Civ4 - Non-State/Transnational Actors

[Kayak]

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

Why would you control the Pope if you captured Rome? I don't see th U.S. controlling any Grand Ayatolla (pardon my spelling) in Irag and we have all of the cities there. Quite the opposite. No these organisations must be resonably independant and they should arise and disapear somewhat randomly. This is not to say that they should'nt be bribable or manipulated in some fashion. The trick will be what can they do against or for you and what goals they could have that an AI could handle.

 

[sir_schwick]

1) There is no such thing as a Grand Ayatolla, since Ayatolla is a shi'ite teacher of great knowledge.
2) The Ayatolla would not be the leader in the Iraqi Shia Caliphate, unlike in Iran.
3) Shi'ites are the minority in Iraq, so a Shia Caliphate would not be established anyway.
4) When the Visigoths and Huns invaded Rome, they were not Catholic so they did not try to make the Pope one of their own.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, to be fair, look at history. In the late 16th century, Rome was under the control of Spanish invaders-and this is believed to be a very strong reason why the Pope at the time refused to grant Henry the VIII'th his desired anulment from the Queen, Catherine of Aragon (who was, I believe, the Spanish Kings niece??) In this way, therefore, Spain essentially controlled the Pope by controlling the city he was in.

Perhaps the important point is that the controlling player must be of the same faith as that as the great leader in the controlled city. If the Great Leader is from a different religion, OTOH, he/she might in fact make such a city even HARDER to control!!!
Just a thought !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kayak]

1) There is no such thing as a Grand Ayatolla, since Ayatolla is a shi'ite teacher of great knowledge.
2) The Ayatolla would not be the leader in the Iraqi Shia Caliphate, unlike in Iran.
3) Shi'ites are the minority in Iraq, so a Shia Caliphate would not be established anyway.
4) When the Visigoths and Huns invaded Rome, they were not Catholic so they did not try to make the Pope one of their own.

1. I can only claim ignorence in this. Mr al-Sistani of Iraq and Mr. Khamenei of Iran are often reffered to as Grand Ayatollas in the press.
2. Why not?
3. I do believe that the Shias make up approx 60% of the Iraqi population, with the Kurds and the Sunnis around 20% each.
4. Good point along with Aussie_Lurker. In response Henry was able (and I know this is a simplification) to make himself head of the church in his own provences by decree. How Much power did the Pope have over the people of England at the time if that could happen without a major rebellion? On the other side of the argument there was much backlash on the continent, and Spain did use it as an excuse to try to invade and put thier own puppet on the throne.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Well, from a gameplay standpoint, I think the player should have some limited degree of control over any religious leader under his/her influence, e.g. existing within the kingdom. As Aussie points out, there are real life parallels to this concept. And, if the whole concept is to be regarded as "fun" (not all stick and no carrot) then the player must be rewarded with the capacity to influence the religion, if they control the city in which the religion's leader is based. The "religious edict" idea could be fairly limited, you would only have the ability to issue edicts every so often, and they would not be serious, civ destroying influences, but instead represent another form of hindrance, much as trade embargos do in civ3.

I'm verging into the politically incorrect sphere here, but I also think that internal religious wars/pogroms should be included; a majority of citizens in a city may be incited to take up arms against a religous minority, with the result that the city begins losing pop points as the minority religion's members are murdered. Under certain governments, it may also be possible to initiate a government sanctioned pogrom (under, say Fascism) to eject these citizens from your cities. If the border/culture infiltration model as discussed elsewhere is implemented, this could make things very interesting, as you would end up with a lot of foreign nationals/foreign religions in your cities, with the attendant historical problems. It would be nice to link government type to the degree with which foreign citizens appear in your cities due to immigration.

 

[sir_schwick]

2. I asked a friend of mine who is a consultant for a think-tank on international politics about this. It is hard to explain, but Caliphate's are all based of particular Caliph's. Which Caliph and sharia are used determines how the administrative model works. The Caliphate that Iran is based off is not one the Iraqi's would want to use. Of course this is how much I understood/interpretted from my friend, so don't take it as a quote.

 

[bkwrm79]

Well, there's the Sunni/Shi'ite split (originally over the issue of succession to the Caliph, IIRC) but in theory the Caliph is supposed to be the universal ruler of the Moslem world. Obviously, that hasn't been the case in quite some time. But it raises a historically valid issue - a major and influential religion is prone to divisions.

The papacy raises another problem... what about anti-popes? Can you create a rival leader of a religion?

Controlling Rome might not do you any good if the Pope and Cardinals flee to Avignon. (On the other hand, that might do the French monarch a great deal of good.)

 

[sir_schwick]

Once someone thinks of a good way and effecient way to simulate all of that(in a natural, not random way), then this system will really take off. The idea of schisms and unity is vital to simulating things that resemble history.

 

[dh_epic]

To me, the problem with controlling the pope is that the most compelling decisions you could make in Civ would be "go to war with these guys" and "declare peace on these guys". Not only are these orders kind of boring, but in the hands of one player, they only reinforce one player's ability to run away with the game, instead of hopes that the game might actually be balanced.

To me, an automated pope might be more compelling. (Turns the "Activate Pope" action on.) Sure he'd throw in the obligatory crusades that seem to be the only religious event in the past 6000 years of recorded human history, if you ask people on this forum. But he might actually ask for a non-strategic peace. He might blame a recent plague on your nation's excessive love of grapes and ask you to outlaw them. He might ask you to help civilize some savages, and teach them secrets of monotheism. He might condemn a player for embracing birth control and thus women's sufferage.

No player-controlled-pope would ask for these things because players are not superstitious like people were 1400 years ago. A player would be like "show them monotheism? are you kidding me? we should show them our swords!" Or "why on earth would you want to outlaw grapes?" Let alone "why would you stand in the way of scientific and social progress?" A pope, by nature, would ask you to do things that today we'd find completely impractical and helpful to no one.

Therein lies the strategy. Abide by the pope and maintain his favor, but make practical sacrifices: a loss of monetary, political, and technological power. Or disobey the pope, lose his favor, even get excommunicated, thus leading to huge upheaval among your religious society and religious neighbors. Does it make you more powerful to be the pope's best friend, or the pope's worst enemy?

"Control the city with the pope in it" just isn't that compelling a strategy to me, particularly when all you're going to do is get everyone to be at peace with you, and everyone to be at war with each other. Religion and its most important figures are Non-State actors: meaning they do not cater to the desires of a single state. That's how history can have so many interesting, crazy events.

Of course, religion is just one of many non-state actors.

 

[Dr. Broom]

Excellent idea, two thumbs up.

 

[Kayak]

dh_epic you hit the nail on the head there. The point to the game should be interaction not just action. Hopefully an improved AI could react to what you do in a more sublte way than war or embargo. I would love to have something like this. Think how to respond when an international aid groups asks for money to rebuild the infrastucture of an enemy that you just finished a war with. What are the consequenses if you refuse?

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks Kayak. I think that would be a pretty fun / interesting game, but I'm only one person. Like I said, when I think about a game called Civilization, I think about all the things that makes a civilization historically important, not just its military. These kinds of improvements to gameplay are very compatible with Civ as it is now:

In the classical age, wars were over territory, and people pledged allegiance to their leader, not their country. Leaders were megalomaniacs, and you could sum up their goals with "might makes right". Civilization does a great job of this part of history.

In the middle ages, wars persisted, but with more complex relationships. There were larger networks of cooperation, and this was often facilitated by religion (Christians versus Muslims). But more than religion, this was really a function of cultural difference. You and I might be different, but those guys are even more different than us -- we should cooperate against them, even though you and I don't always see eye to eye. I think Civ could do this a lot better with a more effective culture model.

By the industrial ages, there were essentially two kinds of wars.

First: With the advent of nationalism, suddenly people pledged allegiance to a state -- their culture tied them together, instead of being tied together under an emperor's sword. This was very interesting, because suddenly people living under one leader would say "sorry man, but we're not Ottomans. We're Greeks: we've been Greeks all along. We have a rich history and culture that has nothing to do with you." These were the source of numerous conflicts, with various nations claiming certain lands belonged to them all along. I also think an improved culture model would describe this.

Second: Economic motivation changed the complexion of war. It didn't make sense for Britain to invade Africa or India and take over completely. They only wished to take over to the extent that they could sap the valuable resources: diamonds, silk, spices... as well as controlling valuable trade routes. It actually cost much more to build a complete infrastructure in these foreign nations and go to the effort of assimilating these people, who would surely resist. Occupying their territory and leeching their resources was just the smartest thing to do. A better economic model for Civ would make this part of the game more interesting.

And I know I said there were two kinds of wars in the industrial age, but there were still classic megalomaniacs like a Hitler. Civ has never had a problem modelling this. But one of the reasons that the industrial age in Civ is so boring is because you're really left with four big empires at the end of the game, instead of a richer experience.

The modern age is a whole other story... but I think the conflicts of modern times will be defined by the Cold War -- faught largely between puppets USA and USSR, without a single bullet between the two superpowers. I also think it will be defined by the Iraq war, where even an occupation is frowned upon, and maintaining a "friendly regime" is the best one can hope for.

Anyway, sorry for being too ranty... but I think that making the latter part of the game more interesting would be something that a lot of people can get on board for. And I think it's related to some of these non-state actors and forces and constraints. A growing sense of moral outrage at the classical model of conquest: pillaging and genocide. Cultural contamination from your neighbors, whether they intended it or not. Multiple nations united by a sense of common history, with your people demanding that you take a side in a conflict you'd really rather have no part of.

With state-only control, sometimes I wonder if people would have more fun playing 4 games of Rome: Total War and skipping the last 2-3 ages of a Civ game entirely.

 

[Kayak]

Anyway, sorry for being too ranty... but I think that making the latter part of the game more interesting would be something that a lot of people can get on board for. And I think it's related to some of these non-state actors and forces and constraints. A growing sense of moral outrage at the classical model of conquest: pillaging and genocide. Cultural contamination from your neighbors, whether they intended it or not. Multiple nations united by a sense of common history, with your people demanding that you take a side in a conflict you'd really rather have no part of.

No, not too ranty at all. Those thoughts are all important. The trick is to put them into the game. I can see many ways that outside actors would interact with the player, but I'm racking my head for ideas that would affect the outcome of the game in the later stages. It should not be might=right=win. (do I sound politicaly correct? Hmm ). Maybe the advent of nationalism should cause revolts acrose the world and that would be one challenge to deal with as you could lose some of your empire? Reuniting that empire in a non-military way could be an option too, ala Germany.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

DH_Epics ideas tie in very strongly with my ideas regarding the Social Engineering Trait of ''Secularism". The lower you set this trait, the more effective your religious improvements are at producing culture and happiness, and the more resistant your nation is to outside religious conversion. However, it also determines how much stronger your religious faction is-giving them control over such things as what nations you are at war with, what improvements/wonders you can build, what your science rate is etc, etc! The thing with religion, though, is that it can cross national boundries (hence transnational players). If one nation creates a great religious leader of the same religion as another nation (with a low Secularism), then this will give said Great Religious Leader a certain degree of control over that nation as well. Also, though the nation that creates said leader COULD use him/her to 'rush' a wonder or to get some other leader produced benefit, the Leader actually could remain in the game as the 'automatic pope' DH_Epic referred to-essentially the new leader of the religious faction of both the creating nation AND any nation which follows the exact same religion! In fact, such demands/requests might actually carry even GREATER weight than if it had just come from an ordinary religious faction.

Anyway, hope that made sense !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kayak]

Ha! yes. Maybe a "religious revival" could be a random event. Or the Great Religious Leader would represent that. Religious fervor could sweep your empire and force you into war/peace what have you. It could even force a pogrom agianst certain groups (foreigners maybe) that would be condemed by other powers.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd love to see factions modeled in Civilization in this way. I'm a big fan of Tropico in this respect -- I just wish that Tropico could accomplish a larger scope like that of Civ. In Tropico, you had 6 main factions, with their own desires.

Intellectuals: desire freedom, desire education
Capitalists: desire economic success
Communists: want housing for all, eradication of unemployment
Environmentalists: want a beautiful island, low pollution
Militarists: want a strong military
Religious: desire churches, desire religious edicts

Not that Civ should import these to the letter, but there was something great about what was going on here. Your island's internal attitudes were as much an obstacle to overcome as the intervention of the Americans and the Soviets. By seperating the people from the state, you actually create much more of the historical dilemmas that leaders have dealt with and overcome.

How to crush a revolution that might tear your country apart?
How to unify your people when there's so much difference?
How to please one group of people when they're being courted by an outside state?
How to modernize your civilization when many people are socially backwards?

Civilization doesn't need to have elaborate factions to deal with these things... even just a simple "your people have a religious rating of 80% -- devout", or "your people have a religious rating of 30% -- personal". To some extent you can work to raise or lower these ratings, but you'd also need to embrace these ratings. As much as we'd want to have a scientific society that avoids superstition in 300 AD, you can't do it if the people don't like it. And you'd make sacrifices just to keep your civilization running smoothly -- throw your people a bone.

But some people are against giving up control. I think this is a valid complaint -- but a game where the player is in complete control is like asking God if he can make you a sandwich. The fun of the game comes from conflict. Still, there are bad ways to take control away from the player:

Randomness: While some probability calculations are expected (like in combat), randomly taking control away from one player and not another isn't fun, no matter how realistic it is. Just as there's nothing more crappy than to lose a football game because of a spontaneous, unexplainable injury, it wouldn't be fun to lose Civ because of a sudden, spontaneous earthquake.

Punish the Winner (PTW): While challenging, there's nothing more frustrating than the feeling that you're being held back just because you're winning. This is what happened in Civ 1 and Civ 2, where the AI suddenly engages in groupthink and agrees that they will work together to fight you. There's got to be a better way to make the game challenging towards the end.

Creating conflict between you and non-state actors -- including the will of your people -- don't fall into those two "bad conflict" categories. I personally think it's a good kind of conflict. (Although you could always argue that it's a bad kind of conflict outside those two categories).

 

[Trade-peror]

Excellent ideas, dh_epic, I too am a fan of the factions aspect of Tropico, and am frankly surprised that such an idea has not been used in earlier games or in Civ.

In any case, these ideas embody a fundamental shift in game philosophy--Civ players would take on the job of trying to manipulate forces (such as the factions) to accomplish their ends, rather than actually be the forces of change in the game. I mentioned in a different thread that the current Civ player role of acting as the game dynamic rather than manipulating the game dynamic was the root cause of micromanagement, and that micromanagement is the constraint that forces many aspects of Civ, such as economics or politics, to be superficial to keep management within a tolerable level.

Civ should instead shift toward ideas more similar in nature to this one, not only to reduce tedium from micromanagement but also to allow more in-depth features to be implemented to truly enrich the Civ experience.

 

[Furius]

I like the "religious rating" type thing, something that is somewhat influenced by your actions (Construction of cathedrals and temples etc) but affects everything, especially foreign policy, so that you both have control and don't. I also like the automaton pope but I don't think you should have a choice as to whether or not he turns up. Perhaps one could attempt to kill him outright to remove his influence in gain back full control which would not only stir up unrest perhaps even civil war but make all the other catholic nations angry with you, but you could go back to using (and selling?) your wine and perhaps the Protestants within your territory would be happy and support you for removing the oppressive pontif. But if your religious rating was lower then you could slowly chip away his power and spontaneously removing him would not be so bad, though the other Catholic nations might still be mad...
But this pope should result in good things for you, the "transnational actor" as JFranco refers to it (although I don't think that is a good ingame name for it, its too long) means that the pope's chosen state receives a nice cash bonus from all the Catholic pilgrims flocking to the pope's place of residence or some such and pledges of alligence from the other catholic nations.
Also, perhaps there should be some sort of economic victory, this could be possessing 60 % of the world's gold or something similar.

 

[bkwrm79]

I was wondering how the 'Holy Roman Empire' Wonder in the Middle Ages Conquest relates to this?

I just got Conquests, I'm playing the Middle Ages for the first time. The fact that England got the Pope to move there has had enormous consequences; me (Burgundy) and Germany lost a lot of resources as our own projects were cancelled, England gained tech, England soon thereafter wiped out the Celts, etc. Of course, it's really silly that England is the Holy Roman Empire, but when you think about it historically the HRE was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." (Wish I could remember where that quote is from.)

I think Civ III has managed in at least one case in one scenario to produce effects similar to those we're talking about. Can Wonders play a big role in modelling non-state actors, particularly religions?

 

[dh_epic]

Actually, in terms of a huge religious thread from a way back, we agreed the best implementation of religions was not to assign any particular traits to any religion... but assign buildings to religions, and traits to those buildings. That way you sidestep any issues of historical accuracy -- was Christianity a warlike religion? Was it a pacifist religion? It was both: it's just a question of what values your society emphasizes. And choosing to build a wonder is a perfect way to give people a way to resolve and embrace the paradoxes inherent in most religions.

At any rate, I kind of hope that Civ becomes a game where you can leverage your handling of domestic issues as an advantage as much as you can leverage your war machine now. I'm not holding my breath, though.