Rethinking government policies, again

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Rethinking government policies, again

#1 Post by Oberlus »

Having a set of policies to define the form of government of empires:

Relations between planets in the Empire ("three" mutually exclusive policies)
CONCEPT (seed for explanation): POLICY. Relevant EFFECTS. Some comments on strategy.
- Centralized (one holds sovereignty over the rest): No policy. Influence upkeep includes both number-based and distance-based, stability is distance-based. Building RegAd allow this empire to grow bigger despite distance to capital.
- Hierarchical (planets down the hierarchy have less sovereignty): Feudalism. Distance-based stability and influence upkeep is replaced by a system based on power relations between nearby empire planets. Several small populations around one stable&big population gets lower influence upkeep and better stability (powerful Houses rule in their area in the name of the sovereign House, the capital), several stable&big populations close to each other causes greater influence upkeep and lower stability (feudal wars among Houses). So a Feudal empire needs to plan ahead what planets colonize and when to ensure a gain from it, and in dire situations it can make use of Independence Decree to expel from the empire the less interesting stable&big population and Vassalization to keep getting benefits from it.
- Decentralized (each planet has full sovereignty): Confederation. No distance-based stability or influence upkeep, smaller penalizations from supply-disconnection.

Relations within the populations, who rules over who (five mutually exclusive policies)
POLICY (seed for explanation): Relevant EFFECTS. Some comments on strategy.
- Democracy (rule of the people, anyone can get to managing positions): +25% IP on Influence-focused planets, +25% policy adoption cost, doubles opinion reaction's effects. Allows a slightly greater empire at the cost of slower policy adoption, but allows for good RP-boosting policies. The stronger like/dislike stability effects can be good or bad depending on species. This partly replaces Liberty (another policy, Academic Freedom, takes the RP boosting and stability malus that Liberty had).
- Technocracy (rule of the experts): +25% RP and +1IP on research-focused planets, -2 stability in non-research-focused planets. Empires that go mostly research will benefit the most from this one, also to enable more colonies, but this isn't the most stable form of government.
- Theocracy (rule of the priests): +2 IP and +3 stability on influence-focused, rest of planets +1 stability for each influence-focused planet at 3 jumps (max 3), -25% RP and -1RP, +1 social slot. Bigger and more stable empire than democracy, with better ability to interfere with people's life, but slower research.
- Plutocracy (rule of the wealthy, Capitalism, Corporativism, Neoliberalism...): +25% PP, +1 IP and +2 stability on industry-focused, -2 stability on rest of planets, +1 economic slot. Replaces Industrialism.
- Stratocracy (rule of the warrior, Sparta, a bit like United Citizen Federation of Starship Troopers): planet defense and troops +50%, +1 pilot skill level, +1 military slot, doubles rebel troops. Awesome policy for blitzkriegs, but the only form of government available at start that doesn't improve IP balance to allow greater empires, so also the one that will sooner require to get another policy to keep growing.

I have three advanced forms of government, mutually exclusive with the above, that would be unlocked mid-to-late game by advanced techs or buildings:
- Collective/Communal Mind (perfect democracy through telepathy, one cannot be such an asshole with their neighbor when you can connect to their feelings): Number-based colony upkeep is quartered, Influence-focused +50% IP, Research-focused +0.2*pop RP, all +5 stability.
- Divine Authority (theocracy with psionic powers: now you cannot have no faith): Capital +2*owned_planets IP, Influence-focused +2*sqrt(pop) IP, non-influence-focused at 4 jumps from influence-focused +1 stability (max stack 5), +1 Social slot.
- Cyberocracy (Supreme leader has a serial number, thinks of our welfare 24/7, and is very efficient): Number-based colony upkeep is halved, colonies with stability 10 or above get research-focused +0.25*infrastructure RP, industry-focused +0.25*infrastructure PP and influence-focused +0.5*sqrt(infrastructure) IP, colonies supply-connected to Automated History Analizer (the ruler) get +3 stability. This one is awesome for very wide empires with high infrastructure and not so high populations.

These three can be seen as evolutions of Democracy, Theocracy and Technocracy. I'd like to have one or two late-game policies for evolutions of ethnocratic empires (see below a bit about them): evolve the species (like the Cetaganda of the Vorkosigan saga) or get the ultimate form of enslavery (mental parasites, mind-controlling implants). I'd also like an upgrade for Stratocracy, something that turns the whole society into an army, and maybe also turning the species into war machines, and a form of extreme plutocracy, maybe just something not very techy/radical like the others and just a better form of Capitalism... Maybe something a bit opposed to plutocracy, like based on environmentalism, as the logic evolution of a society that suffers the consequences of resource exhaustion and environment pollution. But for all these didn't find yet interesting combinations of effects that are also implementable with current mechanics (but I didn't devote enough time to this yet).


Relations between species
Ethnocracy: not exactly a form of government but a form of social organization: one species have more privileges than other species and exploit them (how much depending on other policies). I'm still figuring out the effects for this (but can't be what we have in Racial Purity). It will be mutually exclusive with democracy, but can go with anything else.
I'll expand on the complementary (to exterminate or exploit species) and opposite (egalitarianism, diversity, exoticism) policies in another post.


Feudalism is mutually exclusive with Democracy (incompatible with having a lord that owns their people) and Technocracy (just because, we can change this). We can have Theocratic, Plutocratic and Stratocratic Feudalism, all of them with or without Ethnocracy.

Confederation is mutually exclusive with Theocracy. We can have Democratic, Technocratic, Plutocratic and Stratocratic Confederations, all but democratic can attach ethnocracy. I think Confederaation and Ethnocracy need to be compatible to allow a distributed-hidden-Trith empire.


I'll post again (dunno when) with the complementary policies for all these forms of government.


I've tinkered with this several times before, never getting to anything satisfactory for me. Some links to comments and failed attempts for reference:
viewtopic.php?p=104966
viewtopic.php?p=108248#p108248
viewtopic.php?p=108432#p108432
viewtopic.php?p=108439#p108439

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#2 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:44 pm - Centralized (one holds sovereignty over the rest): No policy. Influence upkeep includes both number-based and distance-based, stability is distance-based. Building RegAd allow this empire to grow bigger despite distance to capital.
Just one remark before I read the rest : I agree that Centralized could be the default policy (you already proposed that elsewhere, it makes sense). But Regional Administration should require a Policy, imho.
And as I proposed with nomes, it could be a good idea to have several administration systems, each with its policy and its mechanisms.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#3 Post by LienRag »

I really like the idea of having a conceptual framework, and yours is interesting.

A few remarks though :
Oberlus wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:44 pm
Relations within the populations, who rules over who (five mutually exclusive policies)
- Technocracy (rule of the experts): +25% RP and +1IP on research-focused planets, -2 stability in non-research-focused planets. Empires that go mostly research will benefit the most from this one, also to enable more colonies, but this isn't the most stable form of government.
- Plutocracy (rule of the wealthy, Capitalism, Corporativism, Neoliberalism...): +25% PP, +1 IP and +2 stability on industry-focused, -2 stability on rest of planets, +1 economic slot. Replaces Industrialism.
Technocracy is not good for science nor research; it may be good for technologies though.
I repeat my argument, I can accept your proposal only if Technocracy do something bad for science, like rising the cost of not-partially-unlocked theoretical prerequisites (and of Transcendence, even partially unlocked).

Similarly, Plutocracy or Capitalism is not good at producing resources, it's good at extracting resources. So as long as we don't have mechanisms for pollution, perversion of science or producing a long-term instability, we can't really simulate it in any meaningful way. Maybe have it worsen relations with Natives everywhere at least ?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#4 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:02 pm Technocracy is not good for science nor research; it may be good for technologies though.
I repeat my argument, I can accept your proposal only if Technocracy do something bad for science, like rising the cost of not-partially-unlocked theoretical prerequisites (and of Transcendence, even partially unlocked).

Similarly, Plutocracy or Capitalism is not good at producing resources, it's good at extracting resources. So as long as we don't have mechanisms for pollution, perversion of science or producing a long-term instability, we can't really simulate it in any meaningful way. Maybe have it worsen relations with Natives everywhere at least ?
I don't care. I just needed two governments that were good one at PP and one at RP.
Technocracy can make sense to boost research if it is about a society that values knowledge/science, particularly at managing the society: they will invest more on education and research if it is what gives wealth and recognition.
Plutocracy makes sense to boost production because, first, valuing wealth over people's rights do boost industry, and, second, because I already had something to boost influence, Theocracy and Democracy.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#5 Post by LienRag »

Yes, but I do care.
If you want a science-boosting Policy, I proposed one in Policy Cards Jumble.

Technocracy is not valuing Science, but valuing authority. That this authority is legitimated by its source supposingly stemming from knowledge (while usually actually from diplomas) doesn't change much.

If you add the part about making unknowns unknowns more difficult to research, then I'll have no objections.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#6 Post by LienRag »

Also, you want something like Saint-Simonism if you want a Policy that boosts industry; plutocracy rather leads to disindustrialization.

The problem maybe a conceptual one; I believe that you picked the wrong consequences of your (interesting) categorization of "who rules over whom".
Boosting Industry or Research is less about who rules over whom than of which fraction of the ruling class is at the helm in a given time, and there's a conceptual difference between the two explanations.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#7 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:56 pm If you want a science-boosting Policy, I proposed one in Policy Cards Jumble.
No. What I want is a form of government or social organization for the matter that boosts research. And also more policies that boost research (and everything else), including any good idea from anyone.
LienRag wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:56 pm Technocracy is not valuing Science, but valuing authority.
Well, there is "cracy" in the word, so must have something to do with authority, but don't say "Technocracy is about valuing authority". Then what is about Stratocracy, Plutocracy, etc? All this set of policies, as explained already, are about what kind of people have authority in society. Technocracy is the rule by the "experts", one of the meanings of technocracy (the other one being a kind of bureaucracy that heavily relies on technology).
And since this is about a society where "experts" (educated with formations based on science, otherwise we are in a Democracy or Theocracy or Stratocracy) get the power, "expertise" and science is valued and hence boosted. This is the same as with current Technocracy policy (that is more about technology, maybe, but nevertheless boosts research and no one is complaining).

I will not discuss this anymore with you, you already stated you don't like Pluto and Technocracy names for policies that boost PP or RP and I think differently with the definitions of this stuff already consulted. When I said "I don't care", I meant that I don't care if you accept my proposal or not. You represent the opinion of a number of players. I already noted your concern but can't do much about it, and I think the concept, names and explanations are coherent enough and I think other players will like it (we'll see).

Please, do not spam the thread anymore if it is to repeat your opinion on the subject.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#8 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:46 pm Regional Administration should require a Policy, imho.
No. The policies must have a reason to be, appart from unlocking buildings, because if you only need the building and not the policy, you adopt the policy, turn to unlock the building, then de-adopt the policy. That is lame.
We can make Regional Administration require an early-game tech, though.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#9 Post by Oberlus »

Grummel7 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:10 pm I do not like applying the the distance based influence cost from the beginning on top of the number based costs. Have you ever tried keep Centralization while your empire grows? Whatever removes this cost will become mandatory at some point. It will also make your starting races influence skill even more important than it is now.
To address this (avoid making Confederation mandatory at some point due to huge distance-based upkeeps otherwise), I propose the following:

1. Two alternatives to distance-based upkeep: Confederation, that removes it but has no IP or stability bonuses, and Feudalism, that replaces distance-based by a different system.

Feudalism is its own thing regarding colony influence upkeep:
- Colonies with stability >= 10, population >= 5 and population >= 2/3 * maximum population in 3 jumps around become a (feudal) House/Manor. Rest of colonies are Servant worlds.
- House worlds with no other House in 3 jumps get +1 IP and +1 stability for each servant world in 3 jumps.
- House worlds get -1 IP and -1 stability for each other House at 3 or less jumps
- Servant worlds at 3 or less jumps from a House or Capital get stability=min(stability+3, stability of nearest House - 1)
- Servant worlds at 4 or more jumps from a House or Capital get stability +3-distance to nearest House or Capital and +(3-distance)/2 IP.

2. Centralized governments (those that do not adopt Confederation nor Feudalism) have Regional Administration centers (RAC) to keep distance-based upkeep and distance-based stability under control:
- RACs have +3 stability and +1 IP if supply-connected to capital, -2 stability and -2 IP otherwise. Minimum distance between RACs 5 jumps.
- Non-RAC have +3-distance to nearest supply-connected RAC/capital stability and -0.5*distance IP max -3, and -10 stability and -3 IP if disconnected. If RACs are placed at 5 jumps of each other, average distance to RAC can stay under 2, so centralized (distance-based upkeep) means less than +1 IP per planet on average. Numbers could be tailored.

So the main difference between Centralized and the others is that you need to invest on buildings to develop a region and are more vulnerable to supply-line cuts.


The three versions of colony upkeep, Confederation, Feudalism and Centralized(no-policy) can benefit from several other government (already sketched in the OP) and non-government policies to increase IP and grow bigger despite the number-based colony upkeep, that is the one that will grow exponentially with empire size.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#10 Post by Krikkitone »

Regarding “Ethnocracy”…I wouldn’t make it mutually exclusive with anything
Relations between species should be their own 4 mutually exclusive policies
1. Default…Capital species is Dominant over the rest
2. Racial Purity/Xenocide…All but Capital species should be eliminated (or restricted to reserves as much as possible)
3. Racial Exploitation…all but Capital species should be enslaved
4. Racial Equality…All species are equal

Effects:
Default: Stability/upkeep penalty for all nonCapital Species
Purity: Massive Stability/upkeep and some Output penalties for all non Capital species (allows Camps that kill off other species)
Exploitation: Large Stability penalties and Output bonuses on all nonCapital species
Equality: mild Stability/upkeep penalty for all species


Those would all be compatible with any of the other governments. A Democratic Xenocidal/Democratic Slave empire makes perfect sense (the other species are simply not people). Ie Our commitment to human rights doesn’t apply to the Eggassem.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rethinking government policies, again

#11 Post by Oberlus »

Krikkitone wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 8:28 pm Regarding “Ethnocracy”…I wouldn’t make it mutually exclusive with anything
Relations between species should be their own 4 mutually exclusive policies
1. Default…Capital species is Dominant over the rest
2. Racial Purity/Xenocide…All but Capital species should be eliminated (or restricted to reserves as much as possible)
3. Racial Exploitation…all but Capital species should be enslaved
4. Racial Equality…All species are equal

Effects:
Default: Stability/upkeep penalty for all nonCapital Species
Purity: Massive Stability/upkeep and some Output penalties for all non Capital species (allows Camps that kill off other species)
Exploitation: Large Stability penalties and Output bonuses on all nonCapital species
Equality: mild Stability/upkeep penalty for all species


Those would all be compatible with any of the other governments. A Democratic Xenocidal/Democratic Slave empire makes perfect sense (the other species are simply not people). Ie Our commitment to human rights doesn’t apply to the Eggassem.
Love it. I'll work with that script.

Post Reply