Simulating Citizens

[RonaldX]

It may be simpler in that there are fewer steps, but I don't think that it would be any easier for the player to grasp. Admittedly, there isn't the same obvious need for species empire alignments as there is for ethical compatibility alignments, since displaying "+2 to Eaxaw allegiance" is no more ponderous than displaying "+4 to Eaxaw alignment", whereas displaying "+2 to Eaxaw allegiance, +2 to Trith allegiance, +2 to...." is significantly more annoying than "+4 to Bloodthirstiness". However, I still think that rolling up all the other allegiance factors into alignment will make allegiance as a whole something that is a simpler idea to the player, since

-the species' objective ethical opinion of my empire, plus
-the species' subjective reaction to my actions for/against them

is easier to wrap one's brain around than

-the species' objective ethical opinion of my empire, plus
-the species' "blood grievances" against my empire, plus
-the species' status within my empire, plus
-the species' reaction to diplomatic actions for/against empires towards whom they have high/low allegiance, plus
-etc.

I consider it in terms of how it is displayed to the player. If the math is similar (I think of just about everything in terms of the math involved), then it's just how I'm envisioning having this information presented to me.

Using your method, I would envision seeing this (lets say that i was already enslaving the race, and just this turn killed 15 billion of the race:
Race 1 Allegiance = (some value) (-0.3/turn) (growth rate determined by combining compatibility/treatment)
- Ethical Compatibility +80 (Read: Ethical Compatibility Alignment)
(bloodthirst match +50)
(expansionist match +40)
(elitist match -10)
- Species Treatment -40 (Read: Species-Empire Alignment)
(killed lots of Race -15) (+1 per turn)
(race is enslaved -25)

Allegiance has a value, and the combined ethical compatibility alignment and species-empire alignment define the rate of growth or decay of your allegiance value. for the purpose of the example, the "killed lots of race" malus is a diminishing factor, if I dont kill any more of that race, after 15 turns they will have forgiven me.

Using my method, I would envision seeing this:
Race 1 Allegiance = 40
-Ethical Compatibility +80
(bloodthirst match +50)
(expansionist match +40)
(elitist match -10)
-Species Treatment -40
(killed lots of race -15) (+1 per turn)
(race is enslaved -25)

Allegiance equals ethical compatibility modified by species treatment factors.

I find the second system much more intuitive, and no more ponderous to display to the player. The first would require some different scaling for maluses to have a read adverse effect on a race that shared ethical compatibility with you, and this math would be invisible to the player. Looking at the above example, the player can go.. "Well, my compatibility is 80, and my treatment is -40, so total is still a positive number.. Why do I have a negative growth rate?" On the other hand, if you have a positive growth, then you have a race that likes you and is getting more loyal to you, even though you have them enslaved and are systematically annihilating them. Making the math more complicated to sort this out only further confuses the player and complicates things. Then you are getting to a point where domestic policy dominates the game, as a player, I'm not interested in that.

Advantages of "Composite" Happiness as opposed to "Tracked" Happiness

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sold on it. I see happiness as operating in a way that it is easily understood by the player.. Let me draw up an example in similar fashion to what I did above:

Planet X Happiness = Current 64 (-2)/ Target 57 (-5)
-Allegiance +40
-Local Factors +15
(Buildings +20)
(Propaganda Campaign +10)
(Planet Blockaded -15) (-5 per turn)

The planet has been blockaded for 3 turns, and each turn it remains blockaded, target happiness drops by 5. Current happiness is always shifting towards the target at a rate of -2 per turn (for the purpose of this example).

Any time you want happiness to be instantly affected by something, or at a rate of more than 2 per turn, it can be easily programmed for special events to have an immediate effect on current happiness.

-Ty.

Edits: Clarity, math.

[Bigjoe5]

I consider it in terms of how it is displayed to the player. If the math is similar (I think of just about everything in terms of the math involved), then it's just how I'm envisioning having this information presented to me.

Using only alignment for determining allegiance, I would expect to see, when looking at a breakdown of allegiance, something like the following:

Allegiance: 20
Growth: -0.3

Ethical compatibility (Bloodthirstiness): +5 (-0.05)
Ethical compatibility (Xenophobia): +5 (-0.05)
Species-Empire alignment: + 10 (-0.2)

Looking at a breakdown of alignment growth values would give something like this (italicized phrases do not appear in-game, only relevant alignment scales are shown here):

--Ethical Compatibility Alignment--

Bloodthirstiness: 20
Growth: -0.2

Basic Focus and Universe (for lack of a better term): -0.2
War (Blue Empire): +0.1
Trade Agreement (Red Empire): -0.1

Xenophobia: 20
Growth: -0.2

War (Blue Empire): +0.1
Trade Agreement (Red Empire): -0.2
Multi-Species Empire (2 species): -0.1

--Species-Empire Alignment--

Eaxaw: 20
Growth: -0.4

War (Blue Empire): -0.1 (Eaxaw have high allegiance to Blue)
Trade Agreement (Red Empire): -0.1 (Eaxaw have low allegiance to Red)
Status (Slave): -0.2

There may also be an option to check a history of events which have modified various alignments scales directly, but this is a different matter. As for what would appear if species-empire alignment didn't exist:

...well, I wouldn't know where to start. If allegiance is a single, current value, then everything that has ever modified that value would need to be displayed to the player, and be given equal weight with the relatively few objects that actually currently exist and are modifying the meter. This is extremely awkward. The dual-alignment system has the huge advantage that every value is either entirely current, or entirely historical.

-Allegiance is current, in that it is based entirely on several current values, which the player can check whenever he pleases.

-Current Alignment is entirely historical. The value cannot be broken down and displayed based on effects acting on it like a max meter value can. Instead, there is only the history of growth and events which altered the current value directly.

-Alignment Growth is current, in that it can be broken down in the same way as a max meter value can, and everything modifying it is part of the current gamestate.

The only way to retain the purity of these values in an ethical-alignment-only system would be to separate allegiance into current and target values, and give it it's own growth rate as well (not one merely derived from that of alignment), and it would be nice if we didn't have to go and do that.

Now as for status... I think it's a good idea, but it's one that requires a lot more thought than I have time for right now. My initial impression though, is that there should be opposite bonuses/maluses on opposite ends of the status scale, ie if aristocrats are less productive, slaves should be more so, and vice versa.

[eleazar]

BigJoe, i'll remind you of something you said to RonaldX a few pages back:

Just because you could perhaps somewhat more accurately describe alignment as "Empire Ethics" is no reason to discard a term that we've been using for this concept for the entirety of its existence, in the middle of a design discussion strongly related to that very concept.

I think the same equally applies to your term of "Species-Empire Alignment". It's way too close to what has been called over a long period of time "Imperial Alignments." Now there's not a single factor to allegiance that hasn't gotten the name "alignment" at one time or another. It's confusing.

Label it "Subjective Allegiance Factors" (as i think you've refered to it before), or whatever, it needs to be a distinctive new term so we can communicate clearly enough to discuss it's merits.

[Bigjoe5]

BigJoe, i'll remind you of something you said to RonaldX a few pages back:

Just because you could perhaps somewhat more accurately describe alignment as "Empire Ethics" is no reason to discard a term that we've been using for this concept for the entirety of its existence, in the middle of a design discussion strongly related to that very concept.

I think the same equally applies to your term of "Species-Empire Alignment". It's way too close to what has been called over a long period of time "Imperial Alignments." Now there's not a single factor to allegiance that hasn't gotten the name "alignment" at one time or another. It's confusing.

Label it "Subjective Allegiance Factors" (as i think you've refered to it before), or whatever, it needs to be a distinctive new term so we can communicate clearly enough to discuss it's merits.

Actually, I consider both "Species-Empire Alignment" and "Ethical Compatibility Alignment" to be two different types of "Imperial Alignment", and the new names I've given them are meant to clarify exactly what type of "Imperial Alignment" I'm talking about. The reason that this new idea (Species-Empire Alignment) has a very similar name to the older idea (Ethical Compatibility Alignment, previously just called Imperial Alignment) is that I wanted to emphasize that they are, in fact, very similar ideas, and would probably function very similarly in-game. Imperial Alignments is a very general term though, which I think applies equally well to both Ethical Compatibility Alignment and Species-Empire Alignment. My intention wasn't to take the idea of Imperial Alignment and rename it to something else, but rather to add to the idea of Imperial Alignment to the point where it became worthwhile to distinguish between two different types.

As for there not being a single factor to allegiance that hasn't gotten the name "alignment", well, that was my whole point, and it was meant to avoid confusion, rather than propagate it.

[RonaldX]

Everything regarding Ethical Compatibility

I follow everything up to here.

I don't really see a need for a growth value, all of the things you have set as factors in growth could simply be set as factors in an integer target value, but I understand what you're getting at. The reason I don't like growth is because it doesn't work asymptotically.. If you act very slightly bloodthirsty for a long time, then a hugely bloodthirsty race will eventually come to love you for it because you slowly but surely grow in that direction, even though you aren't acting in a particularily bloodthirsty manner. In order for it to make sense, you'd have to proscribe limits where certain factors become less effective as they grow to certain points, and that's just wildly complicating what should be a simple system.

--Species-Empire Alignment--

Eaxaw: 20
Growth: -0.4

War (Blue Empire): -0.1 (Eaxaw have high allegiance to Blue)
Trade Agreement (Red Empire): -0.1 (Eaxaw have low allegiance to Red)
Status (Slave): -0.2

I don't see any reason why I should get a bonus to my allegiance if another empire treats a race badly, or vice versa. I believe that is an overcomplication. I have enough to worry about designing ships, producing fleets, fighting battles, conducting diplomacy, defending myself from espionnage, etc. etc. to have to worry about how my planets are going to react if my opponent starts enslaving his people. I agree with the factors regarding ennobling/enslaving my own people, or killing billions of a given race, or destroying their homeworld, but the things that affect allegiance to MY empire should be MY actions, not my opponents'. I've already stated my reasons why I believe growth rates are ineffective for this purpose.

Aside from that, your "Species-Empire Alignment" is essentially a fancy term for "How I Treat This Race". I understand that you're using it as a collective for "everything aside from ethical compatibility that effects allegiance" but the name is somewhat confusing.

...well, I wouldn't know where to start. If allegiance is a single, current value, then everything that has ever modified that value would need to be displayed to the player, and be given equal weight with the relatively few objects that actually currently exist and are modifying the meter.

Not necessarily. Only the things that happened that still have an effect need to be displayed. In my example, bombarding an enemy planet and killing 15 billion of a race causes a 15 point drop in the target allegiance of that race to your empire. Each turn, they forget 1 billion of those deaths (a defined property of the "killed lots of the race" factor). After 15 turns, as long as you havn't killed anyone else, they completely forgive you and this factor disappears from the list of effects on target allegiance.

As long as you define certain factors as diminishing, there is no reason to keep track of them beyond the period where they are relevant.

The only way to retain the purity of these values in an ethical-alignment-only system would be to separate allegiance into current and target values, and give it it's own growth rate as well (not one merely derived from that of alignment), and it would be nice if we didn't have to go and do that.

The rate of growth or decay can simply be tied to the factors themselves. They have a rate at which they accumulate (blockading a planet causes target happiness to drop by x per turn) or decay (a race suffers a -100 initial hit to target allegiance if you destroy their homeworld, but it climbs back up 1 per turn for 100 turns, at which point you are forgiven). In this way the factors themselves are the only determinants of target allegiance AND target happiness, both values can be easily calculated at any time. A player can quickly see which factors are affecting his allegiance, or on a planet, happiness, which are the most important, and how long they are going to stick around for.

If you are referring to the rate at which "current" allegiance shifts towards "target" allegiance, then just figure out what balances well (1 or 2 per turn.. techs might upgrade it to more), and tell the player that's how it is. It's not hard to implement, and it's easy to explain to the player by saying "When things change in a society, the people take a while to accustom themselves to the change."

-Ty.

[Krikkitone]

A few things
The Fundamental Problem with the dominant Happiness model, where
Target Happiness is based on Current Alegiance

is that a Temporary one-time event imacting Allegiance will not impact Happiness in the same way

ie you drop a bioweapon killing off all Psilons outside your empire and Current Allegiance affects Target Happiness

Turn: Psilon Allegiance impact of the event: Happiness imact of the event on your Psilon worlds
1: -10: 0
2: -9: -1
3: -8: -2
4: -7: -3
5: -6: -4
6: -5: -5
7: -4: -5
8: -3: -4
9: -2: -3
10: -1: -2
11: 0: -1

It SHOULD be like this
1: -10: -10
2: -9: -9
3: -8: -8
4: -7: -7
5: -6: -6
6: -5: -5
7: -4: -4
8: -3: -3
9: -2: -2
10: -1: -1
11: 0: 0

To do this Happiness is not tracked, the Components of Happiness (like allegiance) are tracked, and then combined into Happiness


So in my system what Could be displayed on a world is
Happiness: +50, +70 (Current, Target)
Allegiance: +30, +70
Bloodthirst/Pacifism match: +0, +60 (you recently finished a nasty war, but are at peace now)
Elitism/Equality match: -20, -20
We are Overlords: +40, +40
You killed some of our pop: -10, 0
You are just Great (diplomatic propaganda Event): +10, 0
We dis/like your diplomacy(breakdown possible): +10, -10 (you helped our friends out in that war, but you are at peace with unpleasant empires now)
Local:+20, Target=0
We are a new Colony: +30, 0
This game is easy: +10, +10
We are starving: -10, 0
We are a minor world: -10,-10

This could be displayed under an individual species
Allegiance: +30, +70
Bloodthirst/Pacifism match: +0, +60 (you recently finished a nasty war, but are at peace now)
Elitism/Equality match: -20, -20
We are Overlords: +40, +40
You killed some of our pop: -10, 0
You are just Great (diplomatic propaganda Event): +10, 0
We dis/like your diplomacy(breakdown possible): +10, -10 (you helped our friends out in that war, but you are at peace with unpleasant empires now)


Note: IF the movement towards target is a % of the difference, then you CAN know exactly how much is due to what, and the total will move in a believable way
(if every item's current value moves 5% towards the item's target value every turn, then the Total 'Current Happiness' will move 5% towards the Total 'Target Happiness' each turn)
You could also have Total movement come from the movements of all the parts, but that would be less predictable

Any event that affected Allegiance instantly or affected the Local conditions instantly, would also affect Happiness Instantly... because
Happiness=Allegiance+Local
(indeed Allegiance and Local themselves would just be sums of their components)

Now you Could do this with rules that

1. Every Event that
does +X to Current Allegiance of a Species A to Empire B
Also does +X to Current Happiness of every single world of Species A in Empire B

2. Every time the ownership of the world changes
give +X to the Current Happiness of the world
where X =Allegiance to new owner-Allegiance to old owner

But in my model
1. Those rules would be implicit
2. You can always get a complete breakdown of every component of Happiness, and Target Happiness


To answer Ronald X's Objections to

I don't see any reason why I should get a bonus to my allegiance if another empire treats a race badly, or vice versa. I believe that is an overcomplication. I have enough to worry about designing ships, producing fleets, fighting battles, conducting diplomacy, defending myself from espionnage, etc. etc. to have to worry about how my planets are going to react if my opponent starts enslaving his people. I agree with the factors regarding ennobling/enslaving my own people, or killing billions of a given race, or destroying their homeworld, but the things that affect allegiance to MY empire should be MY actions, not my opponents'.

If another empire treats a race badly, that Should have NO effect on their allegiance to you
However,
If You perform the action of forming/maintaining/breaking an alliance, peace treaty or trade treaty with an empire that has treated a race badly, that Should have an effect on their allegiance to you.

[RonaldX]

Any event that affected Allegiance instantly or affected the Local conditions instantly, would also affect Happiness Instantly... because
Happiness=Allegiance+Local
(indeed Allegiance and Local themselves would just be sums of their components)

I want to make sure I understand this, because I do understand exactly what you are objecting to (the "lag" in happiness change when any factor changes), but I'm not sure I fully grasp your solution.

You're advising that it makes more sense for happiness to NOT have a current/target value, but simply shift instantaneously whenever a factor affecting it changes, and your idea of current/target are just a separation of factors into "Persistant Factors" (target) and "Temporary Factors" (current)?

To be honest, this is a simpler system, and I have no major objection to it. Diminishing factors on their own are in my opinion enough to smooth out changes in allegiance and happiness, and still allow for jolts from major events. The entire point of a target/current system is just to further smooth out those changes.

My understanding is that the situation that was trying to be avoided was the "I just bombed the bejeezus out of a planet, they should hate me, but because they hate their current owner alot, when I take it over they will instantly love me." If the penalty to allegiance for slaughtering and bombarding a population is stiff enough, then when you take the planet over, those people are still going to hate you until you boost up their allegiance somehow anyways. Provided I understand you properly, I have no objection to your system.

If another empire treats a race badly, that Should have NO effect on their allegiance to you
However,
If You perform the action of forming/maintaining/breaking an alliance, peace treaty or trade treaty with an empire that has treated a race badly, that Should have an effect on their allegiance to you.

It's realistic, and I follow the logic, I just think it's overcomplicated.

-Ty.

Edit: clarity.

[Krikkitone]

My understanding is that the situation that was trying to be avoided was the "I just bombed the bejeezus out of a planet, they should hate me, but because they hate their current owner alot, when I take it over they will instantly love me." If the penalty to allegiance for slaughtering and bombarding a population is stiff enough, then when you take the planet over, those people are still going to hate you until you boost up their allegiance somehow anyways. Provided I understand you properly, I have no objection to your system.

To be clear, Bombing a planet doesn't affect Allegiance that much, it would affect the local conditions.. in my system

Allegiance to Red=40
Allegiance to Blue=82
(listing current, Target values)

Planet under Red rulership
Allegiance to owner(Red)=40,40
Local conditions=0,0
Total Happiness=40,40 (stability)

Blue bombs planet
Allegiance to owner (Red)=40,40
Local conditions=-40,0
Total Happiness=0,40 (massive revolts)

Allegiance to Blue is high (80,82) ... bombing the planet only dropped the species allegiance by 2 since it was a minor planet

if Blue Siezes the planet (immediately)
Allegiance to owner (Blue)=80,82
Local conditions=-40,0
Total Happiness= 40,82 (stability)

So Blue bombs the planet causing massive revolts, but as soon as they liberate it, the revolts stop.... over time the Local conditions would return to 0 and Blue Allegiance would return to 82 (assuming no other effects).


As for the diplomacy effects, the idea is that this forces the player to respond to his species... basically Israel doesn't make a strong mutual alliance with the Third Reich because its population would revolt, and the modern US doesn't declare war on the UK for the same reason.

Basically All your large-scale actions (including diplomacy) have political costs and benefits.

[RonaldX]

I really wish we had a chat function on here. Maybe there is one and I just havn't looked for it.

Edit: I failed at reading your post properly. I understand you better now. And yeah, I agree with the major points of the system. Essentially what I'm going for is a really simple calculation that defines Allegiance, and a really simple calculation that defines Happiness, and these are comprised of modular factors which have varying complexity in and of themselves.

Giving the factors the ability to grow or diminish can give you the ability to design to virtually any level of complexity desired, without making the overarching framework complicated at all.

For example, a factor in Allegiance would be "killing lots of race x". You can make this grow with every billion of the race killed, it can decay on it's own and become less important as time passes, or it can stick around at certain values, or if you preform a near genocide it could never go away, etc. etc.. the point being that the frame should be simple, the Factors can then be made as complex as you want without affecting the framework. It makes designing components to the system modular and easy, and makes balancing easier as well.

-Ty.

[Krikkitone]

I really wish we had a chat function on here. Maybe there is one and I just havn't looked for it.

Anyways, in that example, my only qualm with it is that the race should dislike Blue at least a bit for bombing them in the first place, however, that would be an Allegiance effect. Their local happiness would improve because the bombing has stopped, but they'd still be somewhat angry at Blue for having bombed them in the first place.

-Ty.

Well the local Happiness would only slowly improve.. Bombing would be a direct effect on the Current "local" so
say -10 for 10% of pop killed by bombing... but the "target" is always 0.

so turn 1, 10% of pop killed
-10
Turn 2: +0.5 (5% towards 0) so
-9.5, unless you get bombed again so -19.5
etc.
so after 4 turns of bombing ~10% pop each turn it would be about (slightly less than) 40 penalty
and after it stopped would slowly decline
-40 on turn 1
-38 on turn 2
-36.2 on turn 3
etc.
once it got to -0.1 or less it would go away.. of course that would take a Long time, as it would asymtotically move towards 0... but it would be a small part of that world's History... for most of the game, they would be Slightly easier to push to revolt because of that.


The Allegiance penalty to Blue is across the entire species, so bombing one minor world may be a minor effect, and it wouldn't last any longer than the "Local penalty" it would just be smaller.

[Geoff the Medio]

I think this thread has been stalling for a while, and needs some decisions made so we can refocus the discussion. So, unless there are major objections about how some of the following would (not) work:

* Planets have a happiness meter, which has a current and target value with min and max values of 0 and 100 (like standard planet meters).
* Current happiness is modified each turn to move up to one point towards its target value, or less than one point if the difference between them is smaller than one point.
* Events / effects can also modify current happiness
* Target happiness has a breakdown of contributions to its value, like other meters in the UI.

* Species have an "allegiance" to each empire in the game. Exactly how allegiance is calculated is yet to be determined, but:
* Allegiance of a species has, at least, a "current" value which is used to determine the effects or outcomes of the "allegiance".
* There may also be "target" or "growth" or similar values as part of a species allegiance to an empire, which influence or determine how the "current" value changes between turns.
* Allegiance of a species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet is a significant factor in determining the planet's target happiness.
* Allegiance of a species to an empire is determined parly from things the empire has done and the "ethos" of the species, which causes the species to consider some imperial acts to be favourable, and other acts unfavourable
* Allegiance of a species to an empire may also depend on "social engineering" type settings or choices the player can make, such as what government style the empire uses, which the "ethos" of the species may make favourable or unfavourable to the species

* Allegiance of a species to an empire may also depend on the "rank" of species within an empire
* A species' "rank" in an empire could alternatively affect the target happiness of planets of that species in the empire, and not affect allegiance

* Allegiance of a species to an empire does not depend on the allegiance of the species to other empires, or what diplomatic relationships the empire has with other empires
* A possible exception to this is species that like or dislike certain types of treaties in general as part of their ethos, but this would be a general response to treaties or lack thereof, and not a specific response to a particular treaty with a particular empire
* Target happiness of a planet can depend on the foreign relations of the empire that owns the planet, and the species on the planet's allegiance to other empires

Krikkitone probably won't be very happy with some of the above, but I haven't seen anything that indicates the above would be unworkable. That said, I find his posts very hard to follow, so might be missing something, and would suggest a clear / concise description of the problem if this is the case. I also reiterate this post and would prefer to keep the user-visible and immediate under-the-hood mechanics of meters on planets consistent, and don't see a need to add a new special calcuated-from-other-things value for this case.

[Krikkitone]

What makes the above unworkable (or at least highly undesirable without massive kludges) is

Target Happiness being affected by Current Allegiance

That means that Target happiness would have a "current" and "target" value (ie it would have a sudden change and then a gradual return to normal).
This makes it behave completely differently than all other meters and in a way that is counter to its description.

It Also means that a Current Allegiance altering event will not have an Immediate fading impact on Current Happiness, instead current happiness will Slowly feel the impact and then slowly fade away.
If I mass bomb Psilon worlds, MY Psilon worlds won't start feeling the effect until several turns later.

It also has the problem of switching planetary ownership (Allegiance changed, not because of any event that changed any Allegiance values, but because a different Allegiance value is being used)


Here's a simpler system That only involves meters and avioids the "Drifting target" problem

Discontent (a meter on planets, that is totally unrelated and independent of Allegiance)
and
Allegiance (a meter for each species-empire relationship)

If Allegiance < Discontent there are increased riots/rebellions, etc
If Allegiance > Discontent there is increased spy resistance, or whatever

Discontent would be all localized things (This planet was bombed, etc.)
Allegiance would be all species-empire specific things (This empire is too elitist, This empire killed our people, This empire made us overlords, etc.)

Essentially it would be like Stealth v. Detection

Both could be limited to 0-100, although there would probably have to be some forces that kept discontent up (ie 0 Discontent should only be possible in unique situations or endgame type techs)

You could also switch it so that it was
Happiness (positive local)
and
Hatred (negative species wide)

so the only thing that needs to REALLY be changed is

* Allegiance of a species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet is a significant factor in determining the planet's target happiness

and replace it with
* Allegiance has no effect on planetary Happiness
* Allegiance of the species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet interacts with Happiness on that planet to determine things like degree of rebel activity, vulnerability to espionage, and posibly other effects.

Allegiance and Happiness meters would then be displayed side by side on a planet so that you can easily see which is currently and target wise greater, or how close it is to being greater.


I do also disagree with making Allegiance totally independent of diplomatic action, but that is workable. (although a terrible loss)

But I more strongly disagree with making Happiness dependent on diplomatic action, because Happiness carries over from one empire to the next.

[Geoff the Medio]

Target Happiness being affected by Current Allegiance

That means that Target happiness would have a "current" and "target" value (ie it would have a sudden change and then a gradual return to normal).

You seem to be assuming that allegiance will have current and target values. My previous post says allegiance *may* have a target value or growth rate, which means it *may* also have just a current value. Depending how "alignment" or other factors are calculated, allegiance could be fairly stable, except when an event occurs that causes it to change.

Given that, your point could be said to argue for just having current allegiance, and not have it smoothly or continuously change value each turn, except when a significant event or situation difference causes allegiance to change.

It Also means that a Current Allegiance altering event will not have an Immediate fading impact on Current Happiness, instead current happiness will Slowly feel the impact and then slowly fade away.

That is an intentional feature of having both current and target values to the happiness meter and, to a lesser degree, of having separate allegiance and happiness values.

If I mass bomb Psilon worlds, MY Psilon worlds won't start feeling the effect until several turns later.

Is this necessarily a problem? Happiness is supposed to "local", so it's not unreasonable that a planet that wasn't bombed might take several turns to become unhappy after other planets are bombed. Bombing a planet directly would still cause an immediate drop in its current happiness.

It also has the problem of switching planetary ownership (Allegiance changed, not because of any event that changed any Allegiance values, but because a different Allegiance value is being used)

The problem you're pointing out here isn't clear.

If it's about happiness changes when a planet changes ownership, giving a boost or reduction to current happiness if the new owner has higher or lower allegiance should provide suitable results, and would be relatively simple to implement.

so the only thing that needs to REALLY be changed is

* Allegiance of a species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet is a significant factor in determining the planet's target happiness

and replace it with
* Allegiance has no effect on planetary Happiness
* Allegiance of the species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet interacts with Happiness on that planet to determine things like degree of rebel activity, vulnerability to espionage, and posibly other effects.

This is an interesting suggestion. Assuming everything else in my previous post is the same, how would the example of an empire bombing planets of a species and the effect on other planets of that species that the empire controls work? Your previous concern was that it would take several turns for a bombing-induced drop in allegiance to propegate to current happiness values, but if there is no direct connection between allegiance of a species to an empire, and the current or target happiness meters of planets of that species in the empire, then there would seem to be *no* effect on the happiness of an empire's planets in response to bombing of that race elsewhere. This isn't necessarily a problem, as "happiness" and "allegiance" can be quite independent concepts, although we'll need to be careful in our definitions, and in chosing the consequences of low values of happiness or allegiance on planets for it to make sense to players.

Due to the following point, however, I would still suggest still having differences in a planet's species' allegiances to old and new owners cause a one-time change in current happiness when that planet changes owners.

But I more strongly disagree with making Happiness dependent on diplomatic action, because Happiness carries over from one empire to the next.

My previous post has foreign relations affecting the target happiness meters of planets in an empire. This would not carry over if the planet changed ownership. There would be some transient effects on the current happiness after the ownership change due to what the target happiness was before the owership change, but as above, explicitly modifying the target happiness according to the difference in allegiances would mitigate this problem.

[Krikkitone]

so the only thing that needs to REALLY be changed is

* Allegiance of a species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet is a significant factor in determining the planet's target happiness

and replace it with
* Allegiance has no effect on planetary Happiness
* Allegiance of the species on a planet to the empire that owns the planet interacts with Happiness on that planet to determine things like degree of rebel activity, vulnerability to espionage, and posibly other effects.

This is an interesting suggestion. Assuming everything else in my previous post is the same, how would the example of an empire bombing planets of a species and the effect on other planets of that species that the empire controls work? Your previous concern was that it would take several turns for a bombing-induced drop in allegiance to propegate to current happiness values, but if there is no direct connection between allegiance of a species to an empire, and the current or target happiness meters of planets of that species in the empire, then there would seem to be *no* effect on the happiness of an empire's planets in response to bombing of that race elsewhere. This isn't necessarily a problem, as "happiness" and "allegiance" can be quite independent concepts, although we'll need to be careful in our definitions, and in chosing the consequences of low values of happiness or allegiance on planets for it to make sense to players.

The idea that Bombing a planet would have no result in the "happiness" of other planet of the race in my model is irrelevant, because in my model

Happiness doesn't DO anything (by itself)

Essentially an event that increases +10 Happiness on a world will have EXACTLY the same effect (on the world)
as a +10 increase to the Allegiance of the species of the world.

So if I bomb a Psilon world
That world gets a -10 Happiness (or +10 Discontent)
Psilons get a -2 Allegiance to me

So I get
-12 on that world
-2 on all other worlds

to the stat I actually care about (Allegaince + Happiness or Allegiance-Discontent)... individually they are worthless... Just like population and productivity are worthless alone, total production is the important thing.. but it isn't "Tracked" just reported)

(That was the idea behind the 'discontent' v. Allegiance.. ie a 20 Discontent v. 40 Allegiance world acts exactly the same as a 70 Discontent v. 90 Allegiance world).. because I felt that would be easier to understand than Adding the two amounts
Like Detection and Stealth... the only role of stealth is to counter detection, and vice versa.

The only difference is that a +10 to happiness (or -10 to discontent) will carry over in the case of a change of ownership, the allegiance will automatically change.

Due to the following point, however, I would still suggest still having differences in a planet's species' allegiances to old and new owners cause a one-time change in current happiness when that planet changes owners.

That might be good, a "honeymoon period"/"initial shock" that Overcompensates (as the allegiance change itself compensates fully) and then fades away.. a way to help Liberators and punish Conquerors

but

But I more strongly disagree with making Happiness dependent on diplomatic action, because Happiness carries over from one empire to the next.

My previous post has foreign relations affecting the target happiness meters of planets in an empire. This would not carry over if the planet changed ownership. There would be some transient effects on the current happiness after the ownership change due to what the target happiness was before the owership change, but as above, explicitly modifying the target happiness according to the difference in allegiances would mitigate this problem.

Actually changing happiness based on allegiance change wouldn't counter 'carried over diplomacy effects' at ALL. Because Allegiance differences have nothing to do with "diplomatic happiness" (because diplomacy doesn't affect allegiance in your model)


Also, as for affects to allegience Never fading away? are you serious, no actions that affect allegiance only for a while? If I kill some population with collateral damage in the first 100 turns It will be remembered till the end of the game?

If allegiance Only depended on "Status" and "Ethos-Alignment-'social settings'" then it might make sense, but if attacking something, or giving away something in a trade deal, has permanent effects on Allegiance it would become unnecessarily constricting*

*note: something does not need an explicit "target" value to have a target value.. if it behaves in such a way that the change in the 'current' value (from one turn to another) is connected in anyway to what the current value is, then you effectively have a "target value".. any effect that is not permanent or 'as long as you keep doing this ie status, etc.' leads to target values.

[Geoff the Medio]

...in my model...

I don't want to have another long series of discussions about yet another possible model for citizen simulation, unless unfixable major problems are noted with what I posted above. So far no issues seem to have been major and unfixable.

My previous post has foreign relations affecting the target happiness meters of planets in an empire. This would not carry over if the planet changed ownership. There would be some transient effects on the current happiness after the ownership change due to what the target happiness was before the owership change, but as above, explicitly modifying the target happiness according to the difference in allegiances would mitigate this problem.

...changing happiness based on allegiance change wouldn't counter 'carried over diplomacy effects' at ALL. Because Allegiance differences have nothing to do with "diplomatic happiness" (because diplomacy doesn't affect allegiance in your model)

The concern was that if a population on a planet owned by empire 1 likes empire 2, and empire 1 is at war with empire 2, the population on the planet would be unhappy due to a penalty to target happiness due to its owner's (empire 1) being at war with an empire (2) that the species likes. This would mean that if empire 2 captures the planet, the current happiness would be very low - this is the "carried over diplomacy effect". However, if / since the species allegies to empire 2 is higher than empire 1, when the planet ownership changes from 1 to 2, the planet would get a happiness boost, counteracting the dipomacy effect.

Also, as for affects to allegience Never fading away? are you serious, no actions that affect allegiance only for a while? If I kill some population with collateral damage in the first 100 turns It will be remembered till the end of the game?

I didn't really intend to imply that in the recent posts, but I did mention it earlier in the thread. I still don't see what the problem with it would be, or why it would be "annoying" as Bigjoe5 put it. It would mean that some actions by an empire would have semi-permanent effects on races' allegiance to that empire. So, if you mistreat a race, you'll have to do stuff later to make them like your empire more to compensate, or deal with their hate. (And presumably if this was the case, there would be things an empire could do to gain bonuses to allegiance from species, in order to allow compensation for previous offenses.)