Reworking Governments

[Commander Bello]

[...](Can probably figure out a way to mod in uncontrolled revolutions using clever scripting--this wasn't an option in the previous releases.)

Please announce it when you have finished this, because that for sure would be a mod I would never want to test!

Sorry, but having revolutions 'out of the blue'? Your people spend all day long with "We love the Yoshi!" days and then revolt? To each his own, but this seems to be an idea which I doubt will become very popular....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

@Krikkitone re: transitions
I know SMAC had rising costs depending on how many variables you changed at the same time. But when playing that, I quickly realised that if I just changed one at a time over 4 turns, I get my entirely new government with no meaningful penalty at all. And since players rarely needed to change more than one variable at a time anyway (unless he somehow discovered 2 government-related techs in one turn), even that time delay 'penalty' was meaningless.

I don't like the anarchy period either, but not because it is anarchy as such. It is because anarchy is a TOTAL shutdown of your economy, and in effect there is absolutely nothing for the player to do for those 4-8 turns, which reduces the fun factor. I'd rather see anarchy as being reduced economy, but not zero. That way the player still gets to do something.

Yes, but that was because changing four all at once was More than four times as expensive as changing one every four turns
For example (I don't know the actual stats but)
#Changed per turn, Cost
1-1
2-4
3-9
4-16

I'd propose the reverse relationship so (IN GENERAL)
1-1
2-1.4
3-1.7
4-2

Both of these are extreme cases, but In mine you don't change your government by a series of fine tunings, you change it all at once

Or you could go
1-1
2-2
3-3
4-4

For a .. well change as much as you want now, maybe later if you forgot something..it doesn't matter, what order the change is in, the penalty will not work differently if its all in one turn or on four turns one after the other

As for what the penalty should be... I'd actually think that if Rebel Activity were put in for American type Revolutions it could involve that in French type Revolutions so an awful lot of the penalty could involve troop combats. An economic penalty similar to Commader Bello's is probably good too.


Here is the way I would structure it
Each Change gives a certain number of Penalty points say 10
If you have penalty points a certain % of your economy is penalized and a certain # of Penalty points are removed
So
Penalty Points: % Penalized: -Penalty Points per turn
0-10 :15 : 1
11-20: 30 : 2
21-30: 60 : 4
31+: 90 : 6

Rebel activity would be a more complicated factor and would include other factors ('counterrevolutionaries' may never be totally eliminated if you don't keep the people happy...if they start winning significant battles and defeating your units, you probably shouldn't have changed governments.. and it might be worth switching back...or maybe not, see France 1800s)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my feelings are that
(a) fewer governments would be better, but ONLY if players have lots of options to tailor their governments via civics/social engineering.

(b) variable transition times, based on the similarity of the old and new government types. By the same token, small changes in civics settings causes less disruption than big ones.

(c) it should be possible for your people to demand that you change either your government type or civics settings, depending on how preferred the two government types are, and how generally happy the people are. If you refuse their demand, though, you could get a civil war or rebellion (or both ) and may end up with that government anyway, or end up with a new nation bordering yours-with that government type.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

One reason the "city improvements" selections are still quite manageable is because obsolescence is built into the interface. At a certain point, you're not allowed to build spearmen anymore, and you build pikemen instead.

Quite similarly, for this super long list of governments to work, certain governments would have to become obsolete -- they'd have to be replaced by new ones. Otherwise the 27 government list just feels awkward.

Or just come up with a way to rework governments that doesn't involve more than 2 dozen options, like SMAC social engineering. (Although the suggested governments here would definitely make for a great mod pack for detail oriented fans, and would probably be relatively easy to implement, if not very tricky to balance.)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One reason the "city improvements" selections are still quite manageable is because obsolescence is built into the interface. At a certain point, you're not allowed to build spearmen anymore, and you build pikemen instead.

Quite similarly, for this super long list of governments to work, certain governments would have to become obsolete -- they'd have to be replaced by new ones. Otherwise the 27 government list just feels awkward.

Or just come up with a way to rework governments that doesn't involve more than 2 dozen options, like SMAC social engineering. (Although the suggested governments here would definitely make for a great mod pack for detail oriented fans, and would probably be relatively easy to implement, if not very tricky to balance.)

Which is why I think the SMAC option is best
a player could have 4 menus, each with four options (a none option included on each level)...That's 16 options...an OK number (especially if you only look at four at a time)
but it results in 256 possible 'governments'... That's probably way more than we need, but I'd say at least 27 is needed ( so anywhere from 3x3 to 4x4)

Now if options go obsolete, then we would need more options, a possible solution for that is to create options that are just enhanced by techs rather than adding new ones (so governments don't go obsolete, they just become new governments)...

So a modern Junta has the same 'government options' as an ancient Despotism but various techs 'improve' its stats (just like you don't have to upgrade a trireme for it to move safely on the ocean, you only have to get Magnetism/Navigation.)

This way the Government 'Options' would be based more on strategic options (Ie, Culture, Diplomacy, Military) and strategic position (Powerless, Minor Power, Regional Power, Great Power, Super Power), (Expanded,Developed)

Then various Techs would come along (Mercantilism, Constitution, Divine Right, Colonialism, Imperial Pantheon, Multiculturalism) that would impact the effects of some of the options ie 'auto-upgrading' them, without adding one option or eliminating another. (so the Government options might Almost never change)

So I guess what I'm in favor of is sort of a SMAC/MOO2 mix, you pick your government Options to begin with, techs 'improve' those options, and you can change those Options if you wish.

I also favor the one government per city approach (to better model empires whether formed by colonies, conquest, or alliance)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree that an ancient and modern government should have the same range of 'civics' options BUT that the ancient government will have fewer 'degrees of freedom' than the modern one. So, a chiefdom might be able to change its sufferage level by only 1 point either way, wheras a modern republic-OTOH-could change it by as much as 4 points either way. Thus, wheras the chiefdom system might be the difference between letting a spiritual advisor have a say on government decisions, or assuming TOTAL control for himself, the modern republic can choose from absolute power to regular elections and referenda for ALL its people.
These degrees of freedom would be 'unlocked' through the tech tree-in a similar way as has been hinted by Firaxis !
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, speaking of Social Engineering/Civics as a means of differentiating government types, I saw this PERFECT example of what I would like to see in 'Hearts of Iron 2'. I wanted to show you guys a screenshot to show what I mean, but I'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to doing that (any help would be MUCH appreciated !)
To summarise, though, HoI2 had several key areas in which you could differentiate your government-You had the Democratic--->Authoritarian slider; the Political Left--->Political Right Slider; the Free Market--->Central Planning slider; The Open Society--->Closed Society slider; the Standing Army--->Drafted Army slider; the hawk lobby--->Dove Lobby slider and the Interventionism--->Isolationism slider.
As an example, the more you shift your market slider towards a free market, the more cash your cities generate from unused shields (consumer goods), but the more of these unused shields you need to keep the happiness of your people stable. As you shift your International Relations Slider towards Interventionism, the easier it is to form diplomatic relations, but the worse your reputation hits for any diplomatic blunders-your people are likely to have a lower tolerance for the bad behaviour of other nations before they insist you declare war on them. In this slider system, it is the combination of your democratic/authoritarian and Left/Right slider settings which determine WHAT your nations governmental label is.
Now, please note that I realise that this system would NOT be perfect for civ, as Heart of Iron only deals with the WWII era-and lacks such key things as a Theist---->Secularist slider, for instace. Yet I do feel that this system WOULD form a fantastic basis for a civics system in Civ4-especially if it were to be linked to the tech tree, as has been proposed in the latest magazine article !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think the SMAC is a good base from which to make upgrades. From what I read, here is a simple synopsis of those upgrades, ammendments, and changes.

1) Longer and more interesting transition periods between settings.
2) Four options for four different categories, maybe with a category or two only opening later in the game.
3) Options within categories can get more advanced versions as they go along because of political and technological evolution.
4) Limiting range of options based on previous settings and possibly culture.


I thought of a way to make sticking with one government more interesting. Like 3 suggests, maybe as you get the techs and use a government for a long time(100+ turns) you get an upgraded version you can use. The negative sand positive would be more pronounced, but favor the positives slightly with each upgrade.

 

[rhialto]

One big issue with SMAC style is that a lot of the sliders (eg suffrage for democracy) have no relevance for say, chiefdom. Similarly, a chiefdom slider asking whether you want the blacksmith or the shaman as your main advisor have no bearing on other governments. Thats why I want...

- a largish selection of major government archetypes
- sliders unique to each archetype

Otherwise, you'll either find yourself with a large number of sliders, or a small number which are mostly irrelevant for most govs.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But Rhialto, if you keep the sliders on an abstract axis, then specifics become less important than the overall FEEL of it all.
For instance-sufferage or democracy level refers to your 'governments' feelings about 'pluralism'-from multiple people to multiple parties. So an authoritarian Tribal Government, for instance, would refer to one in which ALL power and authority derives from a single individual (a Chiefdom), wheras less authoritarian Tribal governments might be slightly more 'representative'-more of a 'Tribal Council'. Perhaps at this point, though, either the 'political' axis would either be LOCKED at Right-Wing, or would simply be an N/A-because it doesn't apply to this government type, age or tech-level. Also, unless a player decided to revisit tribalism for some reason (can't think why!) then at the tech level at which 'Tribalism' is an effective government type, Sufferage levels will almost certainly never get above a 0-3 on a 0-10 scale.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

p.s. could anyone PLEASE tell me how to make a copy of a 'non-civ' in-game screen?

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
p.s. could anyone PLEASE tell me how to make a copy of a 'non-civ' in-game screen?

If I understand your question correctly, you could try to push the "print"-button on your keyboard, while looking at the screen you want to copy. Then using ALT-TAB (or START) switch to MS-Paint and copy the screenshot in. Assuming that you run XP, you should save as .jpg.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the solution is to end up with some abstract sliders/radial menus that make sense for a lot of governments. And if you let things evolve with the tech tree, it can still make sense.

Early civilizations have very few options in the way of social engineering... but as you grow and become more technologically advanced, new "sufferage" options make sense. I bet with enough work, you could find a slider / radial menu system that *basically* summarizes the different governments listed in this thread.

pps: Aussie -- you could check something out on google, or otherwise "prtscrn" is the magic button -- which allows you to paste into ms paint and so forth. Some games have a "screencap" command if you check out.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi again, guys.

Well, after some effort, I have managed to print the screen of relevence to this thread. If you look at the bottom right hand corner of the 'Hearts of Iron 2' Diplomacy screen, and you will see how player can actually adjust the political make-up of a preWWII nation. The only limits are according to your democratic/political axis at the time (though you can alter that too). The only other limit in this game is that you can only make a single adjustment per game year-though in a game like civ that would NOT be the case.
In civ, though, I think that there should be a carrot for Civic/government stability, and mild punishment for overly micromanaging such settings on a turn by turn basis.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

That's kind of a neat idea, Aussie... are you saying that the slider-configuration permits you to choose from a short list of governments? (Rather than some of the suggestions the other way around -- a government permits you certain sliders?)

 

[Idylwyld]

I would think a government/policy slider system with multiple axis (fascist/libertarian, conservative/progressive, freemarket/command econ, religious/secular etc...) with different sliders being opened up by various techs would make sense. When it comes down to it throughout the game you are running some sort of autocracy, the people can never come back against you except through riots and sabotage, so why even bother having something called Democracy?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I think it could work either way, DH_Epic. That is, you select a government from a list-as you already do-and this determines your baseline position on the Autocrat/democrat Left/Right axes. The other way is to select your OWN point on these axes, and have the government NAME generated by this decision being based on that decision.
As for why select democracy, well democracy has a number of key advantages over autocratic regimes in areas of 'cultural transmission', wealth and war weariness in defensive wars. The flip-side, though, would be the ability of your people to make demands of you, or even to try and block your decisions (though this last item should be based on INTELLIGENCE, and NOT be a game-breaker)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, I don't think the slider idea is good

I much prefer SMAC-like categories rather than integers on a slider because they
1. can be more complex. a given "point" can have multiple settings
2. are more simple (not necessarily in analysis but in amount of options presented to the player)
3. are easier to mod

 

[rhialto]

I agree with Krikkitone, no sliders. Descrete choices like SMAC allow more player freedom. Where does "green" fit in on that free-planned economic axis? If you want to make interesting choices for the players, it can't fit in there.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Rhialto, I would say that 'discrete' choices-like SMAC-reduce player choice, and was my only true beef with the SMAC system (i.e. you only had 2 extremes and a single central point in-between).
As it happens, the Hearts of Iron 2 sliders have discrete 'points' along their length, and each point has a specific adjective as well.
Also, I don't think 'Green' has any place on the Free-Planned Economy axis-it belongs on its own Environmentalism axis-but the effect would overlap with the Economic Axis-in the same way that the various axes overlap in HoI2!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think that is the problem with sliders, they can't have varying effects, (along the slider) The effects have to move smoothly and that forces all trade offs to be 1 for 1 (one trait for one other trait). Wheras with discrete choices, orthogonal tradeoffs are possible. I think that actually allows more player choice because different strategic tradeoffs can be presented to the player, and the choices can be presented in asimpler format (rather than 1-10 of this and 1-10 of that , do you want This, That , or These as your choice)