 |
| |
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi Twinge.
Although I'm "in charge" of the govt part, I've been away for a couple of months, checking the forums like twice a month. I won't be able to participate intensively in Clash until March/April. So please be patient with me. In the meantime, I strongly recommend aiming to Axi all questions about the govt model, since he's the co-author and understands all the details.
On to your points:
Majorities/Minorities: I think I chose very badly the names for these categories of people since many people in the forums have taken the "typical/usual" meaning of them rather than following the definition I put in the model. That's I guess the source for your disagreement.
Majorities are all the people who can participate in the govt. Minorities are all the people who don't participate at all in the govt.
Based on that definition, it's senseless to say that minorities can/should have some level of power. Because if they do have some power, then they're in majorities, by definition.
Using the same definition, your US case is solved: White and black people is within majorities. The problem you see is because your using your "usual" idea for the term "minorities" and therefore you're considering blacks within minorities.
As I said, it's a problem of wording that I foolishly created because of my choice of names. But once one uses the majorities and minorities terms according to the definitions, everything works and has sense.
It should be noticed that the model doesn't handle societies where different people have different levels of participation in govt. That is, the usual concept of minorities (as with blacks in the US today) is not handled. Once a group of people has earned the chance to participate in govt, they do it in equal terms as any other. This was decided so only to simplify the model.
"True" Democracy: It's already included in the sense that it's perfectly possible to put it in and it'd work just like you say. But through conversations here in the forums I've noticed people don't like much the idea of loosing control of their civ, so although it's possible, maybe in the standard game you'll see a democratic regime that wouldn't be so different from a tyranny. Fortunately, the way the systems works, makes it extremely easy to customize this for player's preferences.
Discrimination: I'm not sure what's your criticism here. I'll take your last phrase: "Your Civilization hates all Asians, but they're still fine because the belive in Jedaism". I suppose you're asking what happens if people is discriminated by one side, but they're not on the other. The answer is if you're discriminated in any way, then you're discriminated. It's really how hate "works". If I hate you because of your ethnicity, I don't care if you have a religion I tolerate. I hate you anyway, because you have something I hate (your ethnicity).
Representation and Knowledge Level: It's very important to have both variables because they model different things. Although in some cases like the one you mention a certain effect can be achieved using any of the two variables, in other cases you need a clear difference to get another effect.
KL handles popular knowledge about a type of regime, while Representation handles how biased people in govt is regarding the known regimes.
Imagine the USSR. While the people in govt was anti-democratic, the democratic system was known by the people. This allows the game to model how pissed off people can be because their country is not a democracy (assuming they like democracy), while still keep the govt line anti-democratic. If we collapse both variables into one we can't have this effect. Controlling it through the KL alone as you propose, would make people unaware of the existence of an alternative system, making them more passive.
It's important to have both because they play different roles.
quote:
And on the negotiating thing, there should be some sort of limit to how often you can do it or disadvantages to doing it often in a short time.
|
doing what? a negotiation? why should negotiations create disadvantages? The US govt works like that every single day!! (remember that in this model a govt consists of all institutions/people involved in defining govt policies, so the US govt in clash includes the senate, which is an instance of continous negotiations).
The "negotiation" in the model is the system through which changes ocurr in the govt structure and its policies. Maybe it's again a bad choice for a name. The negotiation is the decision-making process that involves the ruler and any other entity/person with a piece of power. It must take place all the time. It's the only way in real life to produce a decision when the govt is not run by a single guy.
I hope all that helped.
Welcome to Clash, Twinge!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi, Guys:
Can I suggest 'enfranchised' and 'disenfranchised', for the two terms?
I believe that describes the split accurately.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Twinge
|
|
Ok, I read through the whole thing and don't remeber ever reading majorities and minorities defined clearly... so that clears things up.
quote:
The answer is if you're discriminated in any way, then you're discriminated. It's really how hate "works". If I hate you because of your ethnicity, I don't care if you have a religion I tolerate. I hate you anyway, because you have something I hate (your ethnicity).
|
That's not what I saw defined in the model! It looked to me like they had to be discrimated in both religion & ethnically to be "refused". You might of changed it or I might of read it wrong, but that's why I found it wrong... I read it as I said: If you have 10 ED & 0 RD then people are still fine with you. As I said, this might of been changed, but that's how I read it.
And on the negotiation thing: It just seems like you could abuse changing it too often. (Drastic changes, anyway) I mean, if you could just change the settings every turn and make it one turn a lot of settings all the way up and the next all the way down and the next all the way up again, just seems a bit.... weird.
quote:
01001101 01100101 01110010 01110010 01111001 00100000 01000011 01101000 01110010 01101001 01110011 01110100 01101101 01100001 01110011 00100001
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi Mark. Yes I think too the best way to go is changing names to avoid confusion. I don't know what would be the best choice. I don't know those words F_Smith's proposes... (need my english dictionary!!!  )
About the discrete changes in ED & RD, you're right. Continious variables would give us a better feel. I admit I don't like either the way I managed discrimination. In the future I'll re-think that part and make some proposals for an alternative system. For now, at least we have something concrete that works.
Twinge: I recall the definitions were there... Maybe I'm wrong. And I confirm: just one-sided discrimination is enough to be considered "out". If there was another thing in the document, that's an error.
About negotiation, it'd be really strange to change everything one turn and then again the next because those variables are meant to be grand strategy issues. Anyway, it wouldn't work. That's because the govt profile takes time to change to its new shape. As stated in the model, the player plays the ruler, setting his preferences, while it's the negotiation method (taking into account ruler's prefs and classes prefs) the process that makes the govt evolve. And this negotiation takes some turns. The model actually forces the process to last some years in order to avoid bizarre effects. Of course the player will have the option to make some "brutal" changes using the Special Actions, at some risk and cost, but in general things are smooth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jordan A
|
|
Im slowling working my way thought the library of knowledge you guys have created
I came upon the Government Model and there is something bothering about the power division
The curch is given 3% control, now this seems hardly reasonable, if your not familiar the catholic church post roman empire pre rennesance basicaly had more power than the king himself. The power (and subsequent abuse of power) was insane! Howerver early roman times, before emperor constantine making christianity the official roman religion the emporor was in fact the one and only god, so his ruling was in fact the ruling of god. This is also the case with egyptian.
And as you have more than likley noticed the control the church has in present time is dwindling.
My proposed solution is that as you advance through the different stages in history the poitical power is varied, different amounts for each period.
The user could be informed of this as he progresses, so that he changes his style of play. This could also keep the player on his toes when it comes to keeping his followers loyal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan A on 04-30-2001 10:37 PM
The curch is given 3% control, now this seems hardly reasonable, if your not familiar the catholic church post roman empire pre rennesance basicaly had more power than the king himself. The power (and subsequent abuse of power) was insane! Howerver early roman times, before emperor constantine making christianity the official roman religion the emporor was in fact the one and only god, so his ruling was in fact the ruling of god. This is also the case with egyptian.
|
Your point is quite good for Europe Middle Ages, because Church had power. However, it is mainly because the Pope had also a lot of military and land power. The other examples I don't like because church power is not god-power. In the Roman empire, the church(es) had very little power. In Egypt, they had some, but it was often antagonist to the Pharaoh's.
Here is a suggestion: Church power depends on 2 factors: imortance of religion in the EG, and "divine" aspect of the ruler.
I mean: Importance of religion changes over time, and varies with EGs.
If the leader is "divine" (Pharaoh, Emperor, Queen of England), he is the leader of the church, so part of the religious influence is given to him rather than the church.
This doen't answer your concern wholly because I think that the fact that priests came from nobility gave them more power in the Middle Ages and I don't know how to model that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:13
|
|
Well, the changes that you have done in this version are mainly in model organisation, generalisation and terminology. What I would like to see is the missing parts of the model beeing added most of them were missing in v.2 too).
Concerning the worker's PB, I insist that we should include the capability of appointing them political power. Historically this only happened during the short terms of the proletarian revolutions, where the nobility and capitalists were suppressed (Paris Commune - 1870, Russian Soviets 1917-1921), Catalonia 1936) and replaced by ruling formations consisting explicitly of the working class or were at least forced to grant more political power to both the greater public and to the working class in particular, in order to appease them (France 1848-1850, where the king was replaced by a constitutional convention, where all social classes were represented; however there was the "Luxemburg committee" instituted, which was the instrument of the working class for creating legislation and institutions that would benefit the working class in particular. Of course this commitee lost it's power quickly, it's members were all arrested with various pretexts and it was ultimately abolished after the June 1848 revolt.)
So it's not only in Marxist revolutionary theory that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is introduced; it is more or less existant in every society with class-conscient workers. Labor is the most important factor of production (because it is the only one that has it's own free will) and when it acts coherently, it can wrench a big portion of power out of the hands of the other classes. Even in our societies, a successful general strike can bring a government to it's knees and dictate policies; this sort of thing is happening right now in my country, since a very strict insurance law was introduced by the government.
I know that these things I have recited are not new to you, but it's the first thing that struck my eye 9wht else would it be?  )
Oh and besides, I'm for the scientists power too, as an option for the scenario builder. Hail to the illuminati!
------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
[This is my reply to Yoav's comments on the govt model made in the social model's thread]
A tiny thing first: The "RCM" doesn't exist in version 3, so don't worry about that problem.
Now to your main criticism: It's true, the biggest problem with the govt model was that the player was forced to "cheat" and to go into trial and error in the interface to get what he wanted. To solve it, the following system was created:
Step1: PB's negotiate (weighted sum) policies, w/o considering the ruler. A "preliminary" govt profile is so created.
Step2: The preliminary govt profile is "presented" to the ruler. Let's assume PrivateProperty was presented as 40% to the ruler. The ruler is now able to modify this value, making it more similar to what he wants. The magnitude in which he can alter the presented value depends on his political power. Let's assume he has 65% pol.power and assume that level of power gives him a maximum modifier of 20. So, the ruler can choose any value for PP in the range [40-20, 40+20]. Suppose the ruler wanted a PP of 55. If so, the policy is actually set at 55 because the value is within the valid range. If the ruler'd have wanted 70%, then the policy is set to the maximum he can obtain: 60. His power is not sufficient to get what he wanted.
The larger ruler's pol.power, the wider the range (the less important is what society wants in the final setting) and vise versa.
The system is saying that the rest actors decide a "reference" the ruler has to take into account. He's expected to choose a value near that reference. The less despotic he is, the more forced he is to respect that reference value. As his despotism grows, the less important the reference is.
Doing this there's no necessity of trial and error and there's no point in inputting numbers the player doesn't really want. At the same time the main philosophy of the model is preserved: the ruler won't be always all mighty and other actors can in fact help determine govt's policies.
The system you proposed is similar because you're giving the ruler the chance to pick a number in a range that was determined by the rest of political actors. But I think the current system is better because, as you yourself said it, in your system ruler's pol.power is irrelevant and I have to admit I don't like ruler's pol.power playing no role. I'd say the current system is just one step forward from your proposal.
what do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I think the median system takes pol power into account.
E.G. Consider you have 5 voters for something, they vote for values, say : 0,10,20,40,60. The median is 20, but no polpwer taken into account.
Now if you give polpowers and look where half of the PP is, you get different results: If all have 20%, the result will be 20. Here are results based on different PP repartitions:
PP 10% 10% 20% 30% 30%: Median gives 40.
PP 30% 30% 20% 10% 10%: Median gives 10.
Thus the polpwer has an effect. Actually, the only thing which bothers me is that 51% polpower means you always get what you want with this system, so in a democracy, you'd probably have very low polpower. This seems realistic to me since, for example, in France, the current government probably has no more than 30%, getting the 20 remaining from "allies".
roquijad, how do you compute your max modifier? Is it detailed on a web page?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoav Sissman
|
|
roquijad:
I see things completely differently.
quote:
Now to your main criticism: It's true, the biggest problem with the govt model was that the player was forced to "cheat" and to go into trial and error in the interface to get what he wanted. |
I hardly consider this to be the biggest problem.
What you bring up here is an interface issue, and your solution only addresses the interface problem. Instead of having the player try-and-error his way every turn to get the policy he wants by 'cheating' the system that grants bigger effect to extreme factions, he just input the value he 'really' wants, and perhaps lets the system cheat for him.
quote:
Let's assume he has 65% pol.power and assume that level of power gives him a maximum modifier of 20. |
I must join LDiCesare's question here; how do you calculate the size of the modifier?
It can't possibly always be the modifier the player can reach using try-and error, because that modifier won't generally be equal in both directions. FE if the preliminary government profile consists of 40% PP and the ruler have 25% power, he will be able to fiddle with the actual PP% and push it as low as 30% (by inputting 0% in the ruler preferences) or as high as 55% (by inputting 100%). This means that the player can raise the PP% by up to 15% but lower it by only as much as 10%. The total boundary of control the ruler has will also be equal to his rate of political power, but its allocation between the two directions changes with the preliminary government profile. 
I don't see much sense in enabling the ruler to act within a special set of rules; I think that he should have the same ability to nominally influence the DNPs that any other PB would have (I'm not talking about his goons here).
Also we should remember, that since the weighted-average system rewards extreme political powers by granting them more influence, it is probable that if we decide to use it, every political power will use the same try-and-error method that the player would have wanted to use. FE a marginal political power would also want to use his 'preferences menu' and set his policy on each DNP to 0% if his desired percent is lower then the existing one, and to 100% otherwise. 
If we calculate the government profile relying on that assumption, the policies we get will tend to be centered around 50%.
quote:
But I think the current system is better because, as you yourself said it, in your system ruler's pol.power is irrelevant and I have to admit I don't like ruler's pol.power playing no role. |
It seems that you have misunderstood my suggested system. I have said:
quote:
Of course that the ruler's chance of having the deciding voice still increases with his relative power. Also in the game there will often be much more then 4 distinct opinions, so the ruler's margin of freedom will increase more gradually when his power grows. |
The larger the ruler's pol.power, the more far away from the median of the preliminary government profile he will be able to push the DNP.
Those are the main gameplay advantages of the median system.
LDiCesare:
quote:
Actually, the only thing which bothers me is that 51% polpower means you always get what you want with this system, |
It may sound unrealistic, but this is indeed often the case in RL.
Think of the French government structures of the 18th and 19th century that assured representation to various social classes. Couldn't, FE, the Aristocracy and Church team up against 'the third class' and ensure it has null de-facto influence (if they ignore the possibility of riots)?
What about modern parliaments? Blocks of parties that include the majority of the house can form a coalition and dictate the government policies (the opposition can offer an alternative to the public, but doesn't have much nominal power).
The only places in where a 51% majority can't do as it wants, is where some constitutional limitation requires greater majority. I believe that those issues can be mostly attributed to the people traditionalism and their reluctance to accept radical changes. It also has a sense of protecting the rights of the political minorities, but since we don't implement such constitutional limitations in our DNPs (for simplicity reasons) we might as well ignore that.
Of course that a majority of more then 51% may be required for certain decisions (abolishing/allowing slavery).
Lord God Jinnai:
quote:
Well i LDiCesare i think that should only be used in cases where there is only a yes/no or 1/2 type question. Like, do we declare war on country X? |
The question of median vs. average is of course only relevant when we don't use a plebiscite for the decision making.
This is an unrelated matter, but I don't think we should use yes/no votes as little as possible, because few opinions can be truly represented in a binary manner.
FE what if the people strongly feel that they want a world wonder, but since they have different preferences no wonder will win a majority whilst the people speculate that their favorite one might be chosen instead? Sure we can present them with a list and choose the wonder with the most votes, but perhaps another WW is preferable because almost everybody consider it to be their second best?
Or in your example, perhaps the people rather war with civ X, but still prefer fighting with Y if the only alternative is maintaining peace?
quote:
It should also not be used in every type of governmental systems, reguardless of pol. pow. |
What do you mean?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
As some of ya'll may remember, this topic and suggestion came up once before. I would love to revist the discussion, because I much prefer the 'voting' system be included.
I personally like a 'voting' system, or '50% + 1 rule' being a govt option. It seems far more realistic in many instances.
The suggested system at the time was that the player can select a 'govt type'. Some govt types -- 'Parliment', maybe for example? -- negotiated values in the way that is suggested for the basic model. But other govt types -- 'Republic', maybe? -- use a 'voting' system. And still other govt types -- dictatorship, or kingdom? -- were just always totally player controlled. Of course both republic and kingdom still have to worry about the effects of ignoring the desires of social classes, riots and happiness and such. But the choice is up to the player, not decided for the player.
That, specifically, is my complaint about the 'negotiated' system. It takes the actual power of govt negotiations out of the hands of the player. All factions have a say, even if the player doesn't want to negotiate with them. I want the option of ignoring the requests of, for example, a radical group of religious extreemists.
And please remember that I only suggest this for 'expert' level govt control. If a player chooses to stick with 'basic' govt, then I would stick with the negotiated system since it's simpler for the player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Yoav: Somehow I'm not getting what you say and you're not getting what I say...
I don't understand where you concluded in my system the ruler's modifier is different in the two possible directions. I'll try to explain my self again:
A given policy P is negotiated between political blocks ignoring the ruler and takes the value X.
As a function of ruler's polpower, we compute a maximum modifier M. The exact function to be used (to respond to LDCesare) isn't important. Just a function that increases with ruler's polpower.
The final value for P is, then, possible to be set by the ruler anywhere in the range [X-M, X+M]. Then, the ruler can increase the preliminary value X in the same magnitude he can decrease it.
The ruler's preferred value does not affect the magnitude of M, just his polpower does, so there's no point in extreming the values (lying to the interface to get what you want). The ruler gains nothing if he puts a value greater or lower than the one he really wants.
Now to your system: Now that I understand it more, I've to say I don't like that sharp shift it promotes. The ruler, when passing from 50% to 51% power goes from a position of negotiation to BOOM! absoulte despotism. I don't like this and even considering your examples and a few others FSmith has given in the past, I find it a lot less realistic than the system I propose.
As FSmith said, this has been a topic of controversy in the past and I suggest those of you interested in the subject to go back and read some of what's already been said. I have to say I haven't seen yet an argument that convince me the "51rule" is good. And here I've to remember to you all that I was trying to create a system that could be used in any type of government. The 51rule looks too specific to me. I don't think we need to create different systems for different types of govts, as FSmith proposes, if one system can work for all and, even better, for all the varieties in between "typical" govt types.
FSmith wrote:
quote:
That, specifically, is my complaint about the 'negotiated' system. It takes the actual power of govt negotiations out of the hands of the player. All factions have a say, even if the player doesn't want to negotiate with them. |
Taking power out of the hands of the player was exactly the idea behind the model. The model is able to simulate scenarios where the ruler doesn't have total power. But at the same time it can model despotic regimes. You just need a suffciently large polpower (the M modifier will grow so much that the X preliminary value becomes largely irrelevant). And you can have all the degrees in between!
I admit both Yoav's system and FSmith's system allow an scenario of "negotiation" and one of "despotism". It's just the radical shift from one to the other that I dislike. I believe one of the great characteristics of the current model is that it gives smooth "degrees". I think in RL there're degrees of despotism, not a black-or-white type of thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
About the computation of M: I'd like more details...
It seems to be the range of change that a leader can obtain from a given value. How does it change after one turn?
For example, I want to spend 70 K per turn on research but current value is only 40 and I can influence only 20. I'll get 60 K.
Next turn, do I still have a mod of 20, in which case I reach 70? How do you compute the original 40? Is it the average of what others want or the current value?
If it is the preliminary value, it means I am a despot, it just takes me some time to reach my goals (2 turns in my example).
If it is another value, how do you compute it? Average? Median?
I'd be happy with any system that avoids our asking 100% to get 66%.
As Yoav example implied, the 51% rule led to French revolution because the Tiers Etat was represented but had no power (with 33% of the votes!).
Note that in this case, the king could decide against Les Etats Generaux (the parliament) if he wanted, but then he would have faced revolution from the nobles (i.e. the army), so it could be a valid option to be a despot and have a parliament just to know what the "people" think/want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi, Mark.
Things are well. And you?
Both is perfect, I agree. Many (most?) people won't want to mess with specifics like govt negotiations.
Roq:
The model is able to simulate scenarios where the ruler doesn't have total power. But at the same time it can model despotic regimes. You just need a suffciently large polpower (the M modifier will grow so much that the X preliminary value becomes largely irrelevant). And you can have all the degrees in between!
- I understand. It works fine, and is a good system.
But it does seem wierd to me. If I'm not mistaken, for most of history the ruler has had absolute power. But to say that meant he had 100% of the power would be highly inaccurate.
A kingdom can have a very powerful merchant class, yet a king could raise taxes to the roof over any objections that they can raise. The basic system doesn't allow for that at all, unless you set the merchant polpower at 0% -- which would be highly inaccurate.
- Also, how does the basic system handle yes/no questions?
Declarations of war, emergency taxes, accept/decline treaties, that kind of thing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoav Sissman
|
|
F_Smith:
quote:
As some of ya'll may remember, this topic and suggestion came up once before. I would love to revist the discussion, because I much prefer the 'voting' system be included. |
Mark too has mentioned the fact that this matter was already discussed in the past, but I was unsuccessful in finding it. I've read this entire thread and searched the forum using the keyword 'median', with no luck.
Is it in the 'Government Model v.2' thread?
quote:
The suggested system at the time was that the player can select a 'govt type'. Some govt types -- 'Parliment', maybe for example? -- negotiated values in the way that is suggested for the basic model. But other govt types -- 'Republic', maybe? -- use a 'voting' system. |
I much rather the currently accepted approach - where the process of negotiations is general and the different forms of governments (ideologies) only have to do with the distribution of the polpower.
roquijad:
Obviously those decisions aren't mine to make, and it's possible that the final decision on the rules of negotiations will be left to playtesting (as Mark suggests), but nevertheless I'll first try and explain my approach further.
quote:
As a function of ruler's polpower, we compute a maximum modifier M. The exact function to be used (to respond to LDCesare) isn't important. Just a function that increases with ruler's polpower. |
In my mind it would be preferable to have the ruler enjoy a status in negotiations that is equal to those of the other PBs. i.e. a ruler with 20% power will have a nominal effect that is equal to that of the people PB if they have 20% power.
Calculating M as a function of the ruler's political power alone, will necessarily discriminate the ruler, because the actual influence of the rest of the PBs varies with their distance from the actual government profile (regardless if they 'lie' or not).
Even if we'll abandon the 'M system' and use a pure weighted average system that doesn't discriminate between the player and other PBs and doesn't result in interface problems (that's easily doable) I still won't like the modeled system. In my mind the decision over the DNPs should fall at the point where half the forces push in one direction and the other half pushes in the another, without considering how extreme the factions are (which should be left to the riots model).
Again, I have no interface problem with your design. My comments are directed at its gameplay effects (and realism).
quote:
Now to your system: Now that I understand it more, I've to say I don't like that sharp shift it promotes. The ruler, when passing from 50% to 51% power goes from a position of negotiation to BOOM! absoulte despotism. I don't like this and even considering your examples and a few others FSmith has given in the past, I find it a lot less realistic than the system I propose. |
Where is the sharp shift?
When the ruler has 51% of power he is absolutely despotic over the DNPs. When he has only 50% (let's say minus some infinitesimal value) he has ALMOST despotic power. All other factions must combine their forces and support a policy that is either higher or lower from his policy (i.e. if the ruler wants PP to be 50%, everyone else must want it higher or everyone else must it push it lower to have any effect). Even then the government policy will be the preferred policy of the faction that is the closest to the ruler (except for the ruler itself).
If the ruler has 50%+ the negotiation rules still apply, it's just that they allow the ruler to have his way.
Then you may ask why should the ruler care about giving away 49% of the power, while he keeps the rest of it?
Well, at least as far as the DNP negotiations are concerned, he shouldn't. This is why dictators today and over the course of history often chose to trust some of the PBs with small portions of the legal political force. Often it has true meaning (With King John and the Magna Charta) but in certain regimes it imposed no real danger to their despotic authority, and yet it rewarded those individuals who enjoyed the symbolic power, with honor that helped maintain their loyalty and improved the image of the ruler.
Examples of the latter case are the Roman senate during Ceaser's time (remember we are talking legal power) and modern parliaments in dictatorial states (like the USSR Proletarian and the Syrian parliament).
LDiCesare:
quote:
About the computation of M: I'd like more details...
It seems to be the range of change that a leader can obtain from a given value. How does it change after one turn? |
My understanding was that it's computed from scrap every turn, using the current preliminary government profile (which ignores the ruler preferences).
F_Smith:
quote:
But it does seem wierd to me. If I'm not mistaken, for most of history the ruler has had absolute power. But to say that meant he had 100% of the power would be highly inaccurate. |
Exactly what I was saying. Often the ruler found it comfortable to entrust certain individuals with a seemingly independent authority, but kept the legal right to override them to his self.
Of course that roquijad may simply decide that in his model those regimes are all considered as totals despocities, but then total despocities will be including a broad range of government forms.
quote:
Also, how does the basic system handle yes/no questions? |
I'd like to stress again that my alternative negotiations model for DNPs decision-making process has nothing to do with dealing with yes/no questions (at least as far as I presented it!).
MHO on this is that we should have as few yes/no questions as possible, and rather derive the answers from the DNPs (I've explained my reasons in my previous post).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Govt Model Version 3.1 has been released. A descriptive document is available (a technical doc (equations) will be available soon). I've sent it to Dom and he'll tell us when it's up in the web site. For those of you who don't want to wait, email me and I'll send it to you ( roquijad@cec.uchile.cl ).
If you're familiar with the model, just jump to chapter VIII (the only relevant novelty). This part has nothing to do with the discussion above so don't go there looking for answers for the above conversation. Chapter VIII describes the geographic difficulties of running the empire and it's a topic that's almost completly new to the model, so feedback is wanted.
About the dicussion on 51%rules and such:
1) LDiCesare: PB's make a preliminary decision, then the mod is applied. That happens every turn, so if from one turn to the next social classes and the ruler didn't change their minds, the final value obtained is the same.
2) Yoav: Hey, if you think your system is better, keep pushing. At the end we won't code in Clash what I personally think is better, but what all, or at least a majority, want.
3) All: I suggest a completely new approach for this discussion: Tell me what the model can't do. Much of the discussion goes around the processes inside the model w/o considering the model's output (which is all that really matters). If you show me an historical framework where the model produces a wrong, unrealistic output, then we'll be on the right track for a disussion. If we find there's a long enough list of things the model can't represent correctly, I'm all for changing it. But please, please, please, before you start throwing examples of the model producing wrong outputs, give me a chance to make a post to clarify a couple of things some of you are getting plain wrong. I can't do it now because it's almost 3AM and I want to go to bed. In a day or two I'll do it. ok?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Hi Rodrigo:
I think you did a great job fixing all those old issues in the new government model!  I've only got a few minor comments.
You did a really good job with feudalism! I think the flexibility to handle it will help out the game a lot! As a quibble, I think that feudal units should be available for temporary use by the civilization if their use is requested, and granted by the local authorities.
One thing I didn't like is that you have the Province Autonomy Level set by the ruler. I think this should be negotiated like everything else in the system. My concern is... suppose you have a modern democracy. If I have read your system right so long as there are no feudal troops the player can just declare all provinces in the civ to have a 0 autonomy level. That is OK for a dictatorship, but such things don't happen in democracies were there is typically a federalized system sharing the power geographically as well as demographically. I could go on about this, but I want to hear whether I have misread your approach first.
And I really preferred the old name "Ideologies" to Regimes. But I can see where you did a because some of the things are really regimes, whereas others are ideologies.
I am hoping we can get the model coded as soon as possible! Unfortunately, Gary, who is the one who is going to do it, has a lot of other coding responsibilities too. Still, I hope he's as excited about it as I am.
Great Job,
Mark
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2000 08:12
I suggest at the least that they be put in the glossary in bold with your definitions clearly marked. I think its also a bit confusing that there is a huge functional gap between ED=0 and ED=1 even though the scale has many levels. That is because for ED=0 everyone's in the govt but for ED=1 only the chosen few are. IMO the scale should probably allow for more in-between states ideally. Whether that's practical or desirable we can address in playtesting I guess.
Any thoughts/tomatoes yet?
|