Simulating Citizens

This is for directed discussions on immediate questions of game design. Only moderators can create new threads.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Simulating Citizens

#46 Post by eleazar »

Geoff the Medio wrote:The conception I had was to move the "history" tracking from the actual loyalty value into the things that cause the loyalty value. So, an event affect loyalty wouldn't be just "+10" on the turn it occurred...
Well, obviously if a building or something effects allegiance, it should be listed in the description and/or popup.
But i don't see how this would work for "events". If half the planet gets blown up, i don't see where the player can look up this kind of event and see how it effected allegiance.

Perhaps i should more clearly explain the kind of inputs i'm expecting for these meters:
1) one-time-events: Things that aren't ongoing, i.e. a military victory or defeat, or random events like earthquake. These effect the current value of the meter directly.
2) statuses: These may last an arbitrary number of turns. They effect determine the target value of the meter.

So for instance "Famine" is a status, which effect the target meter as long as it continues, while deaths from the famine would effect the current value directly.

It would also be possible for status to have a one-time-event effect when that status was initiated. This might be necessary to make noticable statuses which tend to have short durations.

The reason for this distinction is to make the numbers work in a reasonably intuitive way. To strike a balance between the brief and the long-term.

Geoff the Medio wrote:So, an event affect loyalty wouldn't be just "+10" on the turn it occurred; instead, events could have various long-term time-dependent / repeating effects on a given turn's loyalty level. ... One-time events would have a decay profile over time, giving, for example, +10 on the first turn, then +9, +8, +7 ... +2, +1, 0 and then be finished / disappear.
Why is this better than having events change the meter once and then let the meter decay at a consistent rate?
The obvious difference seems uncompelling: i.e. with this system events could decay at different rates regardless of their magnitude, or even "decay" is a cyclical up-and-down manner.
It seems simpler and better to me to let the meters in an empire decay at the same rate. That makes it easy to change the rate globally for fine-tuning, or to make some effects and/or species have longer or shorter historical memories.

Geoff the Medio wrote:A building might give +3 every turn while active, regardless of time since it was built, or an unpopular social engineering choice might give -5 every turn. Most modifications would be of this sort, giving the same increase or decrease every turn, like most effects on max meter values.
Yes, i didn't think to add any buildings to my previous example, but i basically agree with this part. As m_k pointed out previously it's functionally equivalent to to add a +3 to the meter every turn (with exponential decay of 10%) as to add 30 to that target value of the meter.
However if we with to vary the decay rate for various species (or at least leave it variable
for fine-tuning), the same +3 per turn will produce a very different result. That's why i was defining effects by the change to the target value. The appropriate +/- per turn can be calculated off of the decay rate as it is in my spreadsheet.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Simulating Citizens

#47 Post by Krikkitone »

OK, here's the way I see it working (display and all)

Each Event would be broken into two parts
1-Instantaneous
2-Historical
the breakdown would depend on the Event and the Race (And other situations)
and those would be displayed

Assume that Famine has a "Value" of -100
and for this particular planet, there is a decay of 10% and Famine has a 60% instant 40% historical split

so the
"Ongoing loyalty" would get a -100 * 40% *10% = -4 per turn (this would be transmitted to future turns)
And the "actual loyalty"
would get an additional -100 * 60% = -60

so on turn 1 the contiribution from Famine would be
-64
turn 2 you would get an additional -4 and the previous -4 would drop by 10%

so
the effect of famine would be
-64
-67.6
-70.84
-73.756
-76.3804
-78.74236
-80.868124
-82.7813116
-84.50318044
-86.0528624
-87.44757616
-88.70281854
-89.83253669
-90.84928302
Now if the famine ended this turn the "instantaneous -60" would dissappear and the "historical/ongoing portion" would decay out
-27.76435472
-24.98791924
-22.48912732
-20.24021459
-18.21619313
-16.39457382
-14.75511643
-13.27960479
-11.95164431
-10.75647988
If the famine started again the -60 would come back in, and the -4 would get added each turn
-73.68083189
-76.3127487
-78.68147383
-80.81332645
-82.7319938
-84.45879442
-86.01291498
-87.41162348
-88.67046114

This will be the same no matter What event, since how one changes from turn to turn is Completely independent of all others, so you would know exactly what gives you that final loyalty of 34.5 (-88.67 Famine, +45.96 you attacked our enemies, +76.67 you support value X, -5.67 Empathy, etc.)

You could ALSO display the Eventual (Target) Loyalty and its breakdown: -100 Famine, +70 you are at war with our enemies, +80 you support value X, +6 Empathy (that target value would depend on the 'non empathy' target value of other worlds)
and possibly the decay rate: 10%
(since the Difference between the current values and the Target values would reduce by the decay rate each turn)

You could still display one time events (but only in the current values) as they would probably fit under one of the categories... getting half a planet destroyed would fit under the general "we hate this war" type setting.

Now Events could be 100% Instantaneous or 100% historical to be simpler. The decay rate could be fixed for the game (simplest) or a race or changed based on tech + culture + government as well (most complicated).

This is why I think exponential decay is the best system, it allows each items 'target' and 'current' contributions to the total system to be displayed. (also if you have a total 'target' and 'total' the movement is predictable... the difference decays at the decay rate)

Also I would probably Not have empathy have a greater effect on small planets) the 'total empathy' should probably be a fixed %
So assuming pop wise A>B>C

C cares more about A than about B, but the effect of Empathy is the same on A + C.
So my populations doesn't affect how much others affect me, but Their population affects which Ones of them affect me more.

PS Eleazar, If this is exactly what you were doing in your spreadsheet I apologize, but my computer doesn't open those fles.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Simulating Citizens

#48 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:PS Eleazar, If this is exactly what you were doing in your spreadsheet I apologize, but my computer doesn't open those fles.
It's an open office spreadsheet. Open Office is available for free in a wide variety of languages and platforms. Actually i use a Mac derivative "Neo Office", but the file format should be identical.

User avatar
yaromir
Space Kraken
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Simulating Citizens

#49 Post by yaromir »

If half the planet gets blown up, i don't see where the player can look up this kind of event and see how it effected allegiance.
Hover over Allegiance value, roll-over appears listing all effectors.
This is standard approach of EU3.
Staying awake and aware is perhaps the hardest thing to do.

User avatar
MikkoM
Space Dragon
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Simulating Citizens

#50 Post by MikkoM »

Geoff the Medio wrote: [realism]Why should happy planets necessarily work better than unhappy planets? An enslaved population would likely be quite unhappy, but could be even more productive than happy planets with lots of luxuries.[/realism] We can still have choices such as luxuries and freedoms vs. slavery without a happiness meter as empire picks. The effects can, and probably should, vary from race to race, and shouldn't always be happy = more productive.
There are lots of results we could choose for happiness, such as faster population growth. But higher resource production is the most obvious effect of high happiness (as in Civ).
We already have lots of things that alter resource meters directly and indirectly. Adding happiness as well, with its own complicated formula doesn't seem necessary.
So would this mean that, if there is for example only the allegiance meter, a planet`s allegiance towards the player`s empire would slowly decrease without any consequences for the player until the planet finally rebels and tries to break its ties with the empire? So you wouldn`t really have to care about the opinions of your citizens, since there is no penalty, until they are so angry that they are ready to rebel.

Now, if the allegiance meter would affect the resource meters, so that with low allegiance levels the resource production would drop, because of possible strikes, riots and general unwillingness to help the hated government, there would a motive for the player to take the citizens opinions into account already before a planet rebels. Since, if your best planets start to loose their productivity, it most certainly wouldn`t be a good thing for the empire`s future.

So maybe we could have a system where for example at first, if a planet`s allegiance drops towards the players empire, he or she would receive a notification about this, but there wouldn’t really be any significant in game consequences. Then as the allegiance drops below a certain level, the planet would have decreased production (and perhaps also at some point if there are any buildings on the planet they would be damaged/destroyed), for the reasons that I already mentioned earlier. This would be the stage at which even the busy galactic emperor would probably start to care about the opinions of his/her citizens, since lower production in the empire wouldn`t most certainly help it`s growth. Then as the allegiance would drop even further the planet would rebel and try to become independent, join another empire, or unite with other rebel planets from your empire to start/join a civil war.

This way there would be a significant motive for the player to take his/her citizens opinions into consideration or perhaps just notice how severe the dissatisfaction towards to empire is among the citizens, and so do something about it, before the planets start to break their ties with the empire.

As for slave planets, they could perhaps too have a “fake” high allegiance towards your empire and so they could be as productive as free planets. If I can remember right something like this was already used in Total War games, where the citizens of a newly conquered town, where all happy when you had a large army in that town, but once you removed/reduced the size of that army the happiness dropped and riots started. So perhaps a newly slaved planet could have a high allegiance towards your empire, when you have a large fleet in the star system or a lot of ground troops on the surface of that planet to keep the slaves in control, but if you remove these too soon the slaves would start to pursuit their lost freedom. That is of course, if they are unhappy to be slaves.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12764
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Simulating Citizens

#51 Post by Geoff the Medio »

MikkoM wrote:So would this mean that, if there is for example only the allegiance meter, a planet`s allegiance towards the player`s empire would slowly decrease...
No, it would likely reach a stable value and stay there until something alters it or the stable value. The stable value would be determined by various factors, including tech effects that boost allegiance to the owner's empire. There's no reason the stable value should be zero, or some other level that mean rebellion or other bad things to the player in most / common in-game situations.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Simulating Citizens

#52 Post by Krikkitone »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
MikkoM wrote:So would this mean that, if there is for example only the allegiance meter, a planet`s allegiance towards the player`s empire would slowly decrease...
No, it would likely reach a stable value and stay there until something alters it or the stable value. The stable value would be determined by various factors, including tech effects that boost allegiance to the owner's empire. There's no reason the stable value should be zero, or some other level that mean rebellion or other bad things to the player in most / common in-game situations.

Well, stable population level is zero... (with no food input population drops to zero) I see no reason why allegiance shouldn't be the same. Now in MOST situations its easy to maintain a Non-zero population level, but it has some costs (putting some focus into farming). In the same way, I'd like to see allegiance/Loyalty based on the people's "Reasons to stay" in your empire.
Part of that could be on the level of money expenditures the only thing your people might actually 'get' from you empire besides food would be money... all minerals, Industry, and science are consumed for "Imperial purposes". The other thing they 'get' from your empire is an empire that does what they want (based on whether or not you do what they want).

Loyalty/allegiance/rebellion being a matter that is on a player's mind more often than starvation, etc. Especially because Loyalty should be Competitive (like fleets).

User avatar
MikkoM
Space Dragon
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Simulating Citizens

#53 Post by MikkoM »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
MikkoM wrote:So would this mean that, if there is for example only the allegiance meter, a planet`s allegiance towards the player`s empire would slowly decrease...
No, it would likely reach a stable value and stay there until something alters it or the stable value. The stable value would be determined by various factors, including tech effects that boost allegiance to the owner's empire. There's no reason the stable value should be zero, or some other level that mean rebellion or other bad things to the player in most / common in-game situations.
Are we talking about the same issue here? The main point of my previous post was to consider possible consequences that the dropping allegiance might have, if it drops. I wasn`t suggesting that the allegiance level would always drop or have a stable value that would mean something bad for the player.

So would your system/idea have any other consequences that would result from the dropping allegiance level, towards a planet’s owner empire, than rebellion and leaving the empire? Since if rebellion and leaving the empire are the only real consequences that the player has to face from the low allegiance level, the busy galactic emperor might easily forget or ignore the opinions of his/her citizens, as only a very low allegiance level would have a real effect on the empire`s well being.

Where as, if the resource production of a planet that has a low allegiance towards the owner empire starts to drop, before there is any sort of a rebellion or a break off attempt, even the busy galactic emperor would probably want to take action or maybe just notice how bad the situation is. Since planets that are not using their full capacity most certainly won`t benefit the empire as much as planets that are using their full capacity. And so the player would probably have more time to react to the problems of his/her citizens and would probably want to hear their opinions sooner, than if the only consequences would be rebellion and leaving the empire.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12764
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Simulating Citizens

#54 Post by Geoff the Medio »

MikkoM wrote:The main point of my previous post was to consider possible consequences that the dropping allegiance might have, if it drops.
Ah, I see that now. I had thought you were talking about the mechanics of the system, but you were talking about its consequences.
So would your system/idea have any other consequences that would result from the dropping allegiance level, towards a planet’s owner empire, than rebellion and leaving the empire?
My suggestion didn't address consequences of low allegiance towards a planet's owner.

In general, losing resource production wouldn't be a direct consquence of having a low allegiance on your planets. It might be an indirect problem though, as various tech or building or other effects might depend on high allegiance with conditions. Depending what strategy a player is using, s/he might be more or less affected by having poor allegiance on owned planets... In particular, some buildings or tech effects would be balanced by requiring high (or low) allegiance.

Also: rebellions aren't just spontaneous events. Other empires can incite them, and will have a much easier time of doing so if your planets have low allegiance to start with.

Also: if a planet is invaded, there would be a lot more resistance to occupiers who have high allegiance to their original owner than ones who were highly opposed to the original owner and actually preferred the "invader" / "liberator".

Also: a planet with high allegiance to its empire would be much less susceptible to other forms of manipulation. Assuming races or planets have social preferences or opinions of other races, and that these can be altered, trying to alter the preferences of a planet or race that are contrary to what their owner uses or does will be more difficult if the planet has high allegiance to the owner. Similarly, the owner would be more able to alter the preferences of owned planets or races on those planets if those planets have high allegiance to the owner.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Simulating Citizens

#55 Post by eleazar »

MikkoM wrote:...Where as, if the resource production of a planet that has a low allegiance towards the owner empire starts to drop, before there is any sort of a rebellion or a break off attempt, even the busy galactic emperor would probably want to take action or maybe just notice how bad the situation is. Since planets that are not using their full capacity most certainly won`t benefit the empire as much as planets that are using their full capacity. And so the player would probably have more time to react to the problems of his/her citizens and would probably want to hear their opinions sooner, than if the only consequences would be rebellion and leaving the empire.
I agree, i think this scenario is more interesting. Though it's not so important to me that high allegiance enhances production specifically, but that it has some significant positive result, rather than simply being insurance against bad stuff. I don't like the idea of allegiance being irrelevant unless there's a crisis.

MikkoM wrote:As for slave planets, they could perhaps too have a “fake” high allegiance towards your empire and so they could be as productive as free planets.
It comes to the same thing, but IMHO it's more intuitive to lower the threshold at which riots/rebellions take place, rather than to bump the allegiance meter. Especially since allegiance values can effect other planets.

Tsenzouken
Space Squid
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 am

Re: Simulating Citizens

#56 Post by Tsenzouken »

(Un)Happiness can influence productivity.
Allegiance acts as resistance to rebellion, spying, etc.

They could even influence each other to some extent.
BadEvent01 happens, decreasing Happiness, but the population of the planet is very patriotic and mitigates the morale effects.
Enemy01's spy attempt to incite a guerrilla movement, but because the population is content, it proves more difficult than anticipated.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Simulating Citizens

#57 Post by Krikkitone »

As for the benefits of High Loyalty, I can think of a few that aren't generic productivity boosts

1. 'bleeding' Loyalty... if can even bleed into other empires it becomes better
2. Increased production of Money(the Social resource.. ie increased devotion of social resources to the maintenance of the empire) or Combat potential(the 'experience' resource.. ie more volunteers)
3. Decreased Maintenance cost (of Money)

I don't think that you should get more minerals, industry or science out of a population because they have high loyalty... High loyalty May be allow you to put more planets in "Forced Labor/Extreme economy" mode and not have to deal wth Riots(which should decrease resource+infrastructure meters more than dropping production that turn)/Rebellions.


Also increased 'toeing the line' in diplomatic terms
The higher their Loyalty is with you the faster they lose loyalty with your enemies and the faster they gain loyalty with your friends.

At that point Loyalty becomes a competitive resource. (enemies will try to boost their loyalty in your worlds.. which decreases yours, and you will try to increase yours...which decreass theirs)

In any case, I really think loyalty works perfectly well as a defense against bad things.. IF those bad things are fairly common. Same as food... if its only use is as a defense against starvation, that is OK as long a starvation is always a realistic threat.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Simulating Citizens

#58 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:Same as food... if its only use is as a defense against starvation, that is OK as long a starvation is always a realistic threat.
Wrong.

More food -> More Health
More Health -> More Population Growth

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Simulating Citizens

#59 Post by Krikkitone »

eleazar wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:Same as food... if its only use is as a defense against starvation, that is OK as long a starvation is always a realistic threat.
Wrong.

More food -> More Health
More Health -> More Population Growth
Only to a certain point.

Food beyond popx4 is useless except as a guard against future loss (stockpile)
especially since total pop is limited by your # of planets.

More Research is almost always useful until you have researched all techs (or won the game)

More Industry+Minerals are always useful since they give you more ships (and your total ships is irrelevant... what matters is your ships v. enemy ships)


So Really 'playing to your population' could have those other benefits.
Competitive Loyalties/decrease 'Maintenance costs'... ie Other things you do for Loyalty/Increased availability of 'Military proficiency' from the planet/better spy defense

I think that all of those should be looked at before a simple Loyalty->Production metric is put in. At the very least I might limit it to Money, which is a social product, Or through having some government setting which increases general productivity at the Cost of Loyalty. Just because I really support the government, doesn't mean I'll work harder at my job... unless the government has said its my patriotic duty to work at my job (ala WWII)

So excess Loyalty becomes a defense against 'bad things' but those 'bad things' can be things You as the player trigger to give yourself a bonus. (forcing the people to work to boost the empire, or making a decision they don't like but is a better strategy at this time, or cutting out 'luxuries' like Money from what they get so that you can shift focus to other things/spend it somewhere else.)

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Simulating Citizens

#60 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:I think that all of those should be looked at before a simple Loyalty->Production metric is put in. At the very least I might limit it to Money, which is a social product...
Well certainly we should consider other options.

Increased "money" could make a lot of sense, if money is redefined (as has been vaguely suggested) into some sort of "social" resource— of course depending on what the new definition actually is.

Locked