The Foundation Principle: Empires should die

[Vince278]

In a game context I always liked the idea of the possibility of civil conflict of any size occurring ( Except when it happens to me ). It adds to the realism.

I always thought it strange that America, for example, was a starting civ in Civilization games when it obviously was not around in 4000 BCE. Many other civilizations evolved, devolved, grown, spun-off parts, etc., etc., before a nation-state like America, for example, existed. I would like to see any game model all the dynamics that occurred world-wide over the past 6000 years! Also, if anything, the changes have been accelerating as time progresses.

Dune is a great example of the effects of having only one ruler (like a player) for thousands of years (Paul Muad'Dib's son Leto). Leto even engineered his own demise when he felt it was time for civilization to move on.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
But corruption and beuracratic red tape are related to leadership. Incompetent leaders permit, practically encourage such corruption and the destabilization of society. Incompetents allow their representatives to take advantage of their citizens, and they waste their empire's resources.

I am reminded of the words of James Madison...

"It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will always be able to adjust their interests. For enlightened men will not always be at the helm."

But a single, charismatic and brilliant leader can revitalize a civiliztion.

Many of those problems were more systemic than individual leaders were able to do much about... Emperor Tiberius was just such a potentially history-altering individual as you suggest, but eventually it was too much for one man and he himself was even driven mad...

So how much could a dynasty of them do? Or a single immortal leader?

Madison's argument about the fallibility of leadership and leaders in particular is enlightening here as well...

I don't think the US has had such a leader (brilliant and charismatic i mean) in a long time. Some of are leaders are good, some bad, but in general, they're just average men.

For the record, ALL of America's leaders or the leaders of any nation or civiliation or empire are, in the end, average and fallible men (or women). It is precisely the sheer banality of many of the world's "greatest" leaders that is so fascinating... As for America's greatest leaders, I VERY STRONGLY recommend the recent bestseller "Founding Brothers". It's one of the best works of American History about the period of the founding of the Republic that I have EVER read (or history in general, for that matter).

If America has any figure who significantly breaks the historical rules, it's George Washington. None of the others pass the test of actually violating what would seem to otherwise be almost a rule of human political behavior. What I'm talking about is that in the comparative study of revolutions (my field of research), it is unknown to not see a violent revolution swallow itself and, more specifically, for it to be swallowed primarily by the weakness or lust for power by the revolutionary leader, especially a military revolutionary leader.

Washington breaks this seemingly iron trend. It does it primarily for reasons of the environment in which he was raised and the particular things he was obsessed about. He idolized Cincinnatus, the legendary Roman patrician who was called to be Dictator of Rome in time of war and left his fields to fight and win war on behalf of Rome, but chose to return to his plowshare and his field rather than to remain Dictator for the remainder of his term. Washington's idolization of Cinncinatus bordered on an obsession with becoming "America's Cincinnatus". It is primarily for this reason that it seems Washington made such a point of handing his sword over to the Continental Congress when the war with Britain was over, insisting that his army not revolt and overthrow the Congress and indeed preventing them from doing so, not playing a more instrumental role in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, and finally in desiring to get out of political life entirely in order to model his idol. He remained around enough that no-one with less scruples took his place (there were certainly contenders...), but didn't himself lose his resolve in the process.

The intersting part is that while I believe that this makes Washington a "great leader", it does NOT make him in any way perfect or infallible. Quite to the contrary, he was a man of many mistakes, blunders, and faults.

which leads to the next part here....

Its probable we'll never have such a leader, because people aren't perfect, and noone can long remain in power without becoming at least a little corrupt.

But people have ALWAYS been this fallible and ALWAYS been this imperfect and power has ALWAYS been something capable of corrupting the powerful.

What makes a great leader is not any level of infallibility or an impregnible resolve against the corrupting influence of power, but a realization of one's own corruptability and the wider corruptability of all. This is precisely what, for instance, makes James Madison a great leader... he endeavored with the other principle writers to write a constitution that ASSUMED that men in positions of power will be tempted toward corruption rather than hoping that they would not or ignoring the issue. It was precisely Madison's extremely grim view of human nature that allowed him to be such an effective political architect.

The same could go with many of the other members of that generation. It is precisely because they understood their own fallibility and their own corruptability (along with that of their likely descendants) that allowed them to succeed where others have failed.

The same could equally be said of great leaders in other parts of the world throughout history. I believe it to be an intimate understanding of one's own fundamental weakness and the fundamental weakness of others that allows certain individual political leaders to have such disproportionate impact upon history.

But I'll grant that not everyone would agree with such a historical perspective. For those of you who are Americans, though, it is enlightening that many of the "Founding Fathers" shared it.

Empire's die because the people in them weaken (or are conquered by someone far stronger). If a single fantastic leader is constantly working to make keep their heads high and their souls strong, and not permitting the steady decay of their civilization, couldn't such an empire last indefinetly?

Madison's line is pertinent again....

"It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will always be able to adjust their interests. For enlightened men will not always be at the helm."

As for what one might argue COULD make an empire endure seemingly without end you should read An Empire Wilderness: Travels Into America's Future by Robert D. Kaplan.... He's a noted travel journalist and sociologist who normally writes for Atlantic Monthly concerning events in Northern Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, Central and Southeast Asia. His latest works are "The Coming Anarchy", which seems to be a favorite of the Bush Administration foreign policy folk (even Dubbya himself is said to have read the book over X-Mas recess in 2001) and "Warrior Politics", which also addresses the very question of America's place in history... that one I just read, it's awesome... uses Roman and Greek history to make arguments about America and its potential for either decline or continued vitality. Makes an absolutely fascinating argument about using the Warring States Period of Chinese history (the time from which Szun Szu wrote) for learning about International Politics in the 21st Century.

Seriously... look into it

Besides, who the heck wants to play a video game where your civilization collapses do to the disintagration of the family unit anyway.

When it comes to games, though, it would be depressing if nothing else to model the reality of human nature and history (not to mention simply difficult to do from a gameplay standpoint...). I agree, who wants to play a video game where your civilization collapses?

[Jamski]

Arnelos, one of the most well argued posts I've ever read
I would however disagree slightly with your assessment of Washington. As an American, you are, of course, more likely to see him in a favorable light. For you he is a national hero and the founder of your nation. From an English point of view he could be seen, however, as a rabble rouser, a populist (in the sense of one who panders to popular ideas) and a traitor. He does, however present one of the few cases, as you so rightly stated, of a revolutionary leader refusing the power offered to him after the successful conclusion of the revolt. Of course we could argue that most revolutions in history were launched by the army with the intention of securing power for a certain general.

This brings me to the point that is indeed missing from almost all "Civ-style" games, namely that no Empire, of any kind what-so-ever, has ever FAILED to decline, some within months or years of the death of their establishers. Examples are rife : The empires of Alexander, Belshazzar, Charlemagne, to name but a prominent few that failed following internal power struggles/divisions between successors, or those of Britain, Spain and Portugal that collapsed owing to the desire for independence typical of lands governed from afar.

IMHO, it is much too easy to build a far-flung empire in the games of this genre, and definitely too easy to build a stable one. The corruption model in Civ games goes some way torwards correcting this problem, but is basically a pain for the player. Who wants an empire of useless cities ? No-one. This model would be satisfactory if there was something the player could do to compensate, but in Civ3 for example there is nothing one can do, short of building a courthouse, which may, if you are lucky have a very small effect, but often has none, or changing to a communist government.

Some mechanism for the decline and instablity of civilisations needs to be considered for the next generation of games (I'm hoping for Civ4, MoO4, SMAC2 ?) I for one would be happy to see a game where you, the player, preside over the decline of an empire, with the goal being "damage limitation" and survival, with expansion being a very rare possibility. How about a game based on the Byzantine Empire after Manzikert? Rebuild and defend before the Crusades... and then the Turks again. Now that would be an absorbing game IMHO.

Here's hoping

-Jam

[Araanor]

Originally posted by jscott991
States decay. Space empires, if they ever exist, will be no exception.

I don't think we could say much of anything that would apply to an actual future space empire.

What we can do is imagine how MOO should work, given the circumstances. What is MOO about? Empire-building. Modelled after our own turbulent history. Colonization, research, conquest, diplomacy, it's all there. And as such, I think instability of large empires should be in.

Just look at the Roman, Frankish, Ottoman, Caliphate, Timurid and Spanish "empires", to mention a few. I think some form of measures should be in if only to make gameplay interesting when you're too dominant. I wouldn't want something that invariably would break you down, just something to make it tough to stay at the top.

Unity races would be a special case, of course.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Araanor
Unity races would be a special case, of course.

And I was horrified by the idea of Gaia/Galactica I see this concept has some supporters at 'poly.

I'm still free

-Jam

[AlenkiiCvetocek]

Re: The Foundation Principle: Empires should die

Originally posted by jscott991
Empires atrophy and decay over time. Bureaucracies become inefficient, people become restless, and monarchs/head of states become less competent.

I can't resist the urge:

Bureaucracies are inefficient by nature, and do not need to become so. No monarch/head of state is competent to divine, much less serve, the interests of the individuals in his empire. All empires are ephemeral because they are unstable from the beginning.

States and governments are never realistically modelled in games, I think, because 1) we don't know how to (given the epistemological difficulty in developing a realistic model of human behavior) and 2) it wouldn't be any fun to add such to a game.

Cheers,

AC

[Harry Seldon]

epistemological

Nice word! Had to look this one up.

epistemological - The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

[G(R)EEK]

Want to know future history?

[QUOTE]As for what one might argue COULD make an empire endure seemingly without end you should read An Empire Wilderness: Travels Into America's Future by Robert D. Kaplan.... He's a noted travel journalist and sociologist who normally writes for Atlantic Monthly concerning events in Northern Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, Central and Southeast Asia. His latest works are "The Coming Anarchy", which seems to be a favorite of the Bush Administration foreign policy folk (even Dubbya himself is said to have read the book over X-Mas recess in 2001) and "Warrior Politics", which also addresses the very question of America's place in history... that one I just read, it's awesome... uses Roman and Greek history to make arguments about America and its potential for either decline or continued vitality. Makes an absolutely fascinating argument about using the Warring States Period of Chinese history (the time from which Szun Szu wrote) for learning about International Politics in the 21st Century./[QUOTE]

That is one mighty impressive statement. All my net time today is worth just because of this.

So, in short how will the Earth Diaspora be like once we reach the stars?

Easy. A LOT LIKE the Greek diaspora of 700-300 BC ( I include Alexander Conquests)

In short, other colonies will thrive others will fall by the wayside, some will crumble due to "easy money and lack of Work Ethos" Sybarians anyone? Others will become so great that they will be despised and rule other colonies. I don't think US scenario, (of a former colony culturally subjugating its founding nation (UK) will ever happen but still.

Again, thanks for the mighty fine read!!

[AlenkiiCvetocek]

Originally posted by Arnelos

This is precisely what, for instance, makes James Madison a great leader... he endeavored with the other principle writers to write a constitution that ASSUMED that men in positions of power will be tempted toward corruption rather than hoping that they would not or ignoring the issue. It was precisely Madison's extremely grim view of human nature that allowed him to be such an effective political architect.

Ahh, were the limitations of power in the constitution devised because the authors assumed power corrupts, or were they rather instituded because the founders recognized that almost everything we do is none of the government's damn business?

I believe the latter was the more important factor, although the former certainly played a role. What do you think?

Cheers,

AC

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by AlenkiiCvetocek


Ahh, were the limitations of power in the constitution devised because the authors assumed power corrupts, or were they rather instituded because the founders recognized that almost everything we do is none of the government's damn business?

I believe the latter was the more important factor, although the former certainly played a role. What do you think?

Cheers,

AC

It was the former. If you read either The Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton (which provided the arguments reasoning behind the Constitution) and any of Madison's personal correspondance or writings, you quickly discover that he has an EXTREMELY grim view of human nature and the corruptability of power. It was the very centerpiece of his endeavor to make sure the U.S. government would be weak and divided. Jefferson, Madison's ally, had the more idealistic approach you speak of... he believed, as you claim, that most of what we do is none of the government's business...

of course, Madison was the Constitution's principle architect and Jefferson was in Paris at the time and ended being AGAINST the Constitution So it isn't hard to argue which one had more impact on the reason for why the document was written the way it was

[vee4473]

It would seem to me that to make jscott's version of a game would be out of sync with the moo series.

Having an empire decay from within because of thousands of years of political and social deterioration would make the game more of a politcal/social simulator.

Moo and civ type games are more about shorter term conquest (military or otherwise).

Perhaps a new title that is a dedicated politcal/social simulator is in order for those who want that type of game. I think transforming an established genre of short term conquest (at least short term compared to a "Foundation" type simulator), into a massive political sim is ill advised.

I think most players enjoy the diplomacy, no doubt, I certainly do, but at the same time, the combo of some detailed diplomacy (but not too detailed so that it takes the concentration of an Einstein) and building fleets to go to war is a big part of the enjoyment, not sitting back to micromanage every little social decision.

That's why I say a separate dedicated title.


Actually, given how much trouble game companies seem to have just making a "less deep", short term conquest game with minimal diplomacy....making such a deep, involved simulator that would satisfy jscott and others seems impossible.

Just think, if a game actually succeeded in simulating actual universal rule down to the last detail of the real world, we'd all go grey and have nervous breakdowns from playing a game!

[jscott991]

Frankly I'd be satisfied if MOO3 could just come close to giving me the depth of the EU series, which isn't very deep at all.

I'm not arguing for a very detailed or sophiscated social model. I just think that the model should trend towards decline rather than trends toward constant growth. As your empire gets bigger, it should be harder to do research over time. As your empire gets older, your economic growth rates should level off. As your empire becomes less efficient, your people should grow more restless. It would just add to the complexity and long term interest of the title.

Short term conquest games are great, but that's not really what MOO is. Each turn is a year and games can go hundreds of years. After a couple hundred years, I think decline would have set into almost any state structure.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by jscott991
Frankly I'd be satisfied if MOO3 could just come close to giving me the depth of the EU series, which isn't very deep at all.

I'm not arguing for a very detailed or sophiscated social model. I just think that the model should trend towards decline rather than trends toward constant growth. As your empire gets bigger, it should be harder to do research over time. As your empire gets older, your economic growth rates should level off. As your empire becomes less efficient, your people should grow more restless. It would just add to the complexity and long term interest of the title.

Short term conquest games are great, but that's not really what MOO is. Each turn is a year and games can go hundreds of years. After a couple hundred years, I think decline would have set into almost any state structure.

It's called an empire-building game for a reason. You can't have an empire decline, without a rise. We play the rise and win the game, after that it declines. But I do like the idea.

A game where you start the game as a mighty empire and you play through the fall, whether it is to enemy hordes or mass destruction or other events could be a decent change, if done correctly.

ACK!

[vee4473]

to have a game automatically trend towards decline isn't great.

That type of trend makes a game doom your empire regardless of what you do.

A game should be more cause and effect, not based on some theory that no matter what happens your empire goes down over time.

It is possible to make decisions that cause your empire to be happy and prosperous for many hundreds of years, and to hard wire a game to automatically decline your empire over time is wrong because it makes the game linear regardless of what decisions you make...and then you can say "why bother playing? , because if i take to long , the game will destroy my empire"


which is why i say that making a game that reflects the detail of a declining empire requires extremely detailed social simulation...something not easily done.

[jscott991]

My point was that absent good play by the player, the empire should decline, not that it should decline regardless of what the player does. These games are too easy now. If you do nothing, absent outside forces, nothing happens. In my ideal game, if you do nothing, absent outside forces, things should gradually get worse. The things I have in mind are research, economic growth, and unrest.