Governments, civilizations, ethnicity and how they relate in the game

[Simon Loverix]

I've given this some thought recently and it seems related to the issue in the 'command and control' thread.

The term civilization is used very often, but what does it imply?

An ethnic group can rule a territory (Germans) or not (Jews). If the ethnic group is predominant on its territory, it is called a nation. If significant minorities exist, it is called an empire (Russia).

For the game, will we consider the nation, the empire or the ethnic group as the civilization? In early times, they will coincide, but in later times we'll have ethnic minorities outside the territory, possible shifts in the power balance of ethnic groups within empires and far-reaching cultural changes.

Given the fact that the player must be the person in charge, he is the government. He will start out with the control of one ethnic group, but later that will change when he starts conquering. So in the process, the ethnic group can become a minority or even disappear in the process. This means a player should be the empire. But civilizations are more than empires alone. What if things go badly early on? Some of the player's people might fall under another ruler..but manage to keep their culture alive (likely not without some support from their home nation. In this case a civilization is more the ethnicity.

So a player is ultimately the goverment, the ruler and it will depend on him (and the whims of history) whether he associates with a particular ethnic group with a great patriottic pride or assembles a melting-pot empire in which ethnicity is of minor importance (And we will have to find a way to rewards his efforts towards either goal).

Does everyone agree with this?

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Simon:

This has come up several times before... I will give you the thread urls and you can either add to those old thread or continue on here. I am not going to say too much since this isn't an immediate issue for putting code out

I think of the player as the 'spirit of the civilization' first, working thru a current government leader to achive his/her will. So if the government is decaying and barely in power, the player cannot well execute their desires. The same is true for a democracy, but in that case its because the leader only has limited power by definition. I do not view the player as an ethnic group since that could change over the game. FE a player might first control Norsemen, who thru conquest become Normans (in France). Since the Norsemen civ isn't powerful enough to impose its will on the Normans, the player then needs to pick one side and run them from then on. (The alternative is to try to remain in control of both, and lose to the inevitable revolt farily soon). Similarly, as I see it, the Normans can conquer Britain. Our former Normans (and the player as their spirit) would then rule what becomes the short-lived Angevin Empire. At some point they lose their French holdings to what will become the French king.

What was originally a civ of Norsemen is now one (England) composed of Anglo-saxons and other EGs. Now to make it more exilharating the English colonize and the player again gets the chance of which horse to back when the American Revolution occurs! Anyway that's my view of how dynamic the game should be, and what the player is.

Previous threads:

Who is the player and what is the player controlling?

and

Revolutions

There is also some relevant discussion in How many civs? .

If anyone turns up more links, let me know and I'll put 'em here!

[Lord God Jinnai]

Like i said though, there should be some restictions becuase the player if he doesn't like the way his current political situation is with his ruler and can see and he deliberatly sets up his taxes to 90% amd whatnot so that he knows he can get a civil war or revoluton to get a better politcal situation. Either that or the government model will haveto be complex enough to handle multiple splinter nations at the same time going for the throne.

[KrikkitOne]

Having only gotten on recently, (but having thought about this much as an avid Civer) I don't think my ideas would work completely with your current models but some parts of them may.


The way I figure on resolving this type of problem in civ games is by introducing 3 concepts.
1st Governments/Players-in-Exile.
2nd Subordinate Governments/Players
3rd NonStarting Governments/Players

Governments (includes rebel groups once they get organized) have a 2 part name
1-What "country" they want to control
2-a unique identifier (just a random name, no meaning necessary)
So In China ~WW2 there could be up to 4 Governments
1 Chinese Communists
2 Chinese Nationalists
3 Chinese Monarchists (Government in Exile)
4 Chinese Manchuria (Subordinate to Japan)
[the "country" part of the claim does not refer to territory or ethnic group, it simply means that you regard yourself as the rightful _____ Government, therefore Revolutionaries and Puppet governments choose it, Independence groups do not]

The rule I would state is that a Player may shift to ruling a Nonstarting Player Government that their Government created (assuming that it is Subordinate to them or they are Subordinate to it)
Or
They may shift to any Nonstarting Government of the same Country ONCE at any time.
Or
They may shift to a Nonstarting Government of the same country at the point when either government decide to choose independence (when the Government decides to recognize the other... making them different "Countries")


So The British player could shift to control of colonial Virginia (because they created that Government, and no Player shifted to control of it) but not colonial India (because that "Nonstarting Government" was taken over by the Indian Player)

Virginia could not shift to control of Britain (it didn't create the British government), but it could shift to control of America (provided the other 12 players agreed, and no other "starting player" had shifted to control of America.. AIs should agree to letting Human players take control of relatively new "alliance" governments)

The Chinese player could shift from the Monarchists to the Nationalists to the Communists whenever they wanted. However once they shifted FROM the Nationalists they cannot shift TO the Nationalists unless their current government gives up being a "Chinese" government. (So the Current Situation would be Chinese Communists in control of the mainland and Chinese Nationalists in control of Taiwan.

Assume the player had started out Monarchists, once they were a Gov-in-exile (no control of territory) they recognized the Nationalists (eliminating the monarchists) and the Player became the Nationalists. If the player shifted to the Communists ~1960 or so then the player Cannot shift Back to the nationalists until the Communists Recognize the Nationalists as the government of China (In which case the Communists would be renamed "Chinesf 10110" and the Player would have one last opportunity to switch) or vice versa (In which case the Nationalists would be renamed "Chinesf 10111" and the Player would have the last opportunity to switch)

Again I know this probably won't fit in with the current model, but it avoids some unneccessary problems (like over reliance on a capital, or ethnic group, or getting stuck with Taiwan because the Nationalists haven't surrendered/declared Independence yet)

[Simon Loverix]

I think it is best to keep the player in control of the government until the bitter end, after which he can optionally lead the resistance against the conquering empire. Switching at will or choosing sides when a split happens will cause abuses.

[Simon Loverix]

And how about 'independent' squares?
You can have aboriginals: independent squares, nothing happens with them and they don't belong to a central government. Many squares will be so for a large part of the game.
And also city-states: eg. In Mesopotamia, you would start with one city/square surrounded by other squares of the same culture but a different ruler (active or passive). So when you obtained control (military, dynastically) of them, there wouldn't be big differences in attributes of the population, so it wouldn't be difficult to maintain control of them. This way it can be easier to start without giving the player a huge area for free.

If we keep some track of larger groups of cultural similarity (independent squares, no big ruler) they (or a part of them) could at certain points (triggered by disasters or the presence of a nearby empire) become active as a civilization.

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Simon:

Most of what you are looking for in your second post I am already committed to try and do, although those features may not have made it into the documentation yet. Cultures with weak or no centralized authority were already in Demo 4. However we haven't put anything like that back in D5 because it was fairly low priority compared to the other stuff we needed to do in completely redoing the code. And even in D5 such cultures had a chance of uniting to fight you if you picked off too much of the culture's territory.

[KrikkitOne]

The problem with forcing the player to "hang on" to the "bitter end" means that the Chinese player in a situation like our current history would be stuck with Taiwan... I know if I were the Chinese player I might appreciate the option to switch to the Communists after~1960 instead of waiting for the mainland to invade.



The only abuse I can see if you can switch to a competing government of your civ ONCE is the possibility of switching to control the rebels and then once you have gotten them crushed, going back to being the "rightful government". Possibly you can't switch to a new government unless it has a certain amount of power (ie certain amount of territory, etc.)

[Mark_Everson]

My thought was that the player can Never return to a government they have left willingly. This is still subject to some abuse, since if you know you are destined to rule the USA you might intentionally screw up the English while you were still in control, and do everything you could to foment rebellion in the colonies. Come to think of it, that matches history pretty well .

I think we will only really know what works on these kind of delicate situations after playtesting. But its good to discuss first, since if there are obvious flaws in doing it a certain way, we can save a bunch of time in not coding something destined to fail anyway.

[KrikkitOne]

Yeah, that might be the better wy of doing it. Since that means you have to be sure you are on the losing side before you switch. (so the Chinese player might wait until ~1972 to make the switch from the Nationalists to the Communists)

Plus that would have the advantage of not having 2 "Rules"

So you can switch whenever you want but its a one way trip. (probably have to include 2 levels of "are you sure this is what you want to do") And as long as "Governments without power" and "Subordinate Governments" are an option then the player can truly maintain control of a civilization through governments. (so a sudden coup/even an invasion won't kill the player just force them to use a different government....[I just had a thought, the Spanish player could end up in control of Texas by going through subordinates])

Another point with the "Government without Power" this might allow the Roman player (for example) to at a certain point choose between being the Vatican or Byzantium. (both claimants to 'Roman' government when Rome Fell) the Vatican being the better Long term decision because as a 'government' they are still around to day, and have significant 'diplomatic' power.

As long as there were people who you could theoretically persuade to join your "Government" then a "Government without Power" could be a valid option (although such a player should have the option of quitting)

[Simon Loverix]

Mark: If we're going to simulate the incompetence of some leaders in history correctly, the game will have terrible AI



So when your government disappears, you should be able to play the ones that are able to lay claim to the 'throne'. I think we can use the same approach when your governments still exists, but also other factions exist that can claim the power. The only thing we still need then is:

- the required amount of support
I would say, you can hang onto you current gov until the bitter end if you wish, but if any other gets more than 50% you can switch (not prompted) (this would automatically prevent switching back very soon).

- a list of area's/groups that can back your claim
tax rights, economic control
support from EG, religion or social classes
military
foreign
formal (being the rightful heir, being democratically elected,..)

I think these cover most steps to power.

[Gary Thomas]

Mark: If we're going to simulate the incompetence of some leaders in history correctly, the game will have terrible AI

That's great! It will be really easy to code - just use the system from Civ or SMAC or any other game.

Cheers

[KrikkitOne]

Actually any Civ AI so far isn't near the incompetence of actual history. Civ AIs usually just waste stuff on random projects, Real Leaders actively push ridiculous goals.

[roquijad]

I think the player should control just the ruler of a govt. I don't like the ruler having control over a specific "nation" or "people" (ethnicity). Mostly because it'd be interesting to let players form new nations from the mix of cultures/ethnicities (France, US, Mexico, etc).

I think the player should be able to switch to other govts. I see it like this:
1) If a province of his empire declares independence (see Riots Model), he can choose to take control of the new civ, leaving the old behind (AI takes over).
2) During a revolution or civil war (see Riots Model), he could change sides (become rebel/revolutionary).

In all these cases the player'd be taking a great risk. In the case of 1) you'd be trying to build a nation from almost scratch, being very vulnarable to the ambition of the rest players. In case 2) your faction could be destroyed during the confrontations and in that case the player IMO would simply lose the game (he is killed).

This gives the right incentive to restrict switching abuses.

[KrikkitOne]

As long as a player can "continue with no official power" for a while, then I think that Idea is good. (that way a player that really doesn't want to switch can wait until it is "too late") as long as there is a model for differentiating revolution from rebellion from invasion.. (I'll have to look at the Riots model but I assume there is) the that gives the player time to "get on the right horse"
... Although jumping to a rebelling civ should not be possible after the civ is recognized as new and independent...
Wheras jumping to the new government of an original civ should always be possible (with the No Returns policy of course in both cases)