Social Screen – politics, succession, magic, gender, etc

Interesting idea. It reminds me of the social engineering gameplay mechanic in Alpha Centauri.

Fascenating...... there are logistical problems, to be sure, but this would be fairly easy to impliment.

And your English is better than that of most of the Americans I go to school with.

for Patriarchal, I think military/production bonuses and an *economical* penalty of some sort.

I think Theocratic religion should provide Stability and Loyalty bonuses (perhaps better priest units)

Organized religion could provide extra Production bonuses and Morale bonuses (less worried about causing offense)

and Freedom of religion could provide influence bonuses and research bonuses, perhaps cultural bonuses as well (probably rare or no priest units available if using this option ... although having rare priest units of all religions being possible, would be kinda cool ... even if they are *weaker* versions of the theocracy priests, unless they are some heroic adventurer that stumbled upon your nation ... in which case they would be stronger and more heroic ... think a priest/disillusioned priest that sees the *true* path of his religion, and it does not include discrimintaion but is more about all-harmony and such ... and he fights with greater faith and determination than the high priests of his former theocratic civ. Or something like that)

Nice ideas. I hope there could be system reflecting (even if only to some degree) such specialization of the Sovereign. One thing I would like to mention, is that the system should be ... simplified. I know, I know - don't dumb this game down. I mean - let the players (especially the newcomers) to clearly understand what do they choose. Example:

Magic

• Secret (Magic is a secret closed guarded by the sovereign, only he and his chosen can practice it.)
  
  • Bonus to magical power of the sovereign unit (since he hoards artifacts, spells and ancient secrets)
  • Penalty to overall magical research.
  • Lower chance of spellcasting heroes.
  • More expensive spellcasting units.

• Mage’s guild (Guild chartered by the Sovereign where he teaches the adepts the ways of magic.)
  • Balanced option.
    

• Freedom of magic (Anyone can practice magic, even the innkeeper might know a few cantrips to help running his business.)
  • Opposite of the secret option.

Religion

• Theocratic (The sovereign is the only representative of the gods/god, or a god himself.)
  • Slower technological development (Most people are close minded, thus not very interested in understanding the world better. Come one - our sovereign is a god, why do we need any technology?).
  • Money & resource income (People happily support their god and offer what they have).
    
    
• Organized religion (There is an organized/official religion and all the people and the sovereign himself follow a priest cast in religious/spiritual matters.)
  • Balanced option.
    
    
• Free religion (Anyone can follow any belief, the sovereign does not interfere with religion.)
  • Faster technological dev. (People are free, thus strive to know everything about the world)
  • Money & resource penalty (While people are free, they can also cheat and choose to spend their money wherever they want).
    

Gender-based government

• Patriarchal (Man rule, only they inherit, etc.)
  • Military bonus (Man are more aggressive).
  • Production penalty (They are not to organized, though).
    

• Equality (Equal rights to both genders.)
  • No bonuses.
  • No penalties.
    

• Matriarchal (Women rule, only they inherit, etc.)
  • Production bonus.
  • Military penalty.
    

@ ikros

The social engineering is the big inspiration. A simple screen that have great impact on the game. And unlike civics on civ4 you don’t end the game always with the same setup. All options are viable and competitive depending on the faction and on the game style.

@scoutdog

I don’t know a thing about coding or programming, but I also belive it should be simple. The hardest part, I think, will be balancing. No option should always be better than the other and should give a distinct “feel”.

@Tasunke

That’s the idea. The bonuses penalties should really make you feel that you are running a different kind of empire or kingdom.

@red1939

That was only a rough suggestion I posted. I’ve been thinking about it, and for simplicity shake, each of the pre-made factions could have their own combination of social settings, so the player could jump right away on the game. An empire customization screen would be available for those who want to personalize the kingdom.

Keep posting people, maybe is not to late for this idea to make it’s way into the game!

In such a case, it would be great to have all factions ascribe, in some way, to these. Much like Alpha Centauri, if you choose one way, those who follow other paths may or may not like you, or may not care.

Example...your closest neighbor is a Sovereign, named Mike. Now, Mike loves magic...to the point that he hoards all that he can fine (IE: Secret path). He meets your kingdom, where anyone and everyone can learn magic. Likely, two things will go through Mike's mind. First, here's someone else who knows magic, and that magic belongs to Mike. Secondly, if everyone over there can learn magic, and if his people meet your people, his people will want to learn magic. Therefore, he has to eliminate you, as you are a great threat.

For religion, I'd love to be able to do a sort of design-a-religion thing. Wouldn't need to be complicated - a small window, which has a place for you to make up the name of your national deity, five options (pure good, good, neutral, evil, pure evil) each which impact how others view you, and what benefits you may gain. Nothing terribly vast or overpowering...good nations gain a boost to diplomacy or something, while those who are evil want to spread darkness and pain in the name of their god. Naming yourself deity, or prophet, would yield a bonus in loyalty and zeal to follow you. Religions, naturally, would clash...neutral gets along with good and evil, with small tensions. The pures hate each other, tolerate neutral, and would align with their moderations.

They wouldn't even have to be hard to implement. From what little I know of coding, just adding a line or two (if religion > 3, you hate) would be all that's needed. The idea itself is, I think, a must-have for a game like this. One of my favorite aspects of Alpha Centauri was when someone started barking at me for not following their likes. We'd get along for a while, and then I'd get to back up my beliefs with force of arms. And my best allies, always, were from the same pool as those I had similar tastes with.

yea, Civics (especially those closely tied to a Sovereigns personal view, like hoarding magic) should have diplomatic penalties ... although I would like to avoid things like unhappiness countries that don't run republic ... instead of feeding unhappy citizens, running a Republic could greatly increase your prestige, which might have the effect of those "unhappy citizens" merely immigrating out of the country.

Now, if to stop this effect someone decides to close their borders, there could be unhappiness and trade penalties (quite) due to closed borders. No greater example than the Berlin Wall and the Iron curtain (although there are other examples throughout history ... and if Elemental is based upon migration then even more-so it fits into this game setting)

I loved this in Alpha Centauri.

I would hope it would be done better if incorporated into Elemental though. I'd like to see more than just 3 options for each for instance. But some way of tailoring your society would certainly be fun.

5 is usually a good number, but just whatever allows for strategic decisions. While "mirrored" civics do have a nice simplicity to them, and avoid "super strats" (sometimes) ... I think it would be more interesting if each civic was its own unique approach ... although I totally agree with a mirror effect for something straightforward like Matriarchy vs Patriarchy ... but both are lineage-based nobility upon gender. Is it not possible they are both more similar to each other than aristocracy?

For instance, aristocracy could focus on prestige and rank (or something) ... like maybe greater bonuses for levelling, but higher exp requirements, and royalty actually have lower exp requirements ... or something, and it costs alot of gold to adopt someone into royalty.

Meanwhile, Matriarchy and Patriarchy both increase military and prodution, while Patria gives much more of a military bonus and Matria gives much more of a production bonus (and perhaps a spy/espionage bonus)

@ Nathikal

I have totally forgotten the diplomatic aspect! Well remembered! Frogboy has stated that diplomacy will be something special, we told we will get none of those “Sorry but I have to destroy you” when everything was fine between the player and the A.I.

Making social choices relevant on the diplomatic front will make diplomacy even richer!

@ Tansuke

Yes, the problem with the civics is that some are more advanced them others, and you have to take them to remain competitive towards the end of the game. I picture a system where you could remain a despotic ruler the entire game without being in disadvantage with those players that choose a more democratic system. You would only get different bonuses.

Yes, the diplomatic effect doesn’t have to be mirror based. In fact two magic hoarding Sovereigns might be more inclined to hat each other since they both compete for magical exclusivity. The exact effects are a matter of balance once we convince Brad to put this into the game!

@ Rishkith

3 is just a suggestion, if SD buys the idea I’m pretty sure they will make an excellent system!

Three is a fine base...but I really do see around 4 or 5 being a safe bet. They'd follow, likely, the usual pattern - Pure X, kind of X, halfway, kind of Y, Pure Y. Despotic, military tribune, council, parliament, democracy...something to that effect. From left to right, it goes from the Sovereign holding all the power, to the people holding all the power, and the quantity of those people increase.

Likewise, I can see a few unique techs appearing based on your choices...those who are despotic would find new ways to control their people, and perhaps their magic could even get a flavor of control (IE: spells meant to control or summon gain power for despots, spells meant to protect gain power as a democracy). Despots would likely gain power in the productions department, while those who are democratic would earn diplomatic benefits. And, as always, those along the middle of the road gain a little bit of each.

For the openness of magic, it'd likely go from Sovereign <- Elites <- Nobility -> Mage's Guild -> Innate or something of that nature. While the left holds vast power for the Sovereign alone, the right would make magic so commonplace that it's an innate part of society.

I think this would work best if you were penalized, to a degree, for changing your beliefs often. For example, if you've been running Innate for so long, your people will see magic as part of their daily lives. Change it to Mage's Guild, they'd be a bit ticked, but not too unhappy...but make it all yours, and they'd likely be furious. It's like having roads every day for your whole life, only to have them taken away (somehow...). Things wouldn't end well.

This also makes it so that a Sovereign can't alter beliefs left and right. You can make changes, certainly, just do them gradually. Or, just make them set-in-stone, so that once you've made your choice, you must stick with it...but I, personally, think that having to gradually shift over would be more realistic, not to mention simpler overall. If I was set to Sovereign-only for magic for a bit, I may want to change it over to Innate after a while. Being set in stone doesn't seem fair to the player.

Random nitpick: I never understood this. Why would democratic nations earn diplomatic benefits? Sure, when dealing with other diplomatic nations, I can see it. When dealing with non-diplomatic nations? Nah uh. In all honesty, in the real world I'm of the opinion that nations are most effective at dealing with other nations of similar governance. Democratic nations tend to look down upon despotic countries as backwards and inhumane (which does indeed appear to be the case more often than not, but then I grew up in a democracy :P). Why, though, would a despotic nation give a rat's ass more about what his democratic neighbor has to see than what his other, despotic, neighbor thinks? In reality I think he'd care more about what the despot thinks (assume all else equal of course), because the despot could unilaterally decide to go to war or otherwise antagonize him, while the democratic nation would essentially have to convince its people to make sacrifices in order to do the same. (The despot's people would of course also have to make sacrifices, but their opinions aren't [as] relevant!).

Giving democracies super diplomatic abilities is nonsensical... It wouldn't be the end of the worst, of course, but it's one of those things that have always bothered me

Democratic nations would have more innovative bonuses, and perhaps economical bonuses.

Monarchies or Empires would have more cultural/influence/prestige bonuses

and Despotism would have greater production and military bonuses, rabble rabble rah!

and a Combination of Empire and Despotism, Like Imperial Guard/Imperium of Man/Das Imperium, or some sort, could be great at raising large-population low quality troops or some-sort

PigeonPigeon,

I think that diplomacy goes alongside Democratic style governing because it shows a willingness for cooperation and compromise. As you said, a despotic government could wake up one morning and declare war without any sort of debate. That amount of power lies in the hands of one. If one person has all the power, how diplomatic would they be? It's like the typical only child, who stamps his/her feet and gets whatever s/he wants (granted, I'm an only child and I don't stamp feet, but still...)

Further, you seem to be of the mind that the Despotic and Democratic sides would tolerate each other. Based on the workings, if Democratic is pure popular vote and Despotic is pure unilateral control, the two are opposing poles. It doesn't matter, therefore, if the Democratic leader is the best speaker in the world or the most diplomatic being to ever exist, because the two factions would already have an intense dislike of each other because of beliefs. The chances of the two of them working together? Aside from perhaps a very small honeymoon period where information is gathered and defenses prepared, they'd likely go to war or at least be at each other's throats 99% of the time. Why? As you said, the democrat would look at the despot and think them a barbaric madman.

I'm reminded of going along the Communist trail for social prefs in Alpha Centauri. Pravin Lal, leader of the democratic faction, would often open communications just to tell me how foul I was, and threatened war if I didn't change (I was an affront to the rights of the people or somesuch) until eventually we WENT to war. It didn't matter that my military was better, or that he was the better diplomat. Altogether, he hated me because of how I treated my people, I hated him for forcing his opinion, and we went to war.

That's the point of the social status. If you want to make friends, those friends are going to be the ones who agree with you on most things. And by having multiple factors to call upon (rulership, rights of magic, economy, militaristic beliefs and so on) nations would eventually develop tensions against one another. Two Democratic nations may be totally opposite in their beliefs in who should learn magic, or taxation and the economy, or the strength of the military. If things don't change, they may still go to war - that tension would eventually be enough to do it. And therein lies the fun.

I don't see how this relates to the rest of your post. I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post, but this paragraph doesn't seem to fit in.

Also, being more willing to engage in diplomacy needn't make one more effective at it. Those are two totally independent things. Just because you try talking to a despot doesn't mean he's any more likely to listen to you. Democratic nations tend to find it easier to negotiate and compromise because, ultimately, they tend to have similar goals and ideals. You basically said this in your post - it is the goals/ideals/beliefs that make two nations more likely to listen to each other, not the governance. If the governance is similar then there is already some common ground; if their governances are pretty much opposite, then not so much.

So perhaps it should work like this: democratic (and other 'popular' forms of government) might be more amenable to other governments of similar types, while despotic governments and the like wouldn't have any such 'alignment' bonus, even towards other governments of the same type? (Although in the real world despotic nations seem to largely stick together, whether because of the attitude of the free world to them or due to something more fundamental, I don't claim to know).

I think this paragraph shows something that seems to me to be wrong in many TBS games. A nation shouldn't be going to war with another nation with a superior military unless there is a very good reason.

A democratic nation trying to force a despotic nation to change it ways isn't a good enough reason. If the despotic nation is stronger, going to war with it won't change much, at best the democratic nation will be forced to accept peace fast enough, at worst it will loose land or even be destroyed and even more people would be under the despotic nations control.

What a good enough reason might be? I'm not really sure... Maybe to get a particular needed resource from a neighbour and once that mission has been completed, the weaker nation should try to get peace as fast as possible.

If you can get a few friendly nations to gang up on the stronger nation, so that the combined friendly forces are stronger, it should be fine off course.

Something else this made me think about, when the AI tries to compare military might between two nations, it shouldn't just consider the military might, but also the economic might / constructing posibility of both nations. In GalCivII I seldom build any warships until I was attacked. By that time the production capabilities of my planets were good enough to start building up a military might capable of destroying the attacking forces and even attacking / conquering the enemy planets.

I guess the kind and amount of bonuses would only be defined later in the beta, like other balance issues.

But we must first convince SD to actually put the social feature in the game.

Anyone knows if the developers still check this forum for new ideas??