Thoughts on a Political Minigame

[Impaler]

I have been bouncing around the idea of a Political minigame in my head and wanted to make a "core dump" of the semi finished idea here for people to consider.

First off let me clarify what I mean by a politcal minigame. Its a minigame in the sense that their is an abstracted game within a game ware the player conducts the internal politics of his empire. Their is no real "victory" in this game it serves as a managment tool for the empire. Also its hopefully more fun and visualy interactive then a spreadsheet

At its core the Politics game is a means of manipulating and borrowing/repaying Population Happyness across the Empire. The second purpose is to create temporary bonuses/penalties much like thouse creted by leaders and Race specials. Most 4X games give players a very static set of bonus/penalty modifers (your a warmonger/build/brainy race from day one and stay that way all game). It is the pursuit of these bonuses that the player will through the Politics game "obey the will of the people" rather then comand them as mindless pawns. The twist is that the people are fickle and change their minds as to what they want.


Implementation:
The will of the people is expressed by having each unit of population adhere to a "Faction" (intentionaly using the SMAC conotation). A Faction can be though of as a political party/sub-culture/religion/nobel house or what ever is apropriate for the situation. Each empire has its own independent factions which are created/mutated and eliminated through the course of the game. A factin can have a diverse combination of race picks and happyness modifiers. Each unit of population then acts on the combination of static Race modifiers pluss the modifiers of its Faction. These combinations can potentialy cancel out or reinforce each other to create a great diversity within your Empire. Each unit of population will then deside if its happy or angry based this combined outlook. When happy the population unit can produce bonuses (more work basicaly) and if unhappy good old Drone riots. For example lets say their is an "Inteligencia" faction and a "Church of Grom" Faction. A goverment policy might make the Inteligencia happy and their population points start giving you bonus research, but said policy angered the Church and their followers start Drone Riots.

For some good material on Faction and what they might belive check out this Design Document from Moo3 (did this stuff ever make it into the game?) http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/religion01.html

Visuals:
My current thinking is for some kind of asian style boardgame format similar to Reiner Knizia's Samurai http://www.klear.com/samurai/index.php
This game was mentioned a ways back by drek and it kind of got the ball rolling on this whole Political idea

Visualy you see a Hex Grid with some display of Factions and the population points they have in sway located on the board. Your able to place "promises" upon the board to make factions Happy. Promises corespond to things you can do in the game such as declare war/adjust metters/build things/goverment policy. By making a Promise you arn't actualy doing anything REAL in the game your apeasing a faction by promising that such a thing will be done. In exchange you make them happy for a time (and possibly some other faction unhappy). These effects will last for some period of time (probably determined by the "strength" of the promisse equizilent to the 2/3/4 number in Samurai tiles)
Their might then be some negative effects for failing to fuffill a promise (tiles become -2/-3/-4 and so on). In essense you borrow happyness from the future and must be carfull not to over do it.

Key differences:

In Samurai promise tiles are perminent, in this mini game they must be transient to make the minigame perpetual

In Samurai the "Citys" are perminent, in the political minigame the population points will frequently be converted from one faction to another and whole factions can be created and destroyed. Some manner of logicaly doing this and placing them on the board needs to be determined.

Their is no "oponent" in the Minigame, your simply striving to manage an evolving web of factions and their desires in some way that will benifit your overall game by making the population happy.

Possibly the player could be limited to 1 promise per turn but this is not nessary as this is no limited "hand" of options. What ever produces the best game play should be the goal.

[krum]

None of this ever made it into MoO3, it was actually the first thing ot get scrapped, even before 1 April.

Oh, and hey, I'm back

I think that the system as it was to be implemented in MoO3 is generally OK, of course we'll have to branstorm and tweak it to our liking. This "promices" system in the Samurai game for example sound intriguing.

[Daveybaby]

I like it. Ethoi on steroids.

[Ellestar]

Ok, i read about MOO3 religion/factions, played Samurai. I like idea with population, but what's the reason to add mini-game?

[Geoff the Medio]

I've been suggesting having various factions, of the sorts Impaler suggests.

I do not like the idea of using Samurai-style tiles (with the geometry-based strategy involved) or even a fixed low number of "marker" slots (where the tiles are visual adies only and geometry doesn't matter). This has been discussed starting here: viewtopic.php?p=13702#13702 (That was also talking about modelling races in the same system, but the interface and basic design stuff is relevant).

I'm not too keen on the "borrow from the future" idea either. IMO the happiness and size (as a fraction of total population) of a given faction should change / depend on what your currently doing, or what the current situation is on a given planet, not "promisies".

I'm also hoping that the whole faction system can be integrated with culture, espoinage and regional autonomy / trade issues. Thus there would be an opponent (the other empires), and if you're not careful, some of your planets could seceed and become new opponents ... (or just join the other empire, especially if they've been working the propeganda against you to make it happen).

I do like the lack of a "hand" of options, though. I wasn't fond of drek's proposed Samurai-style randomly selected set of tiles for use at any given time.

[krum]

I'm also hoping that the whole faction system can be integrated with culture, espoinage and regional autonomy / trade issues. Thus there would be an opponent (the other empires), and if you're not careful, some of your planets could seceed and become new opponents ... (or just join the other empire, especially if they've been working the propeganda against you to make it happen).

For me the interesting effects such a system could have, with relative ease, on a wide range of issues, is what makes it worthy of consideration. Plus it's damn neat.

Having read the linked thread, I think we can make better use of the MoO3 model that was scrapped, let's start from there instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. I think, first we can think up more effects the ideals could have on the otehr gameplay components; also more ideals. I think worldviews and traditions should be lumped together. Also, how about tracking the factions of the members of the military, for example?

[Geoff the Medio]

I think, first we can think up more effects the ideals could have on the otehr gameplay components [...] factions of the members of the military, for example?

Factions, and how happy and loyal they are, naturally translates to ground combat troop loyalty: viewtopic.php?p=13939#13939

The opinion of factions to other races, particularly nearby trading partners could be rather important. If a planet near another empire has a high proportion of a faction that hates that empire, then trade would be curtailed. However if your planet is doing a lot of trade with a particular other empire, going to war with or estabishling trade boycotts with that country would devastate the economy of the planet, making the jobless locals unhappy with the central imperial government. (This is equivalent to a resource rich province of an otherwise resourceless country).

[tzlaine]

I like this idea as well, though I'm not sure I like it for only factions. I'd like to see something like this used for diplomacy.

[Geoff the Medio]

I like this idea as well, though I'm not sure I like it for only factions. I'd like to see something like this used for diplomacy.

Used for diplomacy in what sense...? Just influencing the available options or acting as bargaining chips / points, or as a way to represent / impliment the whole diplomatic system? (How would that work?)

[drek]

I'm also hoping that the whole faction system can be integrated with culture, espoinage and regional autonomy / trade issues.

....

There is a danger of this sort of thing becoming moo3-ish....a set of systems so arcane that the player has no idea what's happening, or real control over the situation. Remember that fo is not a simulation.

There is also a danger of the system becoming a massive spreadsheet with little in the way of "playing pieces"--units that the player can directly manipulate. FO is a video game, and should leverage video game conventions to ensure the user interface is easy to use and fun to play with.

If there's going to be factions and faction politics in the game, it should be simple to comprehend and as much as possible mesh with the UI elements the game already possesses.

Thinking out loud:

Factional politics should tell a good story, or else it's not really worth the effort, imho. You want to remember the time the Do'Gar clan decided to wipe to Te'Kel clan because blah blah blah happened....not that third number to the left on the faction spreadsheet incremented by 2.

Every story need characters, so:

Leader units could be the "playing pieces" for factions. The loyalty of each leader is equivelent to the loyalty of the greater faction the leader belongs to. All faction actions and effects are linked to leaders, not the population units of planets.

Leaders are granted roles, like in Total War. You might make Leader Arnold of faction Repug governator of starsystem Cali. Arnold grants economic bonuses to Cali (or maybe he futzes things up and blows up your MegaFarm). Granting roles makes a leader and his faction happy. However, it makes faction enemies unhappy.

Every so often, a Leader asks for something. "I want a fleet to command" "I want policy X to be implemented". A Leader with many roles might ask for more crap more often. Refusing a request makes the leader and his faction unhappy.

However, granting a request makes the faction more powerful. This could be a bad thing indeed...the more powerful the faction is, the more of a diaster it will be if the faction rebels against your empire. A very powerful faction might have an empire by it's throat...making very excessive demands.

The factions interact. Player X might pay faction A to do something rotten to faction B, or faction A might go ahead and do something rotten to faction B all on it's own. "Something rotten" generally means one leader unit making an assassin attempt on another, or a political contest for a granted role.

A faction or unhappy population might riot to grant a role to a leader without the player's permission.

Concerning diplomacy and adventure, faction leaders (so long as they don't have a military fleet) can cross into other empire's territory. The only thing that can kill a leader is another leader (heros don't die to stromtroopers, etc.), but high security might stop him from spy missions.

It could be you *need* a leader to make first diplomatic contact with an emipre, or that the presence of a leader grants some sort of diplomatic bonuses. (ie, sending leader Picard off to neogiate peace with the klingons or make first contact with the borg.) Ambassador might be a role that can be granted to leaders, giving the leader's faction some ties to the other empire.

Leaders with low loyalty can be bought for the right price and/or favors. So you could move a high loyalty leader into an enemy empire, find a low loyalty leader and bribe him to join your cause. You could then leverage the roles the turn-coat leader has been granted to futz up the enemy empire.

This would be like the Church of Xenos of empire Drektopia heading off into the Nightfish empire to convert Clan Do'Gar to the cause. I'd then be able to prode Clan Do'Gar into a civil war with Clan Te'Kel, futzing up the Nightfish empire.

When the emperor of the Nightfishies takes action against Clan Do'Gar (killing my bribed leader), this gives me a reason for war. Of course, my imperal fleet crosses the border in support of our brothers, the noble Clan Do'Gar.

Might also be proxy wars....imagine two powerful empires with a third less powerful empire in-between. The leaders of one faction might be bribed by powerful empire A, the leaders of another bribed by powerful empire B.

....
ok, I shut up now.

[drek]

erm, one more thing, concerning population loyalties:

A faction can be present or not present in a starsystem. Only 3 factions can be present in a starsystem at a time.

A faction leader can, as an action costing the faction money, remove the presence of an enemy faction or add the presence of his own faction. Sometimes, random events add or remove presences.

Remove a presence is a destuctive action. Happiness falls, a riot might start.

Basically, KISS. We don't want to overwhelm the player with information, and three faction flags can easily be displayed on the galaxy map.

[Impaler]

I like the idea of getting leaders invoved in Factions and Politics. My sugjested implementation would be differnt though.

A leader has the option of being a "party member" as one of his skills (if he lacks this skill he is just a bland middle of the road or non-politcal person and is considered "nutral" and has no effect on faction happyness). Now when the player gives that leader a position the skill makes the population units of that faction happier and others less happy.

At any one time their would also be a Hero who has the ability "Faction Leader" only one Hero per Empire can have this ability and if he dies/retires another is imediatly promoted (preferably one who was already a member of said faction) or if nessary created from scratch. Using this guy in a position has an even greater effect on the Faction and depending on what kind of goverment you have you could make him the Imperial Tyrant whitch would make that Faction extreamly happy and all other factions unhappy.


Note this could be modified by the degree of diference between 2 factions. As in SMAC factions that have mutualy exclusive ireconsilable belifs will hate each other and it will be impossible to satisfy both at the same time. So for example the "Ecology lover" faction and the "Brainy scientist" faction can both be made happy if the player fufills the 2 independent requirments, but the "Anti-tecnologists" and the "Tech worshipers" can never both be happy because their desires are mutualy exclusive.

I like the Idea of "Demands" atlest in the sense that it is a somewhat randomly renerated "new happynes condition" that the Faction now wants fulliled, the player must always be ready to jump through new hoops. Demands could go all the way to demanding a war with another empire. I think population units should still be members of a faction, this alows differnt planets to have any combination of factions. We could limit the total # of factions in an empire if we wish and display faction memberships in a pie graph or ignore everyone that not a member of the top 3 factions on a planet (they are treated as nutrals).

If a planet has enough unhappy population and a single faction is in dominant control then the planet would likly rebel. The disdent population would morph into "rebels" which fight any Imperial soldiars (unless the soldiars also happen to belong to that Faction inwhich case they might JOIN the rebelion, yes military units would have Faction membership as well). Theirs a ground battle and if the rebels win they esentialy become a new AI empire with high degree of hostility towards the player, they will activly atempt to make more planets rebel in a similar manor.

Espionage would have a lot of interactions with Politics. Propaganda would consist of flipping population units from one faction to another. Enemy Empires could stir up all kinds of trouble and insite rebelions. You could potentialy run operations on your own empire to convert people to the official state "Dogma"

A word about Dogma, this is when the Imperial goverment official recognizes one of the Factions as its official Ideology. Again massive happyness for lucky factions much unhappyness for all others. Dogma will effect your Diplomatic reputation with other Empires, if you do not select a Dogma then their will be no modifier to your Diplomatic status (other goverments only judge you by your Dogma and ignore Faction population numbers, example Turkey, Dogma > Secular Democracy, Population > Muslim has good relations with western countries).

[tzlaine]

I like this idea as well, though I'm not sure I like it for only factions. I'd like to see something like this used for diplomacy.

Used for diplomacy in what sense...? Just influencing the available options or acting as bargaining chips / points, or as a way to represent / impliment the whole diplomatic system? (How would that work?)

If you want something. you promise something; if you want to improve relations, you promise something. If you renege on your promises, you make relations very bad and/or provoke a war. This also fits in well with my earlier Brainstorming thread about cultural alignments, for the same reason that it applies well to factions.

[drek]

Now when the player gives that leader a position the skill makes the population units of that faction happier and others less happy.

There's no such thing as discreet population units in FO. Recall the debates on multiple races per planet--the concept was rejected due to this.

Factions can be represented as races are, one per planet. Or they could be a tag like a planet special attached to either the planet or the system. Or they could be a heap of meters defining the relationship of the planet to each faction (sounds messy to me).

But I'm pretty sure there won't be discreet units of population to assign to factions, for the same list of reasons as to why there aren't discreet units of population to assign to races.

[Ellestar]

1) Idea with AI governors... i mean Leaders... that control my fleets and planets... Ok, i think you know what game i'm talking about.
SimOrion part of the idea is ok for me, but using AI governors when it's absolutelly unnesesary is unnesesary . A much better ideas with governors that HELP player instead of disturbing were rejected, so i'm strongly oppose this idea.

2) IMHO we may use idea with factions in population happiness model. Say, we have 2 types of bulidings/wonders/technology etc. - some of them make population more happy directly (changing happiness meter or something), some of them "convert" population to an official Ideology (there may be several official ideologies). Factions are happy/unhappy depending on a government politics (like it's written in MoO3 document). That affects happiness meter.

Now, a player can:
- use buildings etc. that directly make population happy
- "convert" population to an official ideology that matches his actions (so most of the population will be happy)
- "convert" population to an official ideology that gives some benefits a player wants, but that ideology doesn't match a player actions, that will lead to some bonus at a cost of unhappiness
- use a combinations of the above methods

It's easier to "convert" new population, and government have a bonus during that conversion - schools etc. teach new ideology (all factions and government "conversion" make rolls against new population, as in MoO3 doc about conversion), so new planets will have more "modern" views.
All ideas with race relations etc. can be used too.

There's no such thing as discreet population units in FO. Recall the debates on multiple races per planet--the concept was rejected due to this.

We can use discreet population only within that Factions system.