Reforming the election system

[Provolution]

Reforming the election system

Yet another test balloon.

Something worked well in past demogames, yes traditional demogames, and that was elections per month (1 term per month). There is also a call for real elections in the outset, to be balanced with roleplay and historicity. Black-Hole suggests three main leaders for the initial elections, something I have integrated into a remodeled CIVIC-centric election system.

The main advantage with this system, beyond roleplay aspect, is that it gives the metagame better organization and more purpose. If a national candidate wants to run for the election, he/she most certainly would like to make sure they at least get the civics they require to run according to their election premises. This also means that the players must agree to only allow civic changes during the very first turnchat of the new regime, as well as make the same first turnchat the time eventual changes for state religion comes (this is the area of the High Priest).

Each CIVIC PRIMARY position represents two victory options, National Leader has Time and Space wins, Warlord has Conquest or Domination wins and finally the High Priest has Culture and Religion wins. We still need to place "the late game Diplomatic Win, and we can actually let this be the main responsibility of the Ambassador. These need to cooperate of course, but they may also compete to make sure their type of victory conditions becomes the main policy.

In sum, the Government Civics determine the main CIVIC PRIMARY elections as well as the foundation for the mid-term elections, where the Legal Civics determine more or less who runs and influences the Supreme Court by appointment or election, or for Barbarism, being the Supreme Court.


The general rule for the Civic-centric election system is that the elected choice of civics dictate the degree of appointments by the national leader and the degree of elections in mid-term elections that follow 2 weeks later. This way, we can solve several issues at once in the Civics Primaries (National Leader election, Warlord election, High Priest election, and indirectly the choice of civics, state religion and top 5 priority wonders for the term, as well as a series of civic-dependent appointments for cabinet and the supreme court)

As we can see from the Government Civic set up presented here, we got the most dictatorial Police State with no mid-term elections for government (4 out of 4 appointments), this gradually becomes more democratic with Hereditary Rule (3 out of 4 appointments), Despotism (2 out of 4 appointments, but national leader may decide to take appointment tasks for himself), Representation (1 of 4 appointments) and finally the most democratic Universal Suffrage with 4 out of 4 mid-term cabinet positions up for election. Supreme Court appointments take place during mid-term elections, but again based on the Legal Civic in this case.

Here follows a list of which positions are up for appointment or election under the various government types:

________________________________________________________

DESPOTISM: 2 Appointments, 2 Elections (also known as Empire)

* Note: Only Despotism allows self-appointments

Despotism triggers appointments:

• Ambassador
• Treasurer

Despotism triggers mid term elections:

• Historian
• Speaker of the Senate

HEREDITARY RULE: 3 Appointments, 1 Election

* Note: Only Hereditary Rule allows for making only appointed cabinet members or appointed governors as successors for the next term as eligible candidates for the national leader position, emulating that these players are "nobility".

Hereditary Rule triggers appointments:

• Ambassador
• Treasurer
• Herald (Propaganda Minister)

Hereditary Rule triggers mid term elections:

• Historian

REPRESENTATION: 1 Appointments. 3 Elections

* Note: Only Representation allows for Governors or Mayors to be the only eligible candidates for National Leader in case the Representation civic carries on into the next term.

Representation triggers appointment:

• Ambassador

Representation triggers mid term elections:

• Treasurer
• Speaker of the House
• Historian

POLICE STATE: 4 Appointments


* Note: Only Police State allows for Cabinet Members (Junta) to be the only eligible candidates for National Leader in case the Police State civic carries on into the next term.

Police State triggers appointments:

• Ambassador
• Treasurer
• Propaganda Minister
• Historian

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE: 4 Elections

* Note: Only Universal Suffrage allows for non-officials to be the only eligible candidates for National Leader in case the civic carries on into the next term.

Universal Suffrage triggers mid term elections of:

• Ambassador
• Treasurer
• Speaker of the House
• Historian

______________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT POWERS

The Legal Civic designates how the Supreme Court is set up. In Barbarism, there is not any independent court, as the top three nations leaders, the National Leader, the Warlord and the High Priest run things at their own whim. This gradually becomes more "civic" with Vassalage, where the Governors Council appoint the Chief Justice, the National Leader appoint the State Attorney and the Peoples Justice is directly elected - this represents that the provinces get a little stronger than central authority. With Bureaucracy, Chief Justice appointment and State Attorney appointment are swopped between the National Leader and the Governor from the Vassalage variant.
For the Nationhood Civic. there is even more democracy, as the National Leader appoints the Chief Justice, where the Governors Council may decide to approve or not the presented candidate. State Attorney and Peoples Justice are both for direct election in this civic.
Finally, the most democratic is Free Press, where all Supreme Court positions are directly elected.


Here follows an overview on how the Supreme Court is set up between Leader, Governors and People:

_______________________________________________________________________


BARBARISM

• Chief Justice is National Leader (Court of King Solomon)
• State Attorney is Warlord/General (Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth arbitration)
• Peoples Justice is High Priest (Divine Support)

VASSALAGE

• Chief Justice appointed by Governors Council
• State Attorney appointed by National Leader
• Peoples Attorney directly elected

BUREAUCRACY

• Chief Justice appointed by National Leader
• State Attorney appointed by Governors Council
• Peoples Attorney directly elected

NATIONHOOD

• Chief Justice appointed by National Leader, approved by Governors Council
• State Attorney directly elected
• Peoples Attorney directly elected

FREE SPEECH

• Chief Justice directly elected
• State Attorney directly elected
• Peoples Attorney directly elected

_______________________________________________________

The remaining three civics: labor, economy and religion are only indicative for respectively policies of the Provinces, the Government and the Church. These should be interpreted in-character with chosen civic, but otherwise free to the interpretation of the individual player

Labor Civic is up to the discretion of Governors, which handle build queues, worker actions, planning city locations

Economy Civic is up to the discretion of the Cabinet, which handle the slider, use of gold, trades,

Religion Civic is up to the discretion of the High Priest and the various individual worshippers, which handle choice of state religion, strategies for culture

CIVIC PRIMARIES POSITIONS



National Leader

Choice of Civic Platform of 5 civics prior to elections
Rules Capital City as separate province

• Responsible for appointments of non-election offices
• Responsible for handling mid-term elections
• Responsible for the nominations of five wonders that may be built the coming term
• Responsible for planning and nominating technologies for discussions and polls
• Right to decide use of Great Scientist

High Priest

Choice of State Religion
Rules Holy City of State Religion as separate province

• Responsible for planning cultural and religious expansion
• Responsible for advocating for religious wonders, buildings and missionaries, as well as culture in general
• Responsible for sending missionaries
• Responsible for all foreign policy upon the building of Apostolic Palace
• Right to decide use of Great Artists and Great Prophets

Warlord/General

Choice of Military Structure
Rules designated Fortress City as separate province

• Responsible for planning the military build-up for the coming term
• Responsible for presenting the Order of Battle (OOB) at any stage
• Responsible for the appointments of Infantry General, Cavalry General, Admiral and Air Marshall should the technology and/or game population allow so
• Responsible for all military forces in times of war as Chief of Staff
• Right to decide use of Great General

MID TERM ELECTION POSITIONS

The Mid-term elections are determined by the CIVIC PRIMARIES. The less democratic civic structure set in place, the less positions are up for election and the other way around. Governors are always set up for election, unless the campaign platform for a national leader advocating Despotism, Hereditary Rule or Police State is to make governors appointments.

For the most dictatorial case, Police State and Barbarism combination, only National Leader, Warlord/General and High Priest is up for election, where the rest of the positions are appointments, and the Supreme Court is the same three leaders running the country. For an early game scenario with Despotism and Barbarism, we would only need to elect the top three leaders (following Black Holes recommendation), as there is so little to lead and organize.

For the most democratic case, Universal Suffrage and Free Press, four cabinet positions are up for election (emulating coalition governments and so on) in the mid-term. All three Supreme Court positions would be up for election as well. So with a modern government scenario with 6 provinces, we would see National Leader, General, High Priest, Speaker of House, Historian, Treasurer, Ambassador, Chief Justice, State Attorney, Peoples Justice and six governors up for election, a total of 16 elections in the peak scenario, where the early game would have only 3 leaders for the first 2 turnchats.

Treasurer could be said to be a sort of Prime Minister as well, as CIVIC Primaries is a sort of "Presidential Election", where the Mid-term elections provide the main cabinet comparable to a Prime Minister election or a mid-term Congress election. This sort of blends the European way of thinking with the American way of thinking, and it fits the CIV4 BTS profile.

The main model is that all key officials should be able to run their own city, if it meets certain criteria as well as be free to present a plan for how to handle their duties in the country. Each leader is also given a series of responsibilities as well as the right to decide on the use of their particular kind of "Great Person".

However, given certain civics, the number of positions up for election in the mid-term largely depends on the winner of the National Leader election in the CIVIC PRIMARIES. We are already used to extend the number of positions for elections or reduce them, so there is no real argument to keep it constant.
The Civic primaries make sure that we got a decent way to adapt to the game population and at the same time accommodate participation to office vacancies.


Here follows a list of mid-term appointments or elections (these positions are all filled in the mid-term election as either appointments or elections).

____________________________________________________________


Governor

Choice of Provincial Specialization
Rules own Province from designated Provincial Capital

• Responsible for build queues in cities in own Province
• Responsible for city specialists in own Province
• Responsible for proposing city locations for new cities in own Province
• Responsible for worker actions in own Province
• Right to decide use of Great Engineer

Ambassador

Choice of Foreign Policy
Rules biggest occupied city as viceroy, otherwise serves national capital

• Responsible for analysis of foreign powers
• Responsible for mapping available agreements
• Responsible for proposing foreign policies
• Responsible for Colonial Office (setting up Colonies and Vassals)
• Responsible for Espionage and Right to use Great Spy

Treasurer

Choice of Fiscal Policy
Rules biggest commercial centre if available, otherwise serves national capital

• Responsible for Slider
• Responsible for Planning Trades
• Responsible for Planning General Resource Development
• Responsible for National Forest Reserve
• Responsible for Corporations and Right to use Great Merchant

Historian

Choice of History
Rules Scholarly City designated by National Leader, otherwise serves capital

• Responsible for writing out a narrative from turnchats
• Responsible for providing and presenting maps, naming landmarks
• Responsible for naming geographical landmarks and cities, ownership
• Responsible for preparing various subgames that fits the historical context
• Responsible for writing up the national history by the end of the term

Herald/Propaganda Minister/Speaker of House/Party Whip

Choice of Political Agenda (based on guidelines from National Leader)
Rules Wonder City designated by National Leader, otherwise serves capital

• Responsible for representing the government faction or opposition faction
• Responsible for preparing Government Acts/Communiques
• Responsible for advocating the Assembly (Polls)
• Responsible for advocating the Supreme Court (Court decisions)
• Responsible for advocating the Governors (Council)

 

[Provolution]

VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES ON THE CIVIC-CENTRIC SYSTEM

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN:


The new demogame player

The new demogame player, which we assume is acquainted with CIV4 BTS or at least CIV4, would know very well about the civics system, and the possibilities and limitations in these. They will now come to a forum based environment where the ambitions for a collective CIV4 BTS game is high.
However, they need to grasp the essentials in order to get interested.
Beyond having a stupid and simple ruleset, like Checkers or Sudoku, they may look for something different, a game with heart and soul, as well as a new twist and variation that makes sense. This is also regarding non-US players, or players that do not take the term "demogame" literally as a democracy game starting with Western Democracy 4000 BC.


The highly perfectionist technical player

The highly perfectionist player likes to make the best decisions at the best timing, in spite of democratic rules.This type of player may at some stage find the demogame scene to be irrational, frantic, unfair and a place for underhanded political motions and verbal insults, contrasting his vision of a perfect civilization game. Every turn a decision is delayed for this gamer, is a living nightmare. Having seen the chaos in previous games with unfilled office positions and general dissent, he is skeptical to the demogame as a concept.

However, the civic-centric demogame places greater decisions, such as civics and state religion, and associate them with a first wave of key elections, and in this manner reduces some of the noise occuring from disjointed and fragmented processes. He understands that timing these paramount decisions with the key elections make sense, and he begins to feel pleasure of a new challenge like this, that he needs to argue from a political and emotional angle, in order to get his rational plans through.

The relaxed and casual player

The relaxed and casual player likes a maximum of entertainment and a minimum of effort. He likes to observe both interpersonal conflict, and jointly participate in it for the fun of it, as well as novel gameworlds to explore and experiment in. The civic-centric model reduces the level of commitment needed, so that relaxed and casual players may drop in and participate from time to time, and read the Historians maps and reports in order to understand what is going on, now that key forum information is placed by one good write in a singular location and thus makes the game more accessible to outsiders.
Heck, there are even a couple of sub-games with roleplay elements to handle on the side.

The lurker

The lurker is like the relaxed and casual player, but even more into passive entertainment and even less effort than the relaxed and casual player. What makes it interesting for the lurker, is that there are two sets of elections each month, so that there are always some drama to observe, both in game, in the metagame and roleplaywise. Each lurker is unique, but the Speaker of the House function and the Historian function makes the game accessible in a manner only seen in the rare well-documented traditional demogame.


The roleplayer

The roleplayer rejoice the replacement of the mini US constitution with a more civic-centric and historical organization of powers and responsibilities throughout the eras. Now, each position has bestowed rights, powers and duties that are more commensurate with the nature of the civic and time period, as well as a much wanted level of immersion due to this. The power-structure must follow both the metagame and the in-game decisions to have any bearing on the value of roleplay. If roleplay is disjointed from the main game, we would be talking of many separate games, not one game.
With the civic-centric approach, the nature of political appointments and the new way to organize conflicts of state, region, church and military as well as market level around the concept of historic legacy and political process, makes for an entire new demogame universe for the roleplayer. BTS CIV4 makes this happen even more, now that unfun micromanagement is removed.

The political player

The political player can now rejoice as well, with doubling the amount of elections as well as halving the amount of elective positions as well as tuning appointments and elections to the nature of the chosen civic. CIVIC Primaries makes for a whole different drama, as the Government, the Military and the Church are voted directly by only three positions. The magnitude of these elections are enlarged by the fact that State Religion and Civics are timelocked to these CIVIC PRIMARIES and the outcome directly locked to the very winner (CIVICS for National Leader and State Religion for High Priest) as well as creating the setting for next elections appointments and elections.

The CIVIC Primaries opens for the mid-term elections, which a political animal likes. Gone are the traditional demogames where a few veterans shop around between President, Vice President, Judiciary, Warlord, Governor, Mayor and what have you. Gone are the days of election over-booking and gone are the days of hidden cronyism and explosive vote-trading. Now there are real campaign platforms at work, so people vote for an idea, not merely a person.
The CIVIC-centric system has made the game interesting for the political player.

The traditionalist Civ3 Veteran

The final group, the traditional CIV3 veteran has developed his own tribal language, with therms such as "Will of the People", "The One Who Must Not Be Named", "PIs", "CCs" and "German Longbowman" are concepts that live a vivid memory by those that experienced it. These players are used to a certain customary way to do it, and most of these are Americans, as the demogames have been modelled on the US Constitution concepts, not other countries concepts. Democracy Game is in their mind a US Democracy game, or at least a junior version of it. Now they see another game come up, CIV4 BTS, which sort of toss around new game concepts and so on.

They recognize things they already know, there are still a cabinet, governors a supreme court of three people as well as a national leader, now named not only President, but title by the CIVIC. They recognize the 1 month terms, but are surprised by the mid-term elections, something they also have in their own real life democracies. The new game will never outshine their Civ3 heydays, but heck, why not give it a try?

 

[Joe Harker]

I don't mean to be annoying, but that seems way to complicated, imagine a first time player, he/she is going to run for the hills seeing this page!

As Strider said we need a ruleset that thick people like me can get our heads around it.

Another worry are that you expect that people will be quite different when it comes to civics but the last game, we were pretty much 100% behind civic change so you won't really get that much difference in the parties (Think Labour and Tory, there not all that different now, it just a case of who doesn't screw up the most)

I do like the idea of civic based government, but i don't won't to go overboard and change the entire system which will take a while to grasp for many people, just make small, but interesting changes to keep the game fresh and still have parts of the game that we can recongise from previous games.

 

[DaveShack]

We don't need a propaganda campaign. We don't need CIVIC PRIMARY (all in caps) mentioned several times per thread. What we need is serious discussion of the points that people want to discuss.

 

[Black_Hole]

Could we discuss this civic centric demogame in just one thread? Every time a change is made to it a new thread is started. We have like 5 threads all based on your proposal Provo.

 

[Provolution]

Please discuss away, I take the backseat for now.

 

[Black_Hole]

How will power be split between the people and the leaders? In recent demogames I think the leaders have basically become pollers who don't get much voice. However we can't just leave the citizens out of it because then they will get bored and leave and will just be around for elections. I think this topic is one where we need to spend alot of time balancing.

Another thing that wasn't too well documented is how governors are elected. Or are they appointed?

 

[Provolution]

Governors are elected in most cases, but possibly appointed under Hereditary Rule.

The people will be able to vote on city locations, technology routes, war and peace, wonders, foreign policy agreements, victory conditions,
My experience is that people would only like 4-5 polls per week, so we need to keep this moderate. Only the most aggressive citizen rights people want much more polls and so on per week. We need a more casual level of people participation, and keeping it at technology choice, city location, wonders, war/peace/foreign agreement and finally decisions on general exploration strategies in the early game.

State religion and civics are bundled with the elections, so the people vote there too.

Cabinet members decide on all unit movement and use, including great people.

The change from the latter games, is that officials keep their military units, workers, great people as well as city micromanagement to themselves.
We are not to run tactical operations by committee again, for example.
However, citizen named units that the warlord need to negotiate with to use, could be an interesting variation to emulate discipline problems.

The effort will now be focussed on government based roleplaying of CIV4 BTS, various subgames and on having two elections per term(primaries and mid terms) in order to keep it interesting.

 

[Provolution]

We don't need a propaganda campaign. We don't need CIVIC PRIMARY (all in caps) mentioned several times per thread. What we need is serious discussion of the points that people want to discuss.

I will stick to this thread for now, that the proposal is getting where I want it.
Also, I am trying to break a 5 year long demogame tradition of direct elections to all positions as well as reversing the erosion of officials power (basically meaningless powers last game).

Major changes from past traditional demogames:

1. Two elections per term, primaries and mid-term
2. Mid-term subject to outcome in primaries
3. Historical approach, civic combinations impact demogame itself
4. All units outside direct democratic control, official control
5. Balancing of citizen polls to counter voter fatigue (better to get a good turnout in 3-10 elections per month and 3-4 polls per week than to get less people through fatigue
6. Mid-term elections keep elections as part of the demogame in such a way that the game is alive and vibrant on a running basis, like a real democracy.
7. Two election sessions per term gives more focus per office, not shopping around as today.
8. Look closely at the proposal, only the civics that count for that particular term will determine the powerstructure, it is quite manageable actually.
9. Traditional demogames is not necessarily easy to get into, due to strange references, US judicial system and other areas that is alien to some.
10. Immersion, we want a roleplay-friendly demogame, at the minimum, we need to work around history as a concept. We could choose tech level as one parameter, or era, but I ended with civics, as civics does the best job in conveying the wax and wane of state powers through a nations history.

 

[Provolution]

I don't mean to be annoying, but that seems way to complicated, imagine a first time player, he/she is going to run for the hills seeing this page!

New players are most likely to see the campaign platforms of national leaders before they read this ruleset. Most new players do not worry about rulesets intially. They only do so when they understand the game, politics and how to secure their own rights and strategic interests. A FAQ for new players would be much different. When I played first time, Cyc and Immortal walked me around, I got some verbal beatings from a kid named Epimethius and some interesting exchanges with a lot of people.

Demogames were never understood by new players in the outset, but when a game first starts, we decide on flag, map and all the interesting things, that is the fun part. Problem with judicial heavy rulesets is that most people do not care to read them. With a civic centric ruleset, we know what happens in the two key civics. Government civics for Cabinet and Legal civics for Supreme court. A player not running for supreme court only needs to know that the supreme court is decided by civic choice and who has the right to appoint or elect.

As Strider said we need a ruleset that thick people like me can get our heads around it.

To an extent true, but we do not have to dumb ourselves to death If we do not create something new and interesting, we are stuck with an old traditional demogame, or a game void of depth, roleplay value and general immersion.
Immersion comes at a cost, and that is willingness to some change, and some new detail. If a demogame becomes too oversimplified, you bet the judicial people, veterans like Donsig and several others would find ways to make it complex. I rather spend some of that complexity on the civics, not on the the judicial grinder.

Another worry are that you expect that people will be quite different when it comes to civics but the last game, we were pretty much 100% behind civic change so you won't really get that much difference in the parties (Think Labour and Tory, there not all that different now, it just a case of who doesn't screw up the most.

If I remember correctly, last game had tough civic debates, just read the threads, I and Dutchfire fought very hard for our civics. I happened to win some of those civic rounds, but at a cost. Casual players probably did not sense it, but you guys voted for it. I would say civics stole 35 % of the demogame at stages, which harmed reporting quality and so on. The harder we make some democratic processes, the less surplus energy we will have for roleplay, subgames and other areas. We need to get rid of a few unfun energy thieves, and a new election system with bundled civics helps a long way.

I do like the idea of civic based government, but i don't won't to go overboard and change the entire system which will take a while to grasp for many people, just make small, but interesting changes to keep the game fresh and still have parts of the game that we can recongise from previous games.

If you read this thread, it is very close to what you, CT and Blackhole proposed. Labor, Economy and Religion civics are now left to roleplay and interpretation, so these civics are omitted from the proposal as you proposed.
I handled legal civics as a few wanted to.

 

[DaveShack]

How will power be split between the people and the leaders?

The change from the latter games, is that officials keep their military units, workers, great people as well as city micromanagement to themselves.
We are not to run tactical operations by committee again, for example.

But is it not reasonable for the people, who are concerned with the safety of their virtual relatives on the front lines, to expect some degree of accountability from officials? Think of this issue in role play terms and not in DG politics terms. Do you have any ideas how to ensure that officials give reasonable answers to questions, or face the effects of the people's displeasure with their actions?

 

[Provolution]

But is it not reasonable for the people, who are concerned with the safety of their virtual relatives on the front lines, to expect some degree of accountability from officials? Think of this issue in role play terms and not in DG politics terms. Do you have any ideas how to ensure that officials give reasonable answers to questions, or face the effects of the people's displeasure with their actions?

I think we need to keep a good invention you made up last game, Daveshack, the coup mechanism. Even in ancient times, kings were assassinated when they failed their troops by sacrificing them, or if they failed to give proper answers.
However, phrasing the questions in roleplayesque terms would remove some of the personal conflict we saw in previous games, and make fun out of something stupid, tragic and ignorant.

For example, for a French civ:

Frustrated citizen, "Monsieur Montard" (In-game character):

"My cousin, Yves, died last night, and we can't even find his body. What happened to him? You simply rushed that hill, even if your officers warned you. You lost our kinsmen due to your stupid pride. What do you have to say for yourself?"

General Bombastique, Chief of Staff French Army (In-game character):

"I did what I had to do, and we had to take that hill simply to see what was behind, otherwise we may have risked Lyons to fall, and then we would have lost even more families, so Yves died for a higher purpose".


Frustrated citizen, "Monsieur Montard" (In-game character):

"You should have told us, and you could have seen past that hill in several other ways, like following the northern road, sending north the ship "Burlesque" or even sending a missionary. This is not good enough, Yves died in naught! You will pay for this."

General Bombastique, Chief of Staff French Army (In-game character):

"Pay? I am not accountable to dirty peasants, and do what I want, I am after all, the General, so bugger off, lowlife".

Frustrated citizen, "Monsieur Montard" (In-game character):

"Then we see no other option to make you join Yves, you should have ridden up that mountain yourself, so you will meet the hangman"

General Bombastique, Chief of Staff French Army (In-game character):

"No, I am the General..."

POLL

General is hanged by a majority of 14-12. New General to be elected right away.

OR, we can allow an official to gamble their in-game characters life on a specific outcome. "I will win this battle, or you can elect a new General".
Betting your office on a RNG outcome would make the game interesting indeed, both for metagame and RPG purposes.

 

[Provolution]

On factions and civics

Civics do this nicely. We got elections once a month, where we ask for a real regime change. Since we are not running 4 year increment terms like real life, it is meaningless to apply contemporary democracy. Also, to keep the demogame dynamic and vibrant, we need to split up the elections in two, in order to avoid comraderie and Office-shopping, which is one of the silliest and frustrating aspects of the present "traditional demogame structure". 3-4 known names can shop around offices due to:

Abundance of vacant offices
Offices all vacant at the same time
Household recognizable demogame name (read: "veteran")
Direct elections for the same positions
Trading votes with semi-aligned buddies (read: "informal faction")
Constant reform of offices due to participation change or real power shifts

All these features create a strange metagame, that over time has been permutated to the present unwanted dinosaur of a Civ3 demogame remnant called "traditional". If we want a change, it needs to be so profoundly fundamental that it actually means something, and actually fits the CIV4 BTS game and its features.

Another aspect of factionism is the flow of the game as Robboo pointed out, with a slow-going start in the early game, a participation expansion in the midgame and a contraction of participation towards the end. This was especially bad in Civ3, but also bad in Civ4 with less cities to worry about.

This means that some players whip up a lot of steam for their many citizen groups, but because these have no say in the demogame, or that all are open to new members due to the no-party rule, and the fact this cannot impact in-game decisions, these groups do fizzle out very quickly.

The best part of demogames, on assessing the history, is the period we are on the ascent, we got our organization and act together, and we are facing the first two menacing civs. Its almost like we would need to play this fun period in slow motion. The unfun arguing and polling over which exact poll the first scout or settler should go, or the unfun appointments of governors and space race responsible in a ghost-town endgame are the less positive parts of the game. This is why long term factionism would not work, due to the game dynamic, and because it does not feel historical to have a modern democracy with parties fighting it out from 4000 BC to 1000 AD.

A civics model enables us to photograph that very defining moment, that snapshot of time, where political forces collide. The most meaningful collision in this context is between the civics, that in many ways represent the "factions". Civics are de-facto in-game factions that help us demogamers to avoid forming parties in the metagame, its all in there, in the binaries of CIV4 BTS.

This leads us back to why I think Civics-centric solves some of these dilemmas, if you allow me to bring how civics fit in with factions, victory conditions and a fair sense of participation and influence in the game.

This is why we should rather have players representing a certain political force in that particular snapshot of time, such as National Leader, General and High Priest (a hybrid of Blackholes proposal). where the long term civilizational goals of National Leader (Time and Space victories) competes the mid term civilizational goals of High Priest (Culture and Religious Victories) and short term goals of the General (Domination and Conquest victories).

In this way, all victory conditions are amply placed in the top three executive positions, elected at all times, since only the National Leader represents the cabinet, where the military is a separate professional organization and the Church a separate movement, but all with influence within the civilization.
In a sense, these three materialize "factions".

Next, making the Nation Leader present a package of civics everyone can vote on, we save ourselves the time to discuss and poll civics piecemeal, which alone represents 5-10 hours per active player of lobbying and discussions, as well as giving all players direct influence on how the game will be lead. Civics choice is one of the biggest choices a player makes in Civ4, and that is why it should carry more weight in the model than just another poll.

High Priest would handle State Religion and the General would handle the Military Plan for next term.

This opens for a more structured process, where factionalism is reengineered to a common and simplifed choice. We all choose our top three leaders along with State Religion, Civics and notion of military structure at once at a predictable point in time.

Coming to mid-term, there will be less office-shopping as positions are not as accessible as before, people should want them, not shop them around like the last games. Making civics decide what is elections and appointments, makes for an interesting game dynamic. Civics have far reaching consequences for democracy and power, as they do in real life. The more we are detached from history and real life, the more bland the demogame will get. For the purposes of factionism, making offices to be in-demand, appointments and competitive posts, will give us two sets of manageable elections every two weeks, which will keep interest high, each office would serve for a month of course, so we get constant overlap. This will also make the game focus on the civic choices as where the faction action goes, where the real democracy in this new approach to demogames will be in that we have double as many election periods, and that we now vote for an in-game idea, not just a known name.

I am not a fascist or royalist, as some may think, I simply want a more historical demogame experience, is that wrong?

 

[DaveShack]

I think we need to keep a good invention you made up last game, Daveshack, the coup mechanism.

Thanks for the compliment, but I think the honor goes to ravensfire, in the Tribal Government.

 

[Provolution]

Thanks for the compliment, but I think the honor goes to ravensfire, in the Tribal Government.

Yeah, I will give him good credit for that, time to put past differences where they belong, in the past, and look forwards.

On the other hand, sometimes leaders do not need to put up with insolent rank-and-file players, so if they feel so clever, they should try the job themselves and ask for a coup.