Hmm, also it seems that all these extra meters you are adding, along with the current ones, make for a large amount of meters for the player to deal with.
I've added 2
has a value for every major empire— but much of the time you can ignore/collaspe those.)
Perhaps you are confusing some of the racial pics that work on a continuum as meters.
I think some of these meters could be summarised/abstracted.
Really? which ones?
The main counterbalance is that with a monoculture empire, you can choose a course of action that makes everyone happy. The more species in your empire, the more likely one of them will be on the verge of rebellion.
What happens if you're a very lucky player who ends up with a couple of races who have a very similar ethos but different skills or environmental prefrances? Same advantages with a much smaller cost.
What happens if you're a very lucky player who ends up with 3 large Gaian worlds and/or 3 ancient ruins in the early game? There is luck in this type of game, but in this situation, luck only provides an opportunity, the player must recognize the advantage and seize it. Still, the more species you are trying to keep happy, the more limitations on your behavior there will be. No two species should have the exact same ethos.
and I'm not convinced that moral penalty's is a good enough counterbalance for all the advantages you get.
I'm not convinced either because all the precise numbers, formulas, and interactions haven't been created. This is far
to preliminary to know if it will be balanced.
All i'm saying is that i'm planning to have something on both sides of the scales.
That's an interesting example.
But "conquer and rule" species would probably incorporate the hippies as slaves
in which case, keeping them happy is not an issue. A player needs to be careful what populations he absorbs. It may not be possible to have an empire with both these species as equal members without one of them being on the verge of revolt because of your actions. I like that dynamic.
I did sort of imply a star-wars evil empire didn't I,
But I was actually thinking of the Orions from this game, who conquered or otherwise took over all for their own good. If they took over another race who now accounts for 80% of the population and that race had a strict ethos of: no war, no espionage, nothing against anyone. Then an AI player who takes into account the people's ethos, but doesn't have an ethos of his own will do the smart thing and become a pacifist, going totally against character for his species.
Even if the AI is hard coded to proritoise the original race's happiness or something (giving it a disadvantage against players) then human players would betray their original ethos unless they are deliberately roleplaying. There should be some gameplay reason why its better to follow the original ethos.
No, the AI "emperor" has only one goal— to win. Normally that will be most expediently done by (more or less) following the ethos of the original race, but if the AI calculates that another path is more likely to lead to victory, it will choose it, just like a human usually would. I believe it's rather important that the AI be equally free to succeed. It's hard enough to make a good AI that doesn't cheat without trying to teach it to role-play.
I am viewing the "emperor" human or AI not as a specific character, but as the personification of the government, which might be Representative instead of some sort of Dictatorship. There's nothing special in my system about the race that you start with, except that it has a head start. They are not necessarily the leaders/rulers of the empire.
So if the conquerors absorbed the hippies as full members of their civilization, it only makes sense that the hippies would start to change things. If they had no voice in the government, then they are obviously some sort of second class citizen, if not slaves.