Page 1 of 2

Internal Politics

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:50 pm
by nicccky
So I think that a big stumbling block for most strategy games is the lack of engaging internal politics that also have a significant impact on your nation as a whole. Are there some rough ideas floating around for a system that combats both of those problems? Maybe a system like the factions system in Stellaris would be a good place to start?

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:02 pm
by kukumarro
A faction system like that of Stellaris basically means who influences/controls the central government. I think the internal politics system has to contemplate more dimensions, like the continuous struggle between centralization and descentralization. Also, as political units tend to be made up of smaller ones, these should also be contemplated. E.g, imagine an early stage of the game where several clans have diplomatically united into a tribe, or several tribes have elected a king and united into a nation. The big entity has been born from the small ones but these have not disappeared, they will try to push their own agendas over the other small entities and even the big one. With time, as the structure of the society changes, the small entities will be completely absorbed into the big one and disappear.

Following the general spirit of the game, I think it would be preferable if 'politics' is not something scripted but something that spontaneously arises from entities pushing their agendas.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:52 am
by Demiansky
So Nicccky, internal politics currently is a bit unformed at the moment, but I think its essential given that decay mechanisms are very important in game. The question is how to tie it all in with the other mechanics and what variables to tether it to. I don't just want some isolated system floating out there, I want it to be integrated with the rest of the game the same way that estates are. So in that regard, it would be good to have something similar to what I wanted in M&T 2.0. You have a "faction" system which represents competing interests in the capital. This is your "centralized" internal power system. Then you have something like estates which represent the interests "out there" in the kingdom/empire. The key is to find a way to wrap it up so that it is not overwhelming or too micromanagy.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:24 pm
by Khardinal
A game about civilizations without characters would have a great lack.

For internal politics, you need characters. Apart determinism, characters are what make nations. If the game doesn't have an Alexander or Napoleon that is poping, then there is no fun at all in it. Characters are what make the best alea.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:52 am
by David Buunk
Khardinal wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:24 pm
A game about civilizations without characters would have a great lack.

For internal politics, you need characters. Apart determinism, characters are what make nations. If the game doesn't have an Alexander or Napoleon that is poping, then there is no fun at all in it. Characters are what make the best alea.
Fully agree here.

The way I see it, internal politics would be a bit CK2-light, so with local governments actually represented individually, rather than like EU4 estates, where it is represented collectively.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:56 am
by lastresort1
I would recommend a system where you pick the type of government you want to run and that government determines the politics you deal with. (Ex. Kingdom - lords grasping for power and session crisis-es , Council of elders - having to fight superstition and religion.) I would also recommend a social tree that has various randomized options that you have to choose from every couple of turns. (Ex. a social tech is open pick form one of the 3 choices a- civilian guard program, increases solider discipline b- magic crystal infrastructure arcane power plus 5% C - Creation of a royal guard - increases elite soldiers.)

So like David says, you could push for a given type of government, but if your culture overwhelmingly favors a different kind of government, you'd eventually shift that way anyway. So for instance, if you are a merchant republic filled with wealthy, trading aristocrats and you suddenly throw a coupe and make it a monarchy with manorialism, the underlying factors of your country don't just disappear. There are no peasants for your manorialism and there are still tons of rich aristocrats who have massive wealth. They obviously wouldn't let this switch stand for very long. For the same reason you see so few Monarchs in the modern day, governments would change in game in a large part due to the "facts on the ground." It's the facts on the ground that you need to change. Want to become a merchant republic? Open up and protect the trade routes and build robust trade relations across the world so as to foster a dominant class of traders.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:11 pm
by David Buunk
Well, no. You don't get to pick what form of government you are. Not in a direct, simple way, at least. The player is not a god, but the dominant faction of government. Forms of government are not arbitrarily chosen, they arise from culture.

And yes, form of government would to some extent determine the politics to be dealt with. On the other hand, something like lords grasping for power can arise independently from how a player likes his government, and might even end up changing it.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:36 pm
by lastresort1
David Buunk wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:11 pm
Well, no. You don't get to pick what form of government you are. Not in a direct, simple way, at least. The player is not a god, but the dominant faction of government. Forms of government are not arbitrarily chosen, they arise from culture.

And yes, form of government would to some extent determine the politics to be dealt with. On the other hand, something like lords grasping for power can arise independently from how a player likes his government, and might even end up changing it.
Why would the player not get to create the civilization he wants to play, with a government of his choosing? If you allow the player to create their starting civilization then they control the challenges they face and they play style they have to use. I think that the player should choose their starting government but, that government should be able to change due to events in the game. The events can be caused by the player making bad choices, having low popularity or some other crisis.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:17 pm
by David Buunk
Well, yes, I guess. You can age the world (which reminds me, Demian should explain how exactly he envisions that), and then look through the available civs and play the one most to your liking. But "creating a civilisation" doesn't seem like something that should be in SotE.

Re: Internal Politics

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:54 pm
by Chease
I would say you could implement a starting civ, but that would only be logical at the start of the simulation. Like why would a civ suddently appear out of nowhere right in between two others. Maybe you choose it at the start and after that the world is generated with your start civ in it and the rest is random. After your first civ is destroyed you can choose one of the other civ in the world and continue onward from there. It then also depends on what kind of period you start in, if you can choose an government and what kind of government would be avaleble at game start. Like if we go with what i understand so far, you will most likely just have a tribe of people who is tightly knit together. There you can say the ruler would be one elder, one head of a family or maybe even a coulcil of family leaders.