one to the other that I dislike. I believe one of the great characteristics of the current model is that it gives smooth "degrees". I think in RL there're degrees of despotism, not a black-or-white type of thing.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Everyone:

I think we just need to try both approaches The extra code work to do it an additional way is fairly small. So there's no reason it Can't be discussed now, but IMO taking the question to the playtesters is probably the best approach.

I hope things are going well with you 'F'!

[LDiCesare]

About the computation of M: I'd like more details...
It seems to be the range of change that a leader can obtain from a given value. How does it change after one turn?
For example, I want to spend 70 K per turn on research but current value is only 40 and I can influence only 20. I'll get 60 K.
Next turn, do I still have a mod of 20, in which case I reach 70? How do you compute the original 40? Is it the average of what others want or the current value?
If it is the preliminary value, it means I am a despot, it just takes me some time to reach my goals (2 turns in my example).
If it is another value, how do you compute it? Average? Median?

I'd be happy with any system that avoids our asking 100% to get 66%.
As Yoav example implied, the 51% rule led to French revolution because the Tiers Etat was represented but had no power (with 33% of the votes!).
Note that in this case, the king could decide against Les Etats Generaux (the parliament) if he wanted, but then he would have faced revolution from the nobles (i.e. the army), so it could be a valid option to be a despot and have a parliament just to know what the "people" think/want.

[F_Smith]

Hi, Mark.

Things are well. And you?

Both is perfect, I agree. Many (most?) people won't want to mess with specifics like govt negotiations.

Roq:

The model is able to simulate scenarios where the ruler doesn't have total power. But at the same time it can model despotic regimes. You just need a suffciently large polpower (the M modifier will grow so much that the X preliminary value becomes largely irrelevant). And you can have all the degrees in between!

• I understand. It works fine, and is a good system.
  
  But it does seem wierd to me. If I'm not mistaken, for most of history the ruler has had absolute power. But to say that meant he had 100% of the power would be highly inaccurate.
  
  A kingdom can have a very powerful merchant class, yet a king could raise taxes to the roof over any objections that they can raise. The basic system doesn't allow for that at all, unless you set the merchant polpower at 0% -- which would be highly inaccurate.
  
  
• Also, how does the basic system handle yes/no questions?
  
  Declarations of war, emergency taxes, accept/decline treaties, that kind of thing?
  

[Yoav Sissman]

F_Smith:

As some of ya'll may remember, this topic and suggestion came up once before. I would love to revist the discussion, because I much prefer the 'voting' system be included.

Mark too has mentioned the fact that this matter was already discussed in the past, but I was unsuccessful in finding it. I've read this entire thread and searched the forum using the keyword 'median', with no luck.

Is it in the 'Government Model v.2' thread?

The suggested system at the time was that the player can select a 'govt type'. Some govt types -- 'Parliment', maybe for example? -- negotiated values in the way that is suggested for the basic model. But other govt types -- 'Republic', maybe? -- use a 'voting' system.

I much rather the currently accepted approach - where the process of negotiations is general and the different forms of governments (ideologies) only have to do with the distribution of the polpower.

roquijad:

Obviously those decisions aren't mine to make, and it's possible that the final decision on the rules of negotiations will be left to playtesting (as Mark suggests), but nevertheless I'll first try and explain my approach further.

As a function of ruler's polpower, we compute a maximum modifier M. The exact function to be used (to respond to LDCesare) isn't important. Just a function that increases with ruler's polpower.

In my mind it would be preferable to have the ruler enjoy a status in negotiations that is equal to those of the other PBs. i.e. a ruler with 20% power will have a nominal effect that is equal to that of the people PB if they have 20% power.

Calculating M as a function of the ruler's political power alone, will necessarily discriminate the ruler, because the actual influence of the rest of the PBs varies with their distance from the actual government profile (regardless if they 'lie' or not).

Even if we'll abandon the 'M system' and use a pure weighted average system that doesn't discriminate between the player and other PBs and doesn't result in interface problems (that's easily doable) I still won't like the modeled system. In my mind the decision over the DNPs should fall at the point where half the forces push in one direction and the other half pushes in the another, without considering how extreme the factions are (which should be left to the riots model).

Again, I have no interface problem with your design. My comments are directed at its gameplay effects (and realism).

Now to your system: Now that I understand it more, I've to say I don't like that sharp shift it promotes. The ruler, when passing from 50% to 51% power goes from a position of negotiation to BOOM! absoulte despotism. I don't like this and even considering your examples and a few others FSmith has given in the past, I find it a lot less realistic than the system I propose.

Where is the sharp shift?

When the ruler has 51% of power he is absolutely despotic over the DNPs. When he has only 50% (let's say minus some infinitesimal value) he has ALMOST despotic power. All other factions must combine their forces and support a policy that is either higher or lower from his policy (i.e. if the ruler wants PP to be 50%, everyone else must want it higher or everyone else must it push it lower to have any effect). Even then the government policy will be the preferred policy of the faction that is the closest to the ruler (except for the ruler itself).

If the ruler has 50%+ the negotiation rules still apply, it's just that they allow the ruler to have his way.

Then you may ask why should the ruler care about giving away 49% of the power, while he keeps the rest of it?

Well, at least as far as the DNP negotiations are concerned, he shouldn't. This is why dictators today and over the course of history often chose to trust some of the PBs with small portions of the legal political force. Often it has true meaning (With King John and the Magna Charta) but in certain regimes it imposed no real danger to their despotic authority, and yet it rewarded those individuals who enjoyed the symbolic power, with honor that helped maintain their loyalty and improved the image of the ruler.

Examples of the latter case are the Roman senate during Ceaser's time (remember we are talking legal power) and modern parliaments in dictatorial states (like the USSR Proletarian and the Syrian parliament).

LDiCesare:

About the computation of M: I'd like more details...
It seems to be the range of change that a leader can obtain from a given value. How does it change after one turn?

My understanding was that it's computed from scrap every turn, using the current preliminary government profile (which ignores the ruler preferences).

F_Smith:

But it does seem wierd to me. If I'm not mistaken, for most of history the ruler has had absolute power. But to say that meant he had 100% of the power would be highly inaccurate.

Exactly what I was saying. Often the ruler found it comfortable to entrust certain individuals with a seemingly independent authority, but kept the legal right to override them to his self.

Of course that roquijad may simply decide that in his model those regimes are all considered as totals despocities, but then total despocities will be including a broad range of government forms.

Also, how does the basic system handle yes/no questions?

I'd like to stress again that my alternative negotiations model for DNPs decision-making process has nothing to do with dealing with yes/no questions (at least as far as I presented it!).

MHO on this is that we should have as few yes/no questions as possible, and rather derive the answers from the DNPs (I've explained my reasons in my previous post).

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Yoav:

The previous discussions of this are in several places I think. But the most dense discussion is at the beginning of this very thread, where the name 51% (rule) came to be what it was called. The next most dense discussion is IIRC near the end of the preceeding Govt. v2 thread. The approach is also discussed (again IIRC) in some of F_Smiths old threads discussing coding of social and govt models and 'the Beast' the govt/social model test code. If you search under 51% you will find many posts on this topic, and the most recent ones too. If you find when 51% became common you may be able to figure out what keyword to use to find earlier discussions. Another idea would be to look for posts by F_Smith with the word ruler in them.

Happy discussing, I'm staying Out of this one. But you can see my opinions in the re-runs

[Lord God Jinnai]

The problem with the 51% system is that it is very easily abused Here's how:

The player will want to control his civ as much as possible. That makes sense and seems reasonable, but he can use the 51% rule to his benit easily by letting some other parties have some political power so long as it stays at a total of 49& or less and crush any groups pol. power if it gets too high. Because he will have 51%, he can do that, no questions asked. In this way he makes sure he gets the best of both worlds, less trouble from the nobles and commoners because they have some pol. power and still have complete control over anything he wants 100% as he wants it done.

Even Yoav's comments aren't totally true, because when push comes to shove, at the ruler has 51%, short of a civil war of coup what the ruler says, gets done.

[roquijad]

Govt Model Version 3.1 has been released. A descriptive document is available (a technical doc (equations) will be available soon). I've sent it to Dom and he'll tell us when it's up in the web site. For those of you who don't want to wait, email me and I'll send it to you ( roquijad@cec.uchile.cl ).

If you're familiar with the model, just jump to chapter VIII (the only relevant novelty). This part has nothing to do with the discussion above so don't go there looking for answers for the above conversation. Chapter VIII describes the geographic difficulties of running the empire and it's a topic that's almost completly new to the model, so feedback is wanted.


About the dicussion on 51%rules and such:
1) LDiCesare: PB's make a preliminary decision, then the mod is applied. That happens every turn, so if from one turn to the next social classes and the ruler didn't change their minds, the final value obtained is the same.
2) Yoav: Hey, if you think your system is better, keep pushing. At the end we won't code in Clash what I personally think is better, but what all, or at least a majority, want.
3) All: I suggest a completely new approach for this discussion: Tell me what the model can't do. Much of the discussion goes around the processes inside the model w/o considering the model's output (which is all that really matters). If you show me an historical framework where the model produces a wrong, unrealistic output, then we'll be on the right track for a disussion. If we find there's a long enough list of things the model can't represent correctly, I'm all for changing it. But please, please, please, before you start throwing examples of the model producing wrong outputs, give me a chance to make a post to clarify a couple of things some of you are getting plain wrong. I can't do it now because it's almost 3AM and I want to go to bed. In a day or two I'll do it. ok?

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Rodrigo. Chapter 8 sounds really interesting. Could you email the Govt model to me?

Thanks,

Mark

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Rodrigo:

I think you did a great job fixing all those old issues in the new government model! I've only got a few minor comments.

You did a really good job with feudalism! I think the flexibility to handle it will help out the game a lot! As a quibble, I think that feudal units should be available for temporary use by the civilization if their use is requested, and granted by the local authorities.

One thing I didn't like is that you have the Province Autonomy Level set by the ruler. I think this should be negotiated like everything else in the system. My concern is... suppose you have a modern democracy. If I have read your system right so long as there are no feudal troops the player can just declare all provinces in the civ to have a 0 autonomy level. That is OK for a dictatorship, but such things don't happen in democracies were there is typically a federalized system sharing the power geographically as well as demographically. I could go on about this, but I want to hear whether I have misread your approach first.

And I really preferred the old name "Ideologies" to Regimes. But I can see where you did a because some of the things are really regimes, whereas others are ideologies.

I am hoping we can get the model coded as soon as possible! Unfortunately, Gary, who is the one who is going to do it, has a lot of other coding responsibilities too. Still, I hope he's as excited about it as I am.

Great Job,

Mark

[Mark_Everson]

I have a few more comments from a scrap of paper I discovered from a preliminary version of the model a ways back.

I dislike the notion that religions are the sole purveyors of ethics. Can we not simply put in a "religion" called "philosophy" or "humanism" or some such? That could be a catchall that allowed non-religious states to nonetheless get some of the benefits that the model ascribes to religion. I guess philosophy would not have a holy land that people would be willing to die for however .

I also don't like the fact that Regimes/Ideologies don't have a bureaucracy power. Admittedly foremost historical regimes the goal is very small bureaucracy power. However, I don't think that's the case for the Confucian meritocracy in China. I expect there are other examples also. And the fix is easy, just put in the number, and set it very low for most Ideologies.

I also thought a little bit about class power being overcounted in your approach if several of the numbers were very high. FE A = 100, W = 90, K = 90 etc. could you comment on that?

[Gary Thomas]

I guess philosophy would not have a holy land that people would be willing to die for however

What about Socrates?

Otherwise I agree that cultures can be non-religious, but ethical.

Cheers

[roquijad]

Mark: Can you close this thread? I've opened another one for the new model version. And please put your comments/questions in that new thread.

All: the link to the new thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30817