 |
| |
|
|
jscott991
|
|
I had great hopes that Master of Orion 3 would implement the elusive Asimov Foundation principle that no game has ever quite put into effect: Empires atrophy and decay over time. Bureaucracies become inefficient, people become restless, and monarchs/head of states become less competent. All of this means, theoretically, you should be able to lose a game of MOO even when you dominate the map, because your bloated Empire collapses from within.
Under the original Emrich design, I was sure this was going to at least be a possibility for empires that exanded too quickly or too haphazardly. Does anyone else think that this feature is gone? It seems to me that this will resemble more MOO2 and the Civ games. Empirse will just rise meteorically. If they fall apart, it will be because of external and not internal pressures. In my opinion, that is a great loss. I think it would be just as fun trying to hold a dying empire together as it would be building a new empire from scratch.
Some games have featured the internal decay principle in some level. The old Medieval Lords game had the most extreme version. If you had a few bad monarchs in a row, it was likely your state was just going to rot from within and be difficult to hold onto. Of course, that game was too basic and simple for other reasons. EU has some version of internal problems, giving states massive unrest that expand too quickly. EU, however, has far too weak of an AI to really let the principle reach full maturation.
Oh well. Maybe MOO4 will have enough internal policy options to let us both build and preside over the death of the Galactic Empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Apolex
|
 |
Knoxville, TN
Oct 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
That's an interesting idea jscott (and from great books). However, if I remember from the Foundation series, the empire decays after hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of peace. That would be well after the victory conditions in the game, if simulated in MOO3. We are playing the phase of the empire involved with expanding, conquering, assimilating, and unifying the galaxy. The decay phase, if modeled after Asimov's books would occur after the timeframe of the game, no?
Civ III somewhat incorporates what you describe by using a corruption model which progressively gets more severe with the size of your empire. I could go for something similar to that in MOO3, but not much more. I guess everyone has their tastes, but trying to duct-tape together your hard-won empire in disarray doesn't sound like much fun to me at the end of the game.
-Apolex
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jscott991
|
|
The Foundation Empire isn't a very good example because it lasts an unreasonable amount of time. But consider the Roman and Chinese Empires.
The Roman Empire lasted only about 500 years as an imperial state and the signs of decay were present only about 200 years into its life as the dominant (but not only) Mediterrenean and Middle Eastern power. The various dynasties in China also seldom lasted much longer than a few hundred years before they atrophied and decayed.
How long a period is MOO3 modeling? If I remember the original MOO's correctly, it is a period of decades, not years. I wouldn't mind seeing some decline slip into the modelm, just to provide something of a challenge.
It just seems to me that a true galactic empire simulation would not end when your empire controlled 70% of the galaxy. There would still be a lot of work to do holding that territory together, especially if you tried to strain yourself even further to take the last 30%. I just think that would be a more interesting game than one that models only constant rise. Let's see some decline and fall as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
darcy
|
|
That theme is good for novels, but in strategy games I'm not interested in it. It would be frustrating to build something up only to watch it fall apart for no particular reason. Players would feel powerless, and that's not good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jscott991
|
|
Curiously, most historical researchers and political commentors believe instantaneous communication and instant access to information creates more pressure on a state to decay rather than providing it with more incentive to stay together. The theory is that since everyone knows about every crisis all the time, it heightens the effect of each problem and causes more unrest.
I don't see how dreadnaughts and spaceships differ too much in destructive impact from nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union still is no longer with us today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Apolex
|
|
Knoxville, TN
Oct 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jscott991
Curiously, most historical researchers and political commentors believe instantaneous communication and instant access to information creates more pressure on a state to decay rather than providing it with more incentive to stay together.
|
Interesting, but I would think that the effect would be somewhat based on the government type combined with that technology, rather than the technology itself. For instance in a free and democratic state, the more direct flow of information, thoughts and sentiment of the people to their representative government (and vice versa) would tend to strengthen that system. But in a more repressive empire such as the former Soviet Union, instantaneous communication is destablizing in that it allows opposition to organize. Perhaps this is why China is so restrictive with the internet to their people.
However this is one technology out of many. My idea earlier was more of a hand-waving theory that there would be several (as of yet undefined) techs which would aid in holding an empire together against the natural sociological pressures that eventually fracture up all empires. But we're also being a little human-centric here. These pressures cause US to decay, but what of the Silicoids? Klackon? Does a unity race experience the desire for self-government and independance that seems to be built into humans? Probably not. So that decay model may be variable amongst the races.
quote:
I don't see how dreadnaughts and spaceships differ too much in destructive impact from nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union still is no longer with us today. |
Very good point there, conceded. However, the Soviet Union suffered from the fact that they didn't have Harmonic Tachyon Happiness Waves broadcast throughout their empire.  
-Apolex
edit: typos
Last edited by Apolex on 29-01-2003 at 01:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jscott991
|
|
It is absurd to believe that the reason the Roman Empire fell was that Augustus didn't live forever to rule as Princeps. The Roman Empire fell because its state structure decayed. It wasn't the large, macro-policy decisions made by the Emperors that brought Rome down, it was the gradual ossification of the Imperial bureaucracy, the graft and corruption of local officials, the stagnation that was inherent in a Roman economy built on inefficient slave labor, and the sheer size of the territory being ruled compared to communication methods of the day.
As for saying that China's problems were because of a lack of competent Imperial rulers, you need only to read the very basic, but very good, history of Modern China by Immanuel C. Y. Hsu to have that refuted. Even when the Qing emperors were at their best, dynastic decay was still evident.
States decay. Space empires, if they ever exist, will be no exception.
But I want to clarify what I am saying. All I wanted was something built into the game to make the end-game a little more challenging. I don't know how many times in MOO2 I had the game 70% won and didn't even bother to manage my empire, I just kept moving fleets around crushing the few remaining enemy worlds. I think if you built something into the game requiring turn by turn political monitoring or else things began to slow down and atrophy, that would be interesting.
I do realize that these types of games make the player an immortal monarch, but things don't have to be that way either. Europa Universalis and Medieval Lords both let the player run the show, but had monarchs periodically die and rise up again, with their competence having a large role in how the empire functioned. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that. Especially with some of the representative government models in MOO3 where turnover should be even higher.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
Any empire or state is simply a macro-organism. It has its birth, life, and eventual death like any other organism.
Frank Herbert explored this theme in his "Dune" series of books.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kc7mxo
|
 |
Kansas City, Kansas
Jan 1970
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
It is absurd to believe that the reason the Roman Empire fell was that Augustus didn't live forever to rule as Princeps. The Roman Empire fell because its state structure decayed. It wasn't the large, macro-policy decisions made by the Emperors that brought Rome down, it was the gradual ossification of the Imperial bureaucracy, the graft and corruption of local officials, the stagnation that was inherent in a Roman economy built on inefficient slave labor, and the sheer size of the territory being ruled compared to communication methods of the day. |
I was basically making a crack about immortal leader games.
Like you said, there were many many factors to Rome's eventual decay. Their government was never designed for an empire, their culture was steadily decaying (certainly partially caused by horrid emperors), plauges, lack of technological advancement. . . There are lots and lots of causes to be talked about.
But corruption and beuracratic red tape are related to leadership. Incompetent leaders permit, practically encourage such corruption and the destabilization of society. Incompetents allow their representatives to take advantage of their citizens, and they waste their empire's resources.
But a single, charismatic and brilliant leader can revitalize a civiliztion. So how much could a dynasty of them do? Or a single immortal leader? I don't think the US has had such a leader (brilliant and charismatic i mean) in a long time. Some of are leaders are good, some bad, but in general, they're just average men. Its probable we'll never have such a leader, because people aren't perfect, and noone can long remain in power without becoming at least a little corrupt.
Empire's die because the people in them weaken (or are conquered by someone far stronger). If a single fantastic leader is constantly working to make keep their heads high and their souls strong, and not permitting the steady decay of their civilization, couldn't such an empire last indefinetly?
Besides, who the heck wants to play a video game where your civilization collapses do to the disintagration of the family unit anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
In a game context I always liked the idea of the possibility of civil conflict of any size occurring ( Except when it happens to me  ). It adds to the realism.
I always thought it strange that America, for example, was a starting civ in Civilization games when it obviously was not around in 4000 BCE. Many other civilizations evolved, devolved, grown, spun-off parts, etc., etc., before a nation-state like America, for example, existed. I would like to see any game model all the dynamics that occurred world-wide over the past 6000 years! Also, if anything, the changes have been accelerating as time progresses.
Dune is a great example of the effects of having only one ruler (like a player) for thousands of years (Paul Muad'Dib's son Leto). Leto even engineered his own demise when he felt it was time for civilization to move on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kc7mxo
But corruption and beuracratic red tape are related to leadership. Incompetent leaders permit, practically encourage such corruption and the destabilization of society. Incompetents allow their representatives to take advantage of their citizens, and they waste their empire's resources.
|
I am reminded of the words of James Madison...
"It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will always be able to adjust their interests. For enlightened men will not always be at the helm."
quote:
But a single, charismatic and brilliant leader can revitalize a civiliztion.
|
Many of those problems were more systemic than individual leaders were able to do much about... Emperor Tiberius was just such a potentially history-altering individual as you suggest, but eventually it was too much for one man and he himself was even driven mad...
quote:
So how much could a dynasty of them do? Or a single immortal leader?
|
Madison's argument about the fallibility of leadership and leaders in particular is enlightening here as well...
quote:
I don't think the US has had such a leader (brilliant and charismatic i mean) in a long time. Some of are leaders are good, some bad, but in general, they're just average men.
|
For the record, ALL of America's leaders or the leaders of any nation or civiliation or empire are, in the end, average and fallible men (or women). It is precisely the sheer banality of many of the world's "greatest" leaders that is so fascinating... As for America's greatest leaders, I VERY STRONGLY recommend the recent bestseller "Founding Brothers". It's one of the best works of American History about the period of the founding of the Republic that I have EVER read (or history in general, for that matter).
If America has any figure who significantly breaks the historical rules, it's George Washington. None of the others pass the test of actually violating what would seem to otherwise be almost a rule of human political behavior. What I'm talking about is that in the comparative study of revolutions (my field of research), it is unknown to not see a violent revolution swallow itself and, more specifically, for it to be swallowed primarily by the weakness or lust for power by the revolutionary leader, especially a military revolutionary leader.
Washington breaks this seemingly iron trend. It does it primarily for reasons of the environment in which he was raised and the particular things he was obsessed about. He idolized Cincinnatus, the legendary Roman patrician who was called to be Dictator of Rome in time of war and left his fields to fight and win war on behalf of Rome, but chose to return to his plowshare and his field rather than to remain Dictator for the remainder of his term. Washington's idolization of Cinncinatus bordered on an obsession with becoming "America's Cincinnatus". It is primarily for this reason that it seems Washington made such a point of handing his sword over to the Continental Congress when the war with Britain was over, insisting that his army not revolt and overthrow the Congress and indeed preventing them from doing so, not playing a more instrumental role in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, and finally in desiring to get out of political life entirely in order to model his idol. He remained around enough that no-one with less scruples took his place (there were certainly contenders...), but didn't himself lose his resolve in the process.
The intersting part is that while I believe that this makes Washington a "great leader", it does NOT make him in any way perfect or infallible. Quite to the contrary, he was a man of many mistakes, blunders, and faults.
which leads to the next part here....
quote:
Its probable we'll never have such a leader, because people aren't perfect, and noone can long remain in power without becoming at least a little corrupt.
|
But people have ALWAYS been this fallible and ALWAYS been this imperfect and power has ALWAYS been something capable of corrupting the powerful.
What makes a great leader is not any level of infallibility or an impregnible resolve against the corrupting influence of power, but a realization of one's own corruptability and the wider corruptability of all. This is precisely what, for instance, makes James Madison a great leader... he endeavored with the other principle writers to write a constitution that ASSUMED that men in positions of power will be tempted toward corruption rather than hoping that they would not or ignoring the issue. It was precisely Madison's extremely grim view of human nature that allowed him to be such an effective political architect.
The same could go with many of the other members of that generation. It is precisely because they understood their own fallibility and their own corruptability (along with that of their likely descendants) that allowed them to succeed where others have failed.
The same could equally be said of great leaders in other parts of the world throughout history. I believe it to be an intimate understanding of one's own fundamental weakness and the fundamental weakness of others that allows certain individual political leaders to have such disproportionate impact upon history.
But I'll grant that not everyone would agree with such a historical perspective. For those of you who are Americans, though, it is enlightening that many of the "Founding Fathers" shared it.
quote:
Empire's die because the people in them weaken (or are conquered by someone far stronger). If a single fantastic leader is constantly working to make keep their heads high and their souls strong, and not permitting the steady decay of their civilization, couldn't such an empire last indefinetly?
|
Madison's line is pertinent again....
"It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will always be able to adjust their interests. For enlightened men will not always be at the helm."
As for what one might argue COULD make an empire endure seemingly without end you should read An Empire Wilderness: Travels Into America's Future by Robert D. Kaplan.... He's a noted travel journalist and sociologist who normally writes for Atlantic Monthly concerning events in Northern Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, Central and Southeast Asia. His latest works are "The Coming Anarchy", which seems to be a favorite of the Bush Administration foreign policy folk (even Dubbya himself is said to have read the book over X-Mas recess in 2001) and "Warrior Politics", which also addresses the very question of America's place in history... that one I just read, it's awesome... uses Roman and Greek history to make arguments about America and its potential for either decline or continued vitality. Makes an absolutely fascinating argument about using the Warring States Period of Chinese history (the time from which Szun Szu wrote) for learning about International Politics in the 21st Century.
Seriously... look into it 
quote:
Besides, who the heck wants to play a video game where your civilization collapses do to the disintagration of the family unit anyway. |
When it comes to games, though, it would be depressing if nothing else to model the reality of human nature and history (not to mention simply difficult to do from a gameplay standpoint...). I agree, who wants to play a video game where your civilization collapses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jamski
|
 |
lol ED&D is officially full PvP LOL
May 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
Arnelos, one of the most well argued posts I've ever read
I would however disagree slightly with your assessment of Washington. As an American, you are, of course, more likely to see him in a favorable light. For you he is a national hero and the founder of your nation. From an English point of view he could be seen, however, as a rabble rouser, a populist (in the sense of one who panders to popular ideas) and a traitor. He does, however present one of the few cases, as you so rightly stated, of a revolutionary leader refusing the power offered to him after the successful conclusion of the revolt. Of course we could argue that most revolutions in history were launched by the army with the intention of securing power for a certain general.
This brings me to the point that is indeed missing from almost all "Civ-style" games, namely that no Empire, of any kind what-so-ever, has ever FAILED to decline, some within months or years of the death of their establishers. Examples are rife : The empires of Alexander, Belshazzar, Charlemagne, to name but a prominent few that failed following internal power struggles/divisions between successors, or those of Britain, Spain and Portugal that collapsed owing to the desire for independence typical of lands governed from afar.
IMHO, it is much too easy to build a far-flung empire in the games of this genre, and definitely too easy to build a stable one. The corruption model in Civ games goes some way torwards correcting this problem, but is basically a pain for the player. Who wants an empire of useless cities ? No-one. This model would be satisfactory if there was something the player could do to compensate, but in Civ3 for example there is nothing one can do, short of building a courthouse, which may, if you are lucky have a very small effect, but often has none, or changing to a communist government.
Some mechanism for the decline and instablity of civilisations needs to be considered for the next generation of games (I'm hoping for Civ4, MoO4, SMAC2 ?) I for one would be happy to see a game where you, the player, preside over the decline of an empire, with the goal being "damage limitation" and survival, with expansion being a very rare possibility. How about a game based on the Byzantine Empire after Manzikert? Rebuild and defend before the Crusades... and then the Turks again. Now that would be an absorbing game IMHO.
Here's hoping
-Jam
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Araanor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jscott991
States decay. Space empires, if they ever exist, will be no exception. |
I don't think we could say much of anything that would apply to an actual future space empire.
What we can do is imagine how MOO should work, given the circumstances. What is MOO about? Empire-building. Modelled after our own turbulent history. Colonization, research, conquest, diplomacy, it's all there. And as such, I think instability of large empires should be in.
Just look at the Roman, Frankish, Ottoman, Caliphate, Timurid and Spanish "empires", to mention a few. I think some form of measures should be in if only to make gameplay interesting when you're too dominant. I wouldn't want something that invariably would break you down, just something to make it tough to stay at the top.
Unity races would be a special case, of course.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
AlenkiiCvetocek
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jscott991
Empires atrophy and decay over time. Bureaucracies become inefficient, people become restless, and monarchs/head of states become less competent. |
I can't resist the urge:
Bureaucracies are inefficient by nature, and do not need to become so. No monarch/head of state is competent to divine, much less serve, the interests of the individuals in his empire. All empires are ephemeral because they are unstable from the beginning.
States and governments are never realistically modelled in games, I think, because 1) we don't know how to (given the epistemological difficulty in developing a realistic model of human behavior) and 2) it wouldn't be any fun to add such to a game.
Cheers,
AC
|
|
| |
|
|
|
G(R)EEK
|
|
ATHINA
Dec 2001
time: 07:25
|
|
[QUOTE]As for what one might argue COULD make an empire endure seemingly without end you should read An Empire Wilderness: Travels Into America's Future by Robert D. Kaplan.... He's a noted travel journalist and sociologist who normally writes for Atlantic Monthly concerning events in Northern Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, Central and Southeast Asia. His latest works are "The Coming Anarchy", which seems to be a favorite of the Bush Administration foreign policy folk (even Dubbya himself is said to have read the book over X-Mas recess in 2001) and "Warrior Politics", which also addresses the very question of America's place in history... that one I just read, it's awesome... uses Roman and Greek history to make arguments about America and its potential for either decline or continued vitality. Makes an absolutely fascinating argument about using the Warring States Period of Chinese history (the time from which Szun Szu wrote) for learning about International Politics in the 21st Century./[QUOTE]
That is one mighty impressive statement. All my net time today is worth just because of this.
So, in short how will the Earth Diaspora be like once we reach the stars?
Easy. A LOT LIKE the Greek diaspora of 700-300 BC ( I include Alexander Conquests)
In short, other colonies will thrive others will fall by the wayside, some will crumble due to "easy money and lack of Work Ethos" Sybarians anyone? Others will become so great that they will be despised and rule other colonies. I don't think US scenario, (of a former colony culturally subjugating its founding nation (UK) will ever happen but still.
Again, thanks for the mighty fine read!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AlenkiiCvetocek
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
This is precisely what, for instance, makes James Madison a great leader... he endeavored with the other principle writers to write a constitution that ASSUMED that men in positions of power will be tempted toward corruption rather than hoping that they would not or ignoring the issue. It was precisely Madison's extremely grim view of human nature that allowed him to be such an effective political architect.
|
Ahh, were the limitations of power in the constitution devised because the authors assumed power corrupts, or were they rather instituded because the founders recognized that almost everything we do is none of the government's damn business?
I believe the latter was the more important factor, although the former certainly played a role. What do you think?
Cheers,
AC
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AlenkiiCvetocek
Ahh, were the limitations of power in the constitution devised because the authors assumed power corrupts, or were they rather instituded because the founders recognized that almost everything we do is none of the government's damn business?
I believe the latter was the more important factor, although the former certainly played a role. What do you think?
Cheers,
AC |
It was the former. If you read either The Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton (which provided the arguments reasoning behind the Constitution) and any of Madison's personal correspondance or writings, you quickly discover that he has an EXTREMELY grim view of human nature and the corruptability of power. It was the very centerpiece of his endeavor to make sure the U.S. government would be weak and divided. Jefferson, Madison's ally, had the more idealistic approach you speak of... he believed, as you claim, that most of what we do is none of the government's business...
of course, Madison was the Constitution's principle architect and Jefferson was in Paris at the time and ended being AGAINST the Constitution  So it isn't hard to argue which one had more impact on the reason for why the document was written the way it was
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vee4473
|
 |
New Jersey
Feb 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
It would seem to me that to make jscott's version of a game would be out of sync with the moo series.
Having an empire decay from within because of thousands of years of political and social deterioration would make the game more of a politcal/social simulator.
Moo and civ type games are more about shorter term conquest (military or otherwise).
Perhaps a new title that is a dedicated politcal/social simulator is in order for those who want that type of game. I think transforming an established genre of short term conquest (at least short term compared to a "Foundation" type simulator), into a massive political sim is ill advised.
I think most players enjoy the diplomacy, no doubt, I certainly do, but at the same time, the combo of some detailed diplomacy (but not too detailed so that it takes the concentration of an Einstein) and building fleets to go to war is a big part of the enjoyment, not sitting back to micromanage every little social decision.
That's why I say a separate dedicated title.
Actually, given how much trouble game companies seem to have just making a "less deep", short term conquest game with minimal diplomacy....making such a deep, involved simulator that would satisfy jscott and others seems impossible.
Just think, if a game actually succeeded in simulating actual universal rule down to the last detail of the real world, we'd all go grey and have nervous breakdowns from playing a game!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jscott991
|
|
Frankly I'd be satisfied if MOO3 could just come close to giving me the depth of the EU series, which isn't very deep at all.
I'm not arguing for a very detailed or sophiscated social model. I just think that the model should trend towards decline rather than trends toward constant growth. As your empire gets bigger, it should be harder to do research over time. As your empire gets older, your economic growth rates should level off. As your empire becomes less efficient, your people should grow more restless. It would just add to the complexity and long term interest of the title.
Short term conquest games are great, but that's not really what MOO is. Each turn is a year and games can go hundreds of years. After a couple hundred years, I think decline would have set into almost any state structure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jscott991
Frankly I'd be satisfied if MOO3 could just come close to giving me the depth of the EU series, which isn't very deep at all.
I'm not arguing for a very detailed or sophiscated social model. I just think that the model should trend towards decline rather than trends toward constant growth. As your empire gets bigger, it should be harder to do research over time. As your empire gets older, your economic growth rates should level off. As your empire becomes less efficient, your people should grow more restless. It would just add to the complexity and long term interest of the title.
Short term conquest games are great, but that's not really what MOO is. Each turn is a year and games can go hundreds of years. After a couple hundred years, I think decline would have set into almost any state structure. |
It's called an empire-building game for a reason. You can't have an empire decline, without a rise. We play the rise and win the game, after that it declines. But I do like the idea.
A game where you start the game as a mighty empire and you play through the fall, whether it is to enemy hordes or mass destruction or other events could be a decent change, if done correctly.
ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jscott991
|
|
My point was that absent good play by the player, the empire should decline, not that it should decline regardless of what the player does. These games are too easy now. If you do nothing, absent outside forces, nothing happens. In my ideal game, if you do nothing, absent outside forces, things should gradually get worse. The things I have in mind are research, economic growth, and unrest.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-01-2003 22:56
|