Civ4 - Non-State/Transnational Actors

[JFranco]

Greetings!

This is a recommendation to Firaxis for Civilization 4. Below I outline the 3 major Non-State/Transnational Actors, Why Non-State/Transnational Actors should be included and the Learning Outcomes of including Non-State/Transnational Actors in Civilization 4.

I would appreciate clear and concise criticism from members of the Civilization series community.

Non-State/Transnational Actors

1. Include the 3 major Non-State/Transnational Actors in Civilization 4
1.1. What is a Non-State/Transnational Actor?
1.1.1. “Transnational [Non-State] Actors Organizations operating in more than one country are known as transnational actors. They often have specific interests in international issues that differ from those of any nation. Transnational actors include multinational corporations. They also include nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Planned Parenthood and the Roman Catholic Church, which promote their interests across international borders. NGOs often align themselves with particular nations that support their interests, and come into conflict with those that show lack of support. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are groups whose members are national governments. Examples of intergovernmental organizations include the European Union (EU) and the Intelsat Satellite Consortium. They are usually created to promote cooperation between different nations on a particular issue or in a particular geographic region. Nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations together are called international organizations.” (Microsoft Encarta 2001)
1.1.2. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Relations

1.2. 1st Non-State/Transnational Actor: Inter-government organizations (IGOs)
1.2.1. Examples: EU, NATO, OPEC, United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, etc.
1.2.2. What interface to manage IGO status in?
1.2.2.1. Depends on the “type” (Economic, Military or Political) of IGO.
1.2.2.1.1. If similar to the EU or WTO (Economic IGO), then the “Trade Advisor” interface would be most appropriate.
1.2.2.1.2. If similar to the NATO (Military IGO), then the “Military Advisor” interface would be most appropriate.
1.2.2.1.3. If similar to the UN (Political IGO), then the “Foreign Advisor” interface would be most appropriate.
1.2.3. What does a civilization’s participation in an IGO do?
1.2.3.1. Increase commerce among member states (Economic IGO)
1.2.3.2. Reduce the likelihood of military conflict (Economic and/or Military and/or Political IGO)
1.2.3.3. Increase “reputation” and/or “legitimacy” (Political IGO)
1.2.3.4. Increase the likelihood of a “diplomatic victory” (Political IGO)
1.2.4. Assumptions
1.2.4.1. IGOs are allowed in ALL forms of Governments.
1.2.4.2. IGOs among states with different Governments are less likely to occur.
1.2.5. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization

1.3. 2nd Non-State/Transnational Actor: Multi-national corporations (MNCs)
1.3.1. Examples: IBM, McDonalds, Nike, etc.
1.3.2. What interface to manage MNC status in?
1.3.2.1. The “Domestic or Trade Advisor” interface would be the most appropriate.
1.3.3. What does a civilization’s support of an MNC-friendly environment do?
1.3.3.1. Increase commerce of the state
1.3.3.2. Increase the state’s “war weariness” in times of war
1.3.3.3. Decrease the state’s “reputation” and/or “legitimacy”
1.3.3.4. Decrease the likelihood of a “diplomatic victory”
1.3.4. Assumptions
1.3.4.1. MNCs are allowed in ONLY “Republic” and “Democracy” Governments.
1.3.5. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-Governmental_Multi-National_Conglomorate_Corporations

1.4. 3rd Non-State/Transnational Actor: Non-government organizations (NGOs)
1.4.1. Examples: Amnesty International, International Red Cross, Sierra Club, etc.
1.4.2. What interface to manage NGO status in?
1.4.2.1. The “Domestic or Trade Advisor” interface would be the most appropriate.
1.4.3. What does a civilization’s support of an NGO-friendly environment do?
1.4.3.1. Increase likelihood of receiving “aid” during a “humanitarian crisis”
1.4.3.1.1. Examples of humanitarian crises include famine, natural disasters, etc. and will need to be included in C4
1.4.3.2. Increase the state’s “war weariness” in times of war
1.4.3.3. Increase the state’s “reputation” and/or “legitimacy”
1.4.3.4. Increase the likelihood of a “diplomatic victory”
1.4.4. Assumptions
1.4.4.1. NGOs are allowed in ALL forms of Governments, but flourish in “Republic” and “Democracy” Governments
1.4.5. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organizations

2. Why Include the 3 major Non-State/Transnational Actors in Civilization 4
2.1. Non-state/transnational actors exist
2.2. Increase the public’s awareness of non-state/transnational actors
2.3. Non-state/transnational actors operate on the global level
2.4. Non-state/transnational actors are an integral, emerging component in the current international system

3. Learning outcomes of including the 3 major Non-State/Transnational Actors in Civilization 4
3.1. Educate the player in what a “non-state actor” is and its role in the world
3.1.1. The player will be able to define what a “non-state/transnational actor” is.
3.1.2. The player will be able to define the 3 dominant types of non-state/transnational actors.
3.1.3. The player will be able to identify real-world non-state/transnational actors.
3.2. Require the player to weigh a “non-state/transnational actor” in their decision-making process in terms of economic, political and social impacts.
3.3. Provide the player an understanding of the current international system and the increasing interconnectedness of civilizations.

 

[Civrules]

These are very good ideas, and you suggested them just in time, that some might actually make it.
I like all your ideas very much.

Welcome to CFC, and a very nice first post, BTW!

 

[steviejay]

After reading your post a few times t make sure I understood what you meaning, thats a pretty cracking idea!!

Welcome to CFC

 

[dh_epic]

To me this is a magnificent idea. But a lot of people aren't necessarily into the idea of non-state actors. They want you to control *everything* -- you are the state, but you're also the people, and thus, by extension, the religion, and all the commerce that takes place within your borders. Your idea would spiff up the game, but I'm not sure if other people would agree.

 

[sir_schwick]

Unfortunately dh does have a point about many players wanting 'direct' control. That is probably a reason transnational forces of any kind(culture should be) are not modeled. Otherwise I do like the idea that nations can use TNA as another way to align themselves. I was hoping religion would be modeled this way, but signs indicate no.

 

[JFranco]

I appreciate the kind comments from those who have responded so far.

Realizing the post is a bit difficult to read, I have edited it a bit to make it more readable and will continue to make improvements as time passes.

Even though "a lot of people aren't necessarily into the idea of non-state actors," I believe the player will still feel as if they have control because their choice of government will affect the non-state/transnational actor component of the game.

However, I'd like players to take into account that their decisions, be it declaring and waging war or promoting and participating in global commerce, will affect their civilization on both the domestic and international level.

How can we make non-state/transnational actors more "marketable" to those who seek total control?

 

[sir_schwick]

You can't. THis is a 'simcity' vs 'risk' paradigm argument(BS phrasing I know). Players that prefer a more history simulator approach will like the idea, those who want to play this like 'risk'(not a bad thing) would not.

 

[von Bismarck]

I like the idea -- although I don'Ät like the history apporach as much as the risk approach. So maybe there is a chance.

 

[bkwrm79]

This is a very interesting ideas.

The first problem, of course, is deciding how much influence transnational actors should have in the game - views on how much power they have in the real world vary widely, at least in polisci departments where we don't have anything better to do than think about these things, and play Civ.

I think the mechanisms described here are pretty good, it's deciding how big the effect should be in each case that would be problematic.

 

[dh_epic]

To me, the ultimate implementation of religion would be as a transnational actor. But nobody wants to play a game where they can get bossed around by the pope -- they want to play a game where they ARE the pope.

I dunno, transnational actors just don't see to be the place that Civ 4 is headed. It seems to be more "you are everything in your state". And your obstacles are other states and technological limitations -- that's it. I wish there was a bigger vision involved, but right now I'm pessimistic and see Civ moving more towards a Risk-like model. Civ basically becomes Risk where you build the cities that generate the troops, and the troops get upgraded with new technology.

 

[Kayak]

At what point in history would these groups arise? You could make the case that the Hanseatic Leage was a MNC even though their reach was limited. If these groups came in at the start of the modern era it would really be too late to make it enjoyable for the game (it's generaly won by then anyway)

How would you rate the influence of these groups? As bkwrm79 says it can vary widely depending on the country and time period. The power of these groups wax and wane over time too. These effect would have to quantified to be implemented.

@dh_epic I was just typing something similar when you brought this up. religeons are the quintisential transnational actor. I hope this is looked at closly in future development of the game.

 

[Sirian]

I'm pessimistic and see Civ moving more towards a Risk-like model.

How so?

I came back to Civ3 because it moved AWAY from the "player vs the world" dynamic, with the AIs always teaming up against the player.

I was the one who mentioned Risk. I don't know that anybody knows enough about Civ4 to say whether it's moving toward or away from the Risk model. What I do know is that like in Risk or any other "free for all" multiplayer gaming environment, who allies with whom overrides everything else.

In that regard, Civ1 and Civ2 were PLAGUED by "Risk-like" gameplay, with the AIs always forging their lame secret alliances, always ending up in opposition to the player. Civ3 MOVED AWAY from that sort of gameplay, to where the player could have a fair shot at swinging some rivals his way, to support him against other AIs. I found that a lot more fun.

If anything, I should expect to see Civ4 continuing that trend, to improve on how it handles diplomacy.

Besides, Civ has always had the space race. Risk is nothing but conquest.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

While I definitely agree that Civ 3 was a big improvement on Civ 2, much of that came from the AI. Fundamentally, the game was still pretty risk like -- only that the AI no longer ganged up. In theory, if you were playing a huge multiplayer game with Civ 3 and Civ 2, they'd both suffer from the same Risk syndromes: who allies with whom overrides everything else.

Civ dilates Risk in two main aspects.

1) In Risk, you occupy territory in a fair and balanced way before you start the conquest. In Civ, the occupation of territory is synchonous with conquest. The advantage for Civ is that this makes the game longer and more interesting, having to juggle two concepts at the same time. The disadvantage for Civ, if you consider it a disadvantage, is that some games are essentially won before players even make contact with each other, with a hardcore expansionist getting an insurmountable advantage.

2) In Risk, the game takes place in a single era, during a short time span. Civ adds a historical flavor, but mainly as a vehicle towards military advantage. The technological factor is an advantage for Civ, because the player needs to choose between "the biggest army" versus "the most advanced army". There's no disadvantage, but if you ask me, I don't think the addition to gameplay is all that huge. Usually if you have the most advanced army, you're not far from having the biggest. It's not much of a choice.

Even the space race feels tacked on. If by the end of the game there's still some kind of stale mate, might as well change it from Risk-like conquest to an obstacle-course type race: who moved through the steps faster? I'm surprised it took them so long to think of cultural victory: a victory type tied to who built the most stuff.

Anyway, I hate to sound like a pessimist. God knows I have my days where I'm raving about all the great things about Civ and how fascinated I can be by a single concept. But kind of like talking smack about America, I can be harsh because I love it, and because I want to see it live up to its potential. Underneath these criticisms are higher ideals.

 

[Jon Shafer]

What do you think the best way to steer away from that would be?

*Trip waits for a link and a rant Aussie Lurker style.

 

[Sirian]

DH, it was always possible to play Team Risk. My friends and I did some of that, too. Is Axis and Allies really that much better of a game concept at its core? Take away the enforced team aspect, and you'd have quite a mess.

I don't think it is fair to call any game with more than two players a Risk clone. And yet there you have it. In ANY game with more than two sides, where a side can make war upon another, who aligns vs whom is going to dictate results. Only in games like Monopoly, where no one faction can directly target another, can there be free for all without the consequences of alliances.

Civ3 improved on this problem over Civ2 because of AI upgrades. Well, there you have it. That's the ticket to make Civ4 even better yet. Better AI and better diplomacy. It's quite simple, really.


- Sirian

 

[Kayak]

dh... the question here is how will transnational actors affect this? Millitary power is (at least currently) the measurment of the power of a country. Civ is unrealistic only in that it alows for unrestricted projection of that power. Others have suggested that units cost population this would be a good way to restict this, maybe better that just an increase in cost.
BTW I love long rants and even threadjacks on this board. I'ts a weakness, but I think they are lots of fun.

 

[sir_schwick]

Currently the population is way too easy to keep happy. Also, populations do not seem to hate each other like great powers in history. These forces also would creat alternate ways to wage warfare, such as economic and societal. Hard to explain, but someone will pick up the torch.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

"But nobody wants to play a game where they can get bossed around by the pope"

Hmm. why not? Suppose a civ, not necessarily yours, founds a great religion, and as a result, they get to control a great religious leader, a pope, imam, what have you. Any people following this religion will tend to obey the dictates of the head of the church. Thus, the controlling civ could have the religious leader issue edicts every so often, determining whether or not the adherents will support war, (if not, causes extra unhappiness if drafting occurs), feel dislike toward followers of another religion (which might cause extra unhappiness in a city where adherents of both religions coexist), tithe support towards religious projects in cities only (cause loss of shields if other things built, accelerates production of any religious structure for 10 turns), and so on. The kicker is these restrictions would apply to the civ controlling the leader too, so it would not simply be a way to mess with other civs, your own civ would suffer consequences as well.

If you go to war and capture the city where the Pope lives, then you control him.

 

[sir_schwick]

I see Ivan liked to invade the Papacy in MTW. Of course it really makes you appreciate not being a Catholic power in the middle ages.

I really do not think there are that many control freaks. It is a small audience versus the one that would be intrigued by forces they must manipulate rather than directly control.

 

[dh_epic]

To me, a military oriented game will always be won by who has the largest army. Then it's pretty easy to make a small jump: people who gang up with have an army larger than any single force. For all the reasons I'm glad that the AI doesn't gang up anymore, it also leaves me slightly disappointed that the game has less challenge (even if it's more fun). Fixing the AI does not change that.

I've never played a game like Axis and Allies, but by its name I already know the scope and focus of the game. Each term, Axis or Allies, refers to a military alliance during a specific period of time which was entirely focused on war. The game is a war game, simple and plain. Axis doesn't connote diplomacy: you can't call in a peace treaty with the British. Allies doesn't connote culture: you can't change your religion. Axis doesn't connote politics: you can't dispute borders based on who resembles your population or not, you simply fight. The point I'm making is these games choose a scope and stick with it.

To me, Civilization never was a war game. Not that it didn't have war in it, but to me it was a game about all the facets of Civilization: education systems, population control, cultural hegemony, moral high ground. If the only way you are judged to be great is by the amount of land you conquer, then it's only natural that war becomes the crux of the gameplay. Everything you do should be to enhance your war machine. Ganging up becomes the most valuable strategy. The greatest men, in no particular order, become Caesar, Mao, Hitler, and Napoleon. Is that what we think of when we think of great Civilizations?

If Civilization IS a war game, then it's a very boring one, in fact. A war game like Star Craft will take 3 hours and will usually have a climactic confrontation, with the remainder of time used to chase down that last hopeless set of units or buildings. A game like Civ might have a climactic confrontation, but it will occur at the onset of the middle ages. The remaining two thirds of the game is already decided: you took your main rival's cities and doubled the size of your empire. No one has a chance to catch up, because having a 2X-size empire means that you can advance twice as fast, produce twice as much.

And a 10-20 hour race through technologies isn't a sufficient alternative -- although it's a very necessary alternative.

A game about Civilization includes war, there is no doubt. And the war system is basically there. But a game about Civilization includes many of the other pursuits that Civilizations concerned themselves with throughout history.

- Without conquering or killing these people, can we civilize them, and spread our sense of enlightenment?
- Can we outlast the political upheaval associated with a large heterogeneous empire?
- Can we win a Cold War, without ever firing a shot at one another?
- Will history remember us as a moral, progressive people, who put value on human life instead of worshipping our leader as a conquesting savior?
- Does the world respect us?
- Do our people have the best quality of life in the world?
- Am I rich?

I mean, this is the high level visionary stuff. But it ties into the stuff about transnational actors. People like the idea of transnational forces, but they want to control these too -- as evident by "who gets to conquer the pope" scenario in the post right above me. (If the pope is just another tool that you can conquer, the only meaningful powers he can have are to start and end wars.) If any challenge is seen as a way of taking control away from the player, you end up with what we have now.

Not to say that the game should become impossible, cumbersome, or annoying. I think there's a balance -- an obstacle is sometimes fun, sometimes not. A perfectly debatable example is the AI gangbangers. In Civ 2, the game was harder to win, but not necessarily more fun. An AI gangbang felt like you were being robbed of victory, being punished for being a winner. Civ 3 is terribly easy to win, but at least it doesn't annoy the crap out of you. Maybe if there were meaningful obstacles (obstacles that don't come across as "punish the leader") the game would have the fun kind of challenge.

Anyway, there's my rant.