Government Model v. 3.1

[Mark_Everson]

Yoav:

You raise many interesting points, but I won't be drawn into the discussion further. For a long time I participated fully in every design discussion because that is what I'm really interested in (as opposed to programming). But that lead to almost zero progress from me in coding while we debated ever-finer design issues. So my current stand, and its all I'm going to say on the issue is:

You might be right, in an absolute sense, but Rodrigo's approach does lots of things well and is perfectly adequate for a game. I have the reservations about your approach that I've stated before, that I could defend, but I will not. Sorry

It takes Much less time to just code in Both systems than has Already been spent on this discussion, not to mention what could be spent in the future. Rodrigo needs the time to work on the system mathematics FE, not to spend all his Clash time discussing your proposals, and defending his .

Please just be satisfied that you will be able to try out your approach soon, and let the playtesters decide what they want to do.

Isn't there anything else in the whole of Clash design that you'd care to comment on? Your Clash time is valuable too, and I'd like to see it benefit the project as much as possible .

[Richard Bruns]

Wow, this debate never dies

About a year ago, I put in my 2 cents on the issue of the 51% versus the negotiations. I'd like to do so again.

While the 51% may be more accurate, I strongly prefer Rodrigo's negotiations as both a player and a game designer. The 51% seems like it would be very chaotic and hard to manage, which means it's not fun. The negotiations have many advantages:

The player can never impose his will without restraint, which makes the game more interesting.

The player can always have some input, and will never be unable to influence policy.

The player has to listen to an appease many civ factions, but is not dominated by them.

However, there is one problem with the negotiations: The players can lie and input a far more extreme value than they really want. I have a simple proposal to fix this:

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

This may not be accurate, but I think it would work better. The player can still grab more power by inputting extreme policies, but doing so runs teh risk of riots as the people see the leader as an extremist.

Also, this would prevent riots from developing out of policies that the player didn't want. While it may be accurate to have the desires of another powerful faction kick off a riot, it is one of those things that make players yell "what the @#$%?" and shut off the game. If riots are a direct result of the players stated preference, I think the game would play better.

[Yoav Sissman]

Mark:

I'm not trying to revive an already exhausted discussion. I got back again to posting on this topic only when roquijad asked for examples of problems in his system, and since then I've been answering people's comments as they made them.

I don't feel experienced enough in OOP to assist on the coding (YET) and in the meanwhile this is not my only subject of interest on Clash, but mostly when I browse through other threads I don't feel a need to add anything.

Maybe I could do some actual work on the infrastructure model... But I think that at this point there isn't much to be done there except for some minor additions and tweaking of the already existing complicated system that axi created.

I'm also interested in the AI but I haven't found many helpful pointers on where we're standing there.

Richard Bruns:

However, there is one problem with the negotiations: The players can lie and input a far more extreme value than they really want. I have a simple proposal to fix this:

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

This may not be accurate, but I think it would work better. The player can still grab more power by inputting extreme policies, but doing so runs the risk of riots as the people see the leader as an extremist.

Interesting, but it seems you're assuming that the gov't profile is the weighted sum of all profiles and the ruler influence is calculated in the same way that the influence of other factions is, only that he can chose a policy that he doesn't really want. In the latest versions of the model Rodrigo introduced the 'M' system to prevent the need for micromanaging to get exactly what the player wants.

So the ruler doesn't have to 'lie' anymore to increase his power, his power is increased naturally.

Also, this would prevent riots from developing out of policies that the player didn't want. While it may be accurate to have the desires of another powerful faction kick off a riot, it is one of those things that make players yell "what the @#$%?" and shut off the game. If riots are a direct result of the players stated preference, I think the game would play better.

I see some problems in basing the riots on only what the ruler, or any other faction wants. The PAF system is dependant on a wide range of actual triggers.

If the people only cared about the ruler profile, then the player could take advantage of that by pushing for a regime that will entrust much of the power in a political block he trusts. FE if the aristocracy will run the country and take advantage of the peasants, they can never rebel against it.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Yoav:

I see your point. But if you respond to everyone who comments on your points, and they do the same, it never ends .

Originally posted by Yoav Sissman
Maybe I could do some actual work on the infrastructure model... But I think that at this point there isn't much to be done there except for some minor additions and tweaking of the already existing complicated system that axi created.

I'm also interested in the AI but I haven't found many helpful pointers on where we're standing there.

Infrastructure still had some issues to be resolved between Axi and me, but I agree this probably isn't the best place to work.

AI on the other hand, has some ideas but virtually no code, and we plan to code on it soon. Its a good place for deep thoughts and some discussion and organization. I encourage you to try your hand at it if you're interested. Please just read over the web pages and old discussions first, and then give it a shot! I would say start with the big overall issues first, but keep in mind we will implement stuff related to what is in demo 6 first, even if its just a subsection of the overall framework. Since I'm way off-topic here I will shut up and chat about it in one of the old AI threads...

[roquijad]

OOOOOOOPS!!!! I took some days off and look what happened!

I too believe we've reached a point where only playtesting can solve this. Mark: If we can bring back to life FSmith's "beast" and test things there, it should be great. The beast should include the following options:

1) FSmith's 51% rule
2) Yoav's median system
3) My NS

Probably the beast has the old NS coded, so we've to remember updating it to the new NS system (the one with "M") to avoid confusions.

As my new philosophy starting now, I won't involve myself into this endless discussion until systems have been tested for at least some time. Just to force me move on and produce the maths for my 3 models.

Yoav:
1) I don't want to be rude and leave your points without a comment from me, specially after all the effort you've made evaluating my system and the alternatives. But I also want to quit the discussion in order to wait for playtesting. Let's do this: If there's one or two specific things in your previous posts that you'd really like me comment, name it and I will.

2) Take some time to think ways in which you can upgrade your system to correct its flaws. I believe it's possible to make it better and it'd be much better for testing in the beast.

[Yoav Sissman]

roquijad:

1) I don't want to be rude and leave your points without a comment from me, specially after all the effort you've made evaluating my system and the alternatives. But I also want to quit the discussion in order to wait for playtesting. Let's do this: If there's one or two specific things in your previous posts that you'd really like me comment, name it and I will.

I don't know if I can name anything that disturbers me in particular. I don't accept the general approach, not just particular flaws.

Other people may see specific problems though.

2) Take some time to think ways in which you can upgrade your system to correct its flaws. I believe it's possible to make it better and it'd be much better for testing in the beast.

I'd like to do that.

But can you and everyone else that see problems in my system give me a summary of them? I'd like to hear what you like and dislike, so I can try and figure up ways to change my system and perhaps combine it with yours.

Examples could help of course, but remember I'm assuming that in the game there will normally be more then a couple of extreme enemy factions.

[Mark_Everson]

This is relevant to the govt model. Its a cross-post from another thread. I wanted to see what thoughts are on this issue from a govt perspective.

Originally posted by Mikael
How is province size variability determined? How can the player modify province boundaries? How do they change without any player intervention?

This is mostly TBD. My thoughts right now are to let the player set provinces for land they control only limited by tranportation capability from the province capital to a province square, with a few squares allowed to exceed this limit by a limited amount so that a few odd squares off in a corner don't need to be their own province. This is one of the areas where we will rely on playtesting a lot to fix the balance between reality and fun.

[Gary Thomas]

I am becoming a little concerned that we are writing Clash of Rome. The civilizations are pretty much forced into the bureaucratic model. "Provinces" are a symptom of this.

In fact, historically, the feudal model was much more common - a high king and vassal states of various levels of independance. The Hittite Kingdom (described rather well in Bryce, "The Kingdom of the Hittites") used the feudal system for half a millenium.

I believe that if we want to model real life (and produce an interesting game) we need two mechanisms for assigning sub-divisions. In some cases a bureaucratic assignment of an area to some sort of administrative subdivision. In other cases, the ethnic makeup of the area will dictate the subdivision. Although a higher level ruler may force a different subdivision, it will cause problems. Instances of this in history are countless.

I also do not believe that all parts of the map need to be part of administrative subdivisions.

The subject of command and control has led me to think in terms of an administrative structure which is highly general, and allows variable levels, different control mechanisms (governor, sub-King, viceroy, independent), and, above all, overlapping zones of control.

Actually that bit is almost coded.

Cheers

Gary

[Gary Thomas]

A quote from Mark in the economics thread:

My thoughts right now are to let the player set provinces for land they control only limited by tranportation capability from the province capital to a province square, with a few squares allowed to exceed this limit by a limited amount so that a few odd squares off in a corner don't need to be their own province. This is one of the areas where we will rely on playtesting a lot to fix the balance between reality and fun.

I do not believe that provinces (or other administrative areas) should be restricted to areas the player "controls". After all, China regards Taiwan as a province.

Also, these are administrative areas. The fact that Attila temporarily tromps through Cisalpine Gaul should not force the Romans to reorganize their system, then reorganize again when he leaves.

Personally, I have no difficuly in the idea that two civilizations claim an area, and put it in one of their provinces.

The actual effectiveness of this assignment by those civilizatins is a different matter.

Cheers

[Mikael]

The player should be able to artificially alter the size and create provinces. But this has to be regulated by several factors:

- as Mark pointed out, distance between a square and the province's capital square. This distance would not be measured in kms but in the amount of time that is needed to get from the capital square to the square in question. Thus the importance of roads, railroads, etc and geography (mountains impeding movement).

- people's will to be affiliated to a province. This would be based on cultural factors (hate between ethnic groups). The world is full of examples for this. Try getting Pakistani and Hindi people together, or Serbs and Kosovars...

- ruler's control. If you have no control on a particular part of your empire, you won't be able to play with provinces' borders there.

I also believe province borders should be able to change without any player intervention. Example: a square might deliberately unite itself to a certain province because the people feel it is for their good (that way they'll get richer).
I also suspect local warlords (as described in the riots model) should be able to modify borders during their own internal wars.

Just a few ideas.

[Mark_Everson]

I was lazy and didn't reproduce some of the conversations Gary and I have had on provinces, and now I'm paying for it .

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
Also, these are administrative areas. The fact that Attila temporarily tromps through Cisalpine Gaul should not force the Romans to reorganize their system, then reorganize again when he leaves.

I agree. Perhaps we should modify my previous comments for the player to be able to reorganize controlled provs at will. The statement should include that it must be Long-Term control. I don't know how to define it for now, but lets say some large number of turns of control are needed for a reorg.

Empires have reorganized their provincial structures, and the player may want to, so it should be allowed. Perhaps at some cost. Then again if the fun benefit for being able to do this turns out to be small we could ditch it. But I think especially in the case of prior provinces that are de facto long-term divided, each side should be allowed to make a new province out of thier half if they choose.

Personally, I have no difficuly in the idea that two civilizations claim an area, and put it in one of their provinces.
The actual effectiveness of this assignment by those civilizatins is a different matter.

I've got no problem with that. The only question is if it turns out to be more confusing than its worth. But I don't think that will be the case. And as I said in a previous email to Gary I think making provs fairly permanent, and able to change hands in parts, will increase player immersion, and have a fun benefit.

[Gary Thomas]

I envisage a system in which a crazy ruler can put the whole world into their provinces. Then the adminstrative effectiveness of this would be zero. The provincial organization would be completely at the mercy of the controlling government. However, the effectiveness of this organization would be toatally outside the the control of the government. Thus, a civilization that most rationally organizes its administration will gain benefits.

From my point of view (you know, the ever-humble coder), that system has a number of advantages. It is simple to code. It is enormously flexible. The possibilities of the model used in assessing the effectiveness fill my imagination with delight. And various other more sublime advantages.

Oh, and it is already coded. Not hooked in, but coded.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Gary:

Sorry, but you lost me after two sentences in. My problems are with lack of definitions. Does controlling mean controlling the ground, or the whacko who thinks he's controlling Chicago when his only territory is in China? Can you elaborate more, ideally with a brief example so I can tell which river the "ever-humble coder" is potentially guiding us down . Not to mention we need to be sure that your concept is compatible with the existing govt model.

[Gary Thomas]

A province is only a book entry. It's reality is purely bureaucratic. In itself it controls nothing except perhaps lower level bureaucratic offices.

Which squares are included in a province is a matter of government (or royal or imperial or theological) proclamation. This is actually how the world works. My aim has always been to separate this kind of bureaucratic fantasy from the reality on the ground.

New Zealand used to be divided into two "Provinces" called New Ulster and New Munster (bit of Irish influence here). More or less simultaneously, it was also split into about seven different provinces, based on the main cities established at the time. These systems co-existed for some time - they were purely bureaucratic mechanisms. In fact it is doubtful if many New Zealanders knew which provinces they were in. But they did know which major city they were in or near. So the city based system won out in the long run.

Personally I do not believe that a government has ever "controlled" a bit of territory. I believe that the government has a greater or less influence on the area. This influence shows in the success (or lack of it) in exercizing their privileges of kleptocracy, that is in taking taxes or other resources, and in some cases in ordering the population to do things (such as move elsewhere). Obviously, military power is likely to affect this degree of influence.

My use of the word "controlling" in

The provincial organization would be completely at the mercy of the controlling government.

means that the government does control the bureaucracy, it implies nothing about control of the actual territory or the people on it.

And yes, some whacko in China could call Chicago a province. The influence would be zero, so it would just be posturing. Presumably the AI would be too intelligent to do this. If a human player did it, they would just be wasting time, which is always a player's privilege.

An example of the real use of notional provinces would be Caesar deciding to conquer Gaul. He designates Gaul as a province. At this point he has no actual influence over any part of it. Nevertheless the bureaucratic structure is in place. As he conquers more and more squares in the area, his influence grows, and the province (as a tax gathering or similar entity) becomes more useful.

Finally, the whole province is conquered and the influence becomes quite large.

Then, Vercingatorix starts a rebellion. He reconquers half of Gaul. This does not affect the Roman province insofar as its geographic extent is concerned. However the Roman influence of some squares drops to zero. On a temporary basis.

I suppose you could say that I am saying that "control", which I prefer to call infuence, is only on a square by square basis. It is at that level that the physical reality exists. That is where the land is, where the resources are, and where the people are.

My preferred structure is to have a bureaucratic structure, starting at the civilization level (the civilization level Java class I have called Government), and going down in levels to the bottom level which is the bureaucratic structure for a single square. NONE of this structure contains anything physical, though, at a later stage, we might add such things as "Governor" or other non-player characters. They would be part of the bureaucracy if introduced.

The point here is that the ruler can arbitrarily modify the bureaucratic structure (and it has happened all the time, all through history) simply by a flourish of a pen, or even an off-hand remark. This is the way the world works.

None of that directly affects what happens at the physical level, except as modified by the real influence of the civilization in a particular square.

At present (as I see it), the top level of the hierarchy would collect the taxes to pay the armies (assuming professional paid armies, and bearing in mind that limes would be paid locally) and provide for other expenses at that level. Lower levels might accumulate resources in order to build things that are too large for a single square. The bureaucracy of a square would operate in the same way as higher levels.

It is important to note that feeding the people in the square is not a function of the bureaucracy. Although there have been instances where the government collected all the food then re-issued it, I do not think that that was sufficiently common to make it the standard. Hence, feeding the people is a physical thing which reduces the amount of food resource available for the kleptocracy.

The present government model is quite compatible with this system. In fact it almost demands it, and it was in contemplation of coding the government model that I developed the hierarchical structure. Of course influence works both ways. The government gets away with extortion, but the people (in all their social incarnations) will both limit what the government can get away with, and also influence what the bureaucracy views as desirable ends.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the elaboration Gary. I'm with you most of the way, which is good seeing as you've already coded it!

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
A province is only a book entry. It's reality is purely bureaucratic. In itself it controls nothing except perhaps lower level bureaucratic offices.

I think that a feudal lord that (mostly) controls his province within the way we are working it in Clash is an exception to this 'law'. Unless we want to allow a player in charge of a civ that has 'gone feudal' to be able to with the stroke of a pen eliminate a rebelling provice, there may need to be some restrictions. For that matter the president of a democratic society can't arbitrarily organize it how he likes either. But I think if needed we can come up with some rules governing this kind of situation. First we need to see exactly how feudalism and democracy power limitations play out in the game.

Personally I do not believe that a government has ever "controlled" a bit of territory.

Governments controlling land was just a useful simplification made in the game rules (at least up until now). Governmental power is potentially limited in many ways by the govt/riots model itself. So I am not sure what nuanced levels of influence/control add that we didn't already have. And control has always been on a square-by-square basis. It just used to be that provinces were more fluid than they will tend to be under your approach. I do think your proposal is on balance better, but I don't think the differences you cite between what has gone before and what you're doing now are all that stark. And before you cite the real differences again between your approach and the old one, yes I admit there are some differences.