The Foundation Principle: Empires should die

[jscott991]

I had great hopes that Master of Orion 3 would implement the elusive Asimov Foundation principle that no game has ever quite put into effect: Empires atrophy and decay over time. Bureaucracies become inefficient, people become restless, and monarchs/head of states become less competent. All of this means, theoretically, you should be able to lose a game of MOO even when you dominate the map, because your bloated Empire collapses from within.

Under the original Emrich design, I was sure this was going to at least be a possibility for empires that exanded too quickly or too haphazardly. Does anyone else think that this feature is gone? It seems to me that this will resemble more MOO2 and the Civ games. Empirse will just rise meteorically. If they fall apart, it will be because of external and not internal pressures. In my opinion, that is a great loss. I think it would be just as fun trying to hold a dying empire together as it would be building a new empire from scratch.

Some games have featured the internal decay principle in some level. The old Medieval Lords game had the most extreme version. If you had a few bad monarchs in a row, it was likely your state was just going to rot from within and be difficult to hold onto. Of course, that game was too basic and simple for other reasons. EU has some version of internal problems, giving states massive unrest that expand too quickly. EU, however, has far too weak of an AI to really let the principle reach full maturation.

Oh well. Maybe MOO4 will have enough internal policy options to let us both build and preside over the death of the Galactic Empire.

[Apolex]

That's an interesting idea jscott (and from great books). However, if I remember from the Foundation series, the empire decays after hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of peace. That would be well after the victory conditions in the game, if simulated in MOO3. We are playing the phase of the empire involved with expanding, conquering, assimilating, and unifying the galaxy. The decay phase, if modeled after Asimov's books would occur after the timeframe of the game, no?

Civ III somewhat incorporates what you describe by using a corruption model which progressively gets more severe with the size of your empire. I could go for something similar to that in MOO3, but not much more. I guess everyone has their tastes, but trying to duct-tape together your hard-won empire in disarray doesn't sound like much fun to me at the end of the game.

-Apolex

[jscott991]

The Foundation Empire isn't a very good example because it lasts an unreasonable amount of time. But consider the Roman and Chinese Empires.

The Roman Empire lasted only about 500 years as an imperial state and the signs of decay were present only about 200 years into its life as the dominant (but not only) Mediterrenean and Middle Eastern power. The various dynasties in China also seldom lasted much longer than a few hundred years before they atrophied and decayed.

How long a period is MOO3 modeling? If I remember the original MOO's correctly, it is a period of decades, not years. I wouldn't mind seeing some decline slip into the modelm, just to provide something of a challenge.

It just seems to me that a true galactic empire simulation would not end when your empire controlled 70% of the galaxy. There would still be a lot of work to do holding that territory together, especially if you tried to strain yourself even further to take the last 30%. I just think that would be a more interesting game than one that models only constant rise. Let's see some decline and fall as well.

[Harry Seldon]

The old Empire did decay after years of peace, but only because of a lack of ingenuity and an increase of internal corruption and bureaucracy. The First Foundation was in danger of collapse from expanding too quickly. That was one of the dilemmas facing the First Foundation before the discovery of Gaia; should they take the rest of the galaxy or let it slowly fall into the fold the way the other worlds did.

I think there is a basic implementation of this here. It's one of the reasons diplomacy is so important. You want to keep a smaller, more responsive empire on your team because the larger you get the harder it is to get things done, like ship building and such. At least, that's what I remember reading. I could be mistaken.

[darcy]

That theme is good for novels, but in strategy games I'm not interested in it. It would be frustrating to build something up only to watch it fall apart for no particular reason. Players would feel powerless, and that's not good.

[Alexfrog]

this IS represented in MOO....

the empires from MOO1 and 2 crumbled eac htime, leaving the way for new empires to be formed in the following game....
same will happen in 3 no doubt....for moo4

[Apolex]

Originally posted by Alexfrog
this IS represented in MOO....

the empires from MOO1 and 2 crumbled eac htime, leaving the way for new empires to be formed in the following game....
same will happen in 3 no doubt....for moo4

Good point Alexfrog, that's true. Jscott wants to actually play that phase though, not just have it be modeled.

Originally posted by jscott991
The Roman Empire lasted only about 500 years as an imperial state and the signs of decay were present only about 200 years into its life as the dominant (but not only) Mediterrenean and Middle Eastern power. The various dynasties in China also seldom lasted much longer than a few hundred years before they atrophied and decayed.

I don't think these ancient empire examples are as relevant to a futuristic advanced galactic empire. Advanced technologies (even ones as simple as instantaneous communications) act as a "glue" and can hold it together much better/longer than ancient Romans or Chinese could ever hope for. Fleets of dreadnaughts provide a bit more persuasion to stay in the fold than chariots. I'm not saying that the empire won't eventually atrophy like you say, but I believe the technology and capabilities of the future would stretch it out much longer, as these techs help combat many of the problems leading to decay. Maybe Asimov had this idea when he had these futuristic empires last so much longer than their ancient earth counterparts.

[jscott991]

Curiously, most historical researchers and political commentors believe instantaneous communication and instant access to information creates more pressure on a state to decay rather than providing it with more incentive to stay together. The theory is that since everyone knows about every crisis all the time, it heightens the effect of each problem and causes more unrest.

I don't see how dreadnaughts and spaceships differ too much in destructive impact from nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union still is no longer with us today.

[Apolex]

Originally posted by jscott991
Curiously, most historical researchers and political commentors believe instantaneous communication and instant access to information creates more pressure on a state to decay rather than providing it with more incentive to stay together.

Interesting, but I would think that the effect would be somewhat based on the government type combined with that technology, rather than the technology itself. For instance in a free and democratic state, the more direct flow of information, thoughts and sentiment of the people to their representative government (and vice versa) would tend to strengthen that system. But in a more repressive empire such as the former Soviet Union, instantaneous communication is destablizing in that it allows opposition to organize. Perhaps this is why China is so restrictive with the internet to their people.

However this is one technology out of many. My idea earlier was more of a hand-waving theory that there would be several (as of yet undefined) techs which would aid in holding an empire together against the natural sociological pressures that eventually fracture up all empires. But we're also being a little human-centric here. These pressures cause US to decay, but what of the Silicoids? Klackon? Does a unity race experience the desire for self-government and independance that seems to be built into humans? Probably not. So that decay model may be variable amongst the races.

I don't see how dreadnaughts and spaceships differ too much in destructive impact from nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union still is no longer with us today.

Very good point there, conceded. However, the Soviet Union suffered from the fact that they didn't have Harmonic Tachyon Happiness Waves broadcast throughout their empire.

-Apolex
edit: typos

[viciouscycle]

I believe that comparing ancient Earth empires to fantastic space-faring empires is way too much of a stretch. Even comparing ancient Earth empires to modern Earth civilizations is useless. There is such a huge difference in technology, culture, economics, religion, ecology, etc. between old civilizations and modern ones that it you are comparing apples to oranges. The modern world is a much different place from the old and it is changing at a pace never before seen in recorded history. The future of Earthly civilizations at this point is pure speculation... by anyone... the dynamics of human interaction are incredibly complex.

As for putting the degredation of empires into a game, I believe that oppression and unrest will be represented in MOO3. I think that a game which featured long-term degredation of an empire would be boring in the extreme. I'm not saying that it isn't an interesting idea, far from it, but I just can't see how you could make a game like that which would hold anyone's interest for very long.

Give me conflict... give me adventure... give me something to play for... give me a way to alter my gaming world... give me something with enough detail to immerse me in the gaming world without drowning in the minutiae... give me something that makes me forget about the real world for awhile... that's what fun games are all about.

[Kc7mxo]

What Rome and China and all other real world empires lack, is a single immortal leader who has controlled and led their civilization for so long his rule is hardly questioned. Basically, the player.

Empires collapse and atrophy because of IMCOMPETANCE. Had Rome been ruled by competant leaders with a sstable dynasty, their empire could have lasted, theoretically, forever. Admitably, a big piece of its faul was certain major plauges and barbarian invasions, but had it been led by a competant leader with a well regulated dynasty (no civil wars) we all might be speaking latin today.

[jscott991]

It is absurd to believe that the reason the Roman Empire fell was that Augustus didn't live forever to rule as Princeps. The Roman Empire fell because its state structure decayed. It wasn't the large, macro-policy decisions made by the Emperors that brought Rome down, it was the gradual ossification of the Imperial bureaucracy, the graft and corruption of local officials, the stagnation that was inherent in a Roman economy built on inefficient slave labor, and the sheer size of the territory being ruled compared to communication methods of the day.

As for saying that China's problems were because of a lack of competent Imperial rulers, you need only to read the very basic, but very good, history of Modern China by Immanuel C. Y. Hsu to have that refuted. Even when the Qing emperors were at their best, dynastic decay was still evident.

States decay. Space empires, if they ever exist, will be no exception.

But I want to clarify what I am saying. All I wanted was something built into the game to make the end-game a little more challenging. I don't know how many times in MOO2 I had the game 70% won and didn't even bother to manage my empire, I just kept moving fleets around crushing the few remaining enemy worlds. I think if you built something into the game requiring turn by turn political monitoring or else things began to slow down and atrophy, that would be interesting.

I do realize that these types of games make the player an immortal monarch, but things don't have to be that way either. Europa Universalis and Medieval Lords both let the player run the show, but had monarchs periodically die and rise up again, with their competence having a large role in how the empire functioned. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that. Especially with some of the representative government models in MOO3 where turnover should be even higher.

[booje]

Any empire or state is simply a macro-organism. It has its birth, life, and eventual death like any other organism.

Frank Herbert explored this theme in his "Dune" series of books.

[Kc7mxo]

It is absurd to believe that the reason the Roman Empire fell was that Augustus didn't live forever to rule as Princeps. The Roman Empire fell because its state structure decayed. It wasn't the large, macro-policy decisions made by the Emperors that brought Rome down, it was the gradual ossification of the Imperial bureaucracy, the graft and corruption of local officials, the stagnation that was inherent in a Roman economy built on inefficient slave labor, and the sheer size of the territory being ruled compared to communication methods of the day.

I was basically making a crack about immortal leader games.

Like you said, there were many many factors to Rome's eventual decay. Their government was never designed for an empire, their culture was steadily decaying (certainly partially caused by horrid emperors), plauges, lack of technological advancement. . . There are lots and lots of causes to be talked about.

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.

But a single, charismatic and brilliant leader can revitalize a civiliztion. So how much could a dynasty of them do? Or a single immortal leader? 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. 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.

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?

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

[Jamski]

Its a bit like in Medieval Total War if your king dies without any heirs. Game Over man. Sure its realistic, but in a video game I don't want this to happen to me.

-Jam