Riots Model 2.0

[Lord God Jinnai]

http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Riots.shtml

[Lord God Jinnai]

I'll be quoting for specific areas for easier referance.

V. Events

...

Revolutionary Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. Revolutionary units try to conquer the civ's capital. If they succeed, the ruler and govt are replaced. See below for more details on that. See also below how a "total" revolution can be triggered.

Guerrilla Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. The objective of guerrilla units is to liberate the province from the civ's control. If they achieve it, the province is annexed to a civ with matching nationality or, if such civ doesn't exist, a new civ is created.

...

Military Coup: When the event is called, a number of the civ's military units (depending on the average values of the event probabilities along all EG's and all social classes) become "rebels" and pass to AI control. The rebels will try to conquer the civ's capital province. See below for what happens if they succeed. See also below how this can lead to a "civil war".

Army Betrayal: This is like the Revolutionary Forces Formation event, but instead of creating a people's military unit, a military unit already existent betrays the ruler and joins the revolution (becomes a revolutionary unit).

Declaring Independence: The province where the event was called becomes a new civ. Contiguous provinces' PAF's are checked to see if they would join the declaration.

Rebel Duke: A military/nobility leader in a province decides to decrease central govt's influence over the province. It's like a less radical form of independence declaration, where the local leaders just want more autonomy, but still find valuable belonging to the civ. The Province's Autonomy Level in the province is increased and associated Feudal Units are created (see Govt Model). See more of Feudal Units below.

...

There needs to be a way to determine whether any new rebellions that start up as others are join with the other(s) or are simply out to take advantage of the situation by having their own authroity and not joining the group (except maybe temporarily to depose the current ruler).

Also in the cases of betrayal of which there are several types, there should be a chance of loyal troops coming to help the ruler, varying depending on cricumstances.

VIII.2. Civil Wars
A civil war can only be invoked by the ruler. In order to do it, at least one of these two conditions must be met:
a) There's at least one revolutionary or rebel unit on the map....
b) A province has just declared independence. (secession)

...Also, the declaration of independence (if that caused the civil war) is left without effect (no new civ formed) while at the same time no "Declaring Independence" event can take place during the time the civil war develops.

In a civil war it is considered that there're only two sides (loyal and rebel). If the "Revolutionary Forces Formation" event takes place, it won't create a revolutionary unit, but a rebel one.

A civil war ends when all rebel units are destroyed or when the ruler decides it should end. The latter may sound strange, but it's only a way to simulate a treaty between the ruler and the rebels where the ruler accepts losing all provinces currently occupied by the rebels. These provinces will form a new civ. This shows the ruler would have to be sick of the civil war and have no hope of winning it completely to opt to arbitrarily finish it.

...

What happens when a player declares a civil war when 2 differnt provinvces declared independance and didn't join each other?

Also this should be allowed for a Rebel Duke option as it is very similar (just differnt actors and not quite as incendary as declaring new nation).

One thing i think should be done is intially when a civil war is called, any groups about ready to break should either go to the other side or have a chance of taking the adavntage to declare their own indepedance. While this does complicate things a bit it shows that civil wars aren't always loyalist vs. rebels. There are other groups on occasion and allows for a 3-way civil war which is certainly possible (military, civilians and loyal subjects). I do agree for simplicity sake though, that once the war is started there should be no new actors (although a province could defect to an existing one).

Feudal Units: Little AI needed. The units simply stay in the province where they were created and defend the province from attacks. The existence of Feudal Units represent a powerful local warlord (see more on the Govt Model).

One thing on feudal units, they should be allowed to attack other provinces (save a few special cases). When a feudal unit is created, the ruler of that province should be allowed to make its own secret treaties. This happened alot during middle-aged europe and feudal japan and china.

[Mark_Everson]

I like the new Riots model quite a bit! I just have a few minor points for now.

I think LGJ's point on feudal units, and attacking neighbors for power is an interesting one. It may be too complicated for the model, but I'd like to hear what you think about the idea also.

Guerrilla Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. The objective of guerrilla units is to liberate the province from the civ's control. If they achieve it, the province is annexed to a civ with matching nationality or, if such civ doesn't exist, a new civ is created.

This may be a stupid question... but how do we know what the "matching nationality" is. As far as I could figure from the social model ethnic groups don't remember an old nationality, just the new one.

Attempts to Murder Ruler has a 50% chance. That seems way too big, and it also should be a variable including things like tech level (assassination with bombs and rifles is much easier than with a knife), secret police activity, and other factors.

Currently you have the government being replaced if a rebel units simply enters the capital. I think they should have to hold the capital for at least one turn or more to get the very large benefit you bestow for taking the capital. Otherwise, a unit of no military significance that is substantially outnumbered could slip into the capital and change the whole government. Then it would have to change back when this twit is squashed. Anyway, that's my take on it.

[roquijad]

Good points. A few answers:

LGJ said:

There needs to be a way to determine whether any new rebellions that start up as others are join with the other(s) or are simply out to take advantage of the situation

That's covered. Any time a military unit appears from an event call, it stores info related to the social class triggering the event. So, if a communist revolutionary is formed, the unit has a data field storing "communism" as the regime it looks to impose. While the unit exists, it's possible for a "fundamentalistic" revolutionary unit to appear too. They will fight against each other and against the ruler.

LGJ said:

Also in the cases of betrayal of which there are several types, there should be a chance of loyal troops coming to help the ruler

All the troops are by default loyal to the ruler. Those who betray are against him. Anyway, the ruler may call a loyal people's army to fight a rebelion. He just has to call a civil war.

LGJ said:

What happens when a player declares a civil war when 2 differnt provinvces declared independance and didn't join each other?

can't happen. If a province declares independence and the ruler chooses to call a civil war, it's impossible for another province to call independence until the "dust settles".

LGJ said:

Also this should be allowed for a Rebel Duke option as it is very similar (just differnt actors and not quite as incendary as declaring new nation).

Exactly. The rebel duke, although related to the idea of independence, isn't as incendiary as an indep. declaration. The "Rebel Duke" event simply increases a bit the Province's Autonomy Level (check govt model's "administrating the empire"). The Rebel Duke event is not a warfare situation as Guerrilla or Revolutionary Forces Formation (although the ruler may respond militarly).

LGJ said:

One thing i think should be done is intially when a civil war is called, any groups about ready to break should either go to the other side or have a chance of taking the adavntage to declare their own indepedance.

All groups take advantage of any type of event because the Empire's Stability variable decreases its value and event probabilities are a function of it. But no, independences aren't allowed during civil wars for the sake of simplicity. And I believe this is a useful simplification.

Mark said:

This may be a stupid question... but how do we know what the "matching nationality" is. As far as I could figure from the social model ethnic groups don't remember an old nationality, just the new one.

The guerrilla unit stores the current EG nationality. Guerrillas appear when the EG nationality and the govt nationality are different, representing EG's intention to get rid of a foreign rule. If a province with french population is controled by germans and it forms a guerrilla (with french nationality) that's able to conquer (liberate) the province, the game engine must look a matching civ (i.e. a civ with french govt) to annex the liberated province to it.

Mark said:

Attempts to Murder Ruler has a 50% chance. That seems way too big, and it also should be a variable including things like tech level (assassination with bombs and rifles is much easier than with a knife), secret police activity, and other factors.

Agreed. It should be a function of other things.

Mark said:

Currently you have the government being replaced if a rebel units simply enters the capital. I think they should have to hold the capital for at least one turn or more to get the very large benefit you bestow for taking the capital.

Ok. sounds reasonable.

LGJ and Mark's view on Feudal Units: If you think FU may be used to attack too I'm alright with it. When I invented FU I just wanted them no to be an AI problem so I gave'em an "easy job". Anyway, it needs some care. A player may use his power to use them to take'em out of the province to a badly defended position in order to kill them when he wants to decrease the Province's Autonomy Level.

[Mikael]

Hey roquijad, I like the riots model too, it sounds deep, fun and historically accurate.

I'd like to take the opportunity here to make a link between the riots model and the diplomacy model: as soon as an event is called (guerilla unit formation, military coup, whatever) inside a civ that opposes government forces against rebel or revolutionnary units, the code should treat the "new" force as an independant civ in the diplomacy model, even though they are still technically part of the civ they rebel against. This would allow rebel units and feudal units(LGJ's suggestion, by the way) to negotiate with third party independant civs. I can already see the interesting possibilities: "If you help us get to power/become independant, we'll guarantee you the best prices for our resources".

Also, another link between the two models that comes to mind: the counterintelligence network's role in the riots model. This was already hinted in roquijad's model, I'd like to elaborate it slightly more.
The strength of the ruler's counterintelligence model can achieve two things in relation to riots, coups, revolutions, whatever:

1.) Foresee the coup, revolution, riot, whatever and tell the ruler when it will happen (there's a possibility of error here, depending on the counterintel network experience.

2.) Attempt to sabotage the attempted coup before it even begins (capturing key groupleaders f.e). Again, risk here of failing, depending on strength of the network. Or sabotaging the coup after it has begun. This is more difficult.

I can already imagine a situation where the counterintel network defects and passes to the other side, but to keep things simple, I feel it's better to assume that they always stay loyal to their ruler. Or a way to simulate betrayal would be to gradually make the counterintel network less powerful as the riot/revolution gains momentum.

[Lord God Jinnai]

[QUOTE]can't happen. If a province declares independence and the ruler chooses to call a civil war, it's impossible for another province to call independence until the "dust settles".[quote]
No, no...Before you declared the civil war, 2+ provinces, on the same turn, declared independance.

Exactly. The rebel duke, although related to the idea of independence, isn't as incendiary as an indep. declaration. The "Rebel Duke" event simply increases a bit the Province's Autonomy Level (check govt model's "administrating the empire"). The Rebel Duke event is not a warfare situation as Guerrilla or Revolutionary Forces Formation (although the ruler may respond militarly).

Well the problem is, to do so, he'd haveto call a civil war (atleast that's what i get) and that shouldn't be nessasry to quell a rebellious duke.

All groups take advantage of any type of event because the Empire's Stability variable decreases its value and event probabilities are a function of it. But no, independences aren't allowed during civil wars for the sake of simplicity. And I believe this is a useful simplification.

No, i agree, during the civil war for simplicities sake that should be true, but not when its intially called. Here's the reasoning:
You have 3 groups in your country, Groups A, B, C. Group A is the native or ruling group. Groups B and C are conquered or relocated groups, both on different sides of the country with no linkage and each group hates each other. The ruler, Group A, sees that its domain is collapsing on the froniter and has no choice but to call a civil war. Why then would groups B and C side on the same side, with no way for either to contact the other, with hatred down to their core, etc. The reason i'm asking this is that in the event Group A looses big time to B and C, there will quickly be another war when this could have been handled already.

LGJ and Mark's view on Feudal Units: If you think FU may be used to attack too I'm alright with it. When I invented FU I just wanted them no to be an AI problem so I gave'em an "easy job". Anyway, it needs some care. A player may use his power to use them to take'em out of the province to a badly defended position in order to kill them when he wants to decrease the Province's Autonomy Level.

Yes, i think you could order the duke or whatnot to attack this other province (or he could do so on his own if you permit it (or your to weak not to)). That way he can't take full advantage of the units. These units might not operate with the best AI either, but shouldn't be totally dumb. The duke would either if the ruler requests an attack, accept or deny it outright for simplicity sake, with a penalty on his (the duke's) social standing if he refuses.

[roquijad]

Lordy: I understand now your example of two groups looking for independence at the same time. I admit you're right and idealy things should be the way you say, but I'm going for the less realistic, yet simpler modeling.

And no, the ruler doesn't have to initiate a civil war to fight feudal units. He only needs to tell his troops to attack the feudal units. Anyway, your comment got me thinking: maybe the ruler, when attacking feudal units, may risk a civil war. Maybe feudal warlords could unite against the ruler if attacked, triggering a civil war. What do you all think?

Hi Mikael. Thanks for the comments. I agree there're elements to link riots and diplo models.

as soon as an event is called (guerilla unit formation, military coup, whatever) inside a civ that opposes government forces against rebel or revolutionnary units, the code should treat the "new" force as an independant civ in the diplomacy model

I think it'd be great (not for any event, but for some key events). I have to admit I haven't read the diplo model in a long time and I don't know how feasible this is, but if it can be made, it'd be great.

I also like your idea of the ci network being able to sabotage an event right when it's about to happen. I'll add it to the model.

Excuse my ignorance: are you working in the diplo model, Mikael?

Here's a crazy idea: Since Mark, LGJ and now Mikael have commented that feudal units shouldn't be as dumb as I initially designed them and since we're talking about chances of foreign govts being able to negotiate with internal opposing forces, then what about including the characters model and make a multimodel link riots-chars-diplo?
As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the chars model is so far "isolated". There're no explicit links with other models enabling chars to influence the game in a significant way. On the other hand, if we want to give internal dissident forces the ability to perform diplomatic activities with foreign govts, then we need to model dissidents somehow and we need a place to "store" the treaties they make with other powers.
My proposition is: let's adapt the char model to represent any figure with potential diplomatic power, letting them make the diplomatic negotiations, being them the ones having treaties and having the possiblity of commanding troops. The list of figures should be restricted to:
Rulers controlled by the computer.
Revolutionaries (as defined in the riots model).
Rebels (as defined in the riots model).
Guerrilla leaders (as defined in the riots model).
Feudal warlords (the ones controlling feudal units).
Pro-Independence leaders.

These characters would be allowed to "use" the diplomatic interface, signing treaties with other chars. For this purpose, the diplo model would need two "modes". The "ruler" mode for rulers, i.e. chars who are in control of a govt. And the "non-ruler" mode, for chars who are not (all other type of figures). This would be needed because the diplomatic options (what a char can offer in negotiations) are very different. The non-ruler mode would also help players who choose to leave "office" and play, for example, a revolutionary, as it has been commented in the thread "Governments, civilizations, ethnicity and how they relate in the game".

The possibilities are interesting. Imagine a char called Benjamin Franklin meeting with the king of France looking for help in his quest to achieve american independence. Then, in later negotiations between the king of France and the king of England, the former may include in his demands the american independence. But pro-independence leaders may even negotiate with their own current govt the terms of independence. Imagine south african leaders achieving a treaty with the english govt where they get independence, but where South Africa must remain under the Commonhealth.
Dissident chars could even negotiate with each other. Maybe two different revolutionary factions could ally against the govt instead of fighting each other and the govt at the same time.

What do you all think?

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by roquijad
what about including the characters model and make a multimodel link riots-chars-diplo?
As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the chars model is so far "isolated". There're no explicit links with other models enabling chars to influence the game in a significant way. On the other hand, if we want to give internal dissident forces the ability to perform diplomatic activities with foreign govts, then we need to model dissidents somehow and we need a place to "store" the treaties they make with other powers.
My proposition is: let's adapt the char model to represent any figure with potential diplomatic power, letting them make the diplomatic negotiations, being them the ones having treaties and having the possiblity of commanding troops. These characters would be allowed to "use" the diplomatic interface, signing treaties with other chars.

Well, there are planned real effects of characters upon the game such as giving bonusus to various activities... but I think your idea is pretty interesting. The potential issues I see is that there will be characters in the governments of normal civs. Surely these can't freelance diplomacy for their civs. So it seems more sensible to me to have these rebels etc. have some sort of pseudo-civ or government defined, and then use the normal diplomatic interface. The characters can be 'front men' for the discussions. The fact that it is a pseudo-civ doing the negotiating could limit the options as well as it being a character could.

I think we will clearly need diplomacy with non-civs for sure. Its just not clear to me that characters is the best way to do it.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well if you can get a list of what characters you'll need and what things they should modify in the game that would be great help for character model. I just haven't done much with it since it seemed a long time till it would be implimented.

Anyway you still haven't commented on what happens if 2 provinces declare independance for 2 different groups on the same turn and you decide to declare a civl war that turn what will happen?

[Mikael]

Yeah, I'm really more with Mark on this one. Rebelling factions shouldn't have to rely on special characters for their diplomatic negociations. They could, provided they have one at that moment, like any real government, but this shouldn't always be the case.

And yes, roquijad, I am in charge of the diplomacy. Check out the thread "Diplomacy discussion thread v.2" or something like that. You'll see I have made some additions to the model and your opinion on these would be much appreciated.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Quoted from Rich's post in the diplomacy thread as i 100% agree with it:

Base the riots model not on the actual policy, but on the desired policy that the player enters.

[Mark_Everson]

I'm not sure its necessary to base riots models on the player/leader's expressed policies. If the player, thru their policies, really changes the result based on everyone else, then the govt policy will Already likely be fairly far from what some of the factions want. OTOH if there are riots aspects that relate to what the people think of the Ruler as opposed to the Government overall, then using the ruler's preferences is natural.

[Richard Bruns]

I think it is an issue of fun. Sure, it may be reasonable for the people to riot against the government as a whole, but if there is any kind of riot then the player is the one who picks up the pieces. I think it would be annoying to clean up a riot caused by a policy I didn't support.

Also, it solves the one problem of the negotiation system. Consider an example of a feudal-type society. Suppose the following are values of trade liberilization, with 0=no trade allowed and 100=free trade:

People's tolerance: 20-50
Faction 1, nobility: 30, 40% power
Faction 2, church: 20, 30% power
Faction 3, merchants, 70 10% power

Since the player has 20% of the power, any value between 25 and 45 can be chosen.

Suppose the player wants as much trade as possible in order to develop the economy and technology. In the current system, the player has no incentive to enter any preference other than 100 in order to get the 45 value. This is quite frankly an abuse of the system, and since the final policy is within the tolerance range the player gets away with implementing a policy that is a lot higher than the one desired by 70% of the power in the kingdom.

But if the riots model was based on the ruler preference, such extreme changes would carry a risk and abuse of the system would be stopped. Is there any other way to deal with the tendency to input extreme values?

[Simon Loverix]

If the people can riot against the player specifically, they should likewise be able to riot against any other faction as well. And the player, being the executive power, would have to clean it up anyway. If the people don't like a policy they riot against the government. The governing factions suppress the protests and/or change policies and based on that the polpower of the factions possibly changes proportions. (suppression keeping polpower intact but lowering popularity, changing of the targeted policy increasing popularity but not necessarily actual polpower).

Suppose the player wants as much trade as possible in order to develop the economy and technology.

In that case the player enters 100 and gets the maximum possible, 45. Not quite what he wants, but the maximum possible given the political situation. If he could enter 1000 and get 100 it would be abusive, but if he entered 45 he would get 45 because thats what the other factions can agree with.

[LDiCesare]

In the current system, the player has no incentive to enter any preference other than 100 in order to get the 45 value

Actually, no. Rodrigo's model (NS) makes it unnecessary to lie on the player's goals. In the example, the 80%PP provide an average value of around 32, so we present the 25-45 range to the player and he chooses from that rather than from 0-100. It is just a matter of asking the player for their policy after we have computed the preferences.

I think it would be annoying to clean up a riot caused by a policy I didn't support.

Well, see it the other way: If people riot and you had only 2%PP, it may be a good time to throw in a revolution so you increase your PP.