Politics/Religion

[Zarax]

Split of from the original XGM thread. I have tried to gather all the posts on implementing religion in the Imperial Campaign. -DBH

Ok, it can be done...
BTW, how do you think religions can be implemented into the RTW campaign?

[Zarax]

Ok, here's something very experimental I just started on XGM-BI:



As you can see from the screenshot it's possible to implement religions into the RTW campaign using the BI exe.

Everything is still very crude as I simply added the religions, put a random icon and set the territories but nonetheless it's a proof of concept...
We just started a discussion with DBH about how to implement the religious mechanism in XGM-BI so no details available for now, just know that this might be one of the things available in the BI extras for next version...

The question is: would you like it?

Please note that due to hardcoded limits we can only have 3 working "beliefs" so that they most likely won't be religious ones but something more generic like government systems for example (also condider that religious strife did not have in the mod timespan the same importance as it did later), although your feedback on the issue would really be appreciated.

[Ahiga]

Why don't you use the religion as cultural?

"Barbarian", "Eastern" And "Greco-Roman".

[Zarax]

Well, we could, but how this would deepen the game without having to make choices?

[Froggie5]

Hello,

I have been lurking on this thread for a bit and recently began a campaign with 3.5.1, which I am enjoying a great deal. I have a quick question and a few comments.

The first regards the Skymod. @DBH, you stated that copying the following files from BI will provide the best-looking night battles:

xgm\data\descr_battle_map_lighting_and_fog_control .txt
xgm\data\descr_daytypes.txt
xgm\data\descr_skydome.txt

If one does this won't they lose Archer's skies for daytime battles?


I second the request to add Modding Legions to this mod, I think that it would be a great addition.

@Zarax - congratulations on getting religion to work in RTW, that is a very interesting proof of concept. I am unsure, however, how much it would really add to a campaign. As you noted, religion was not a major issue at the time, so by adding government system or some other "belief" are you simply introducing complexity for its own sake without adding anything significant to gameplay? I have an open mind on this issue, just thought I would throw that out there.

@Zarax - quick question. I did not install BI-XGM initially and now regret it as I would like the shield wall. Can I install it and continue my campaign or must I start again? Many thanks.


@Saxonhero - I would not like to see Rome unified and the senate removed. I know this is a Greek mod, but I also think that it has great potential to play as the Romans, particularly with beefed up Greek culture factions and Carthage and a toned down Rome. The Civil War, IMO, is critical to keeping things interesting late-game for the Romans. If you are playing a non-Roman faction than you usually have a Roman juggernaut to take on in the seocnd half of the campaign. As the Romans you almost never have any serious threats after you hit 25 or 30 provinces. Tough opponents and long slogs (e.g. Egypt) to be sure, but noone else that can actually win except for one or more of the other Roman families. Well, that's my opinion anyway...

[Zarax]

@Zarax - congratulations on getting religion to work in RTW, that is a very interesting proof of concept. I am unsure, however, how much it would really add to a campaign. As you noted, religion was not a major issue at the time, so by adding government system or some other "belief" are you simply introducing complexity for its own sake without adding anything significant to gameplay? I have an open mind on this issue, just thought I would throw that out there.

Froggie, the system is still in its very early phase so there's a lot to discuss about it...

DBH and me have different ideas on how to use the religion system but here's an example of something tied to "governments" would do:

Populism: a type of government in which is believed that the masses have to be kept happy in order to govern.

- Good bonus on happiness

- Moderate bonus on law

- reduced infantry training costs

Despotism: a system based on a strong authority with a noble class to control the masses.

- Low happiness bonus

- High law bonus

- Allows to recruit "noble" elite units

Tribalism: similar to a confederation, it's based on strong ties on local authority.

- High happiness bonus

- Low law bonus

- Bonus to morale/allows to recruit fanatical troops

As you can see, you can add detail to the system by giving the player more choice and at the same time slowing down conquest rushes (but allowing for better empire management if implemented through additional buildings).

There are a lot of details that can be added, this is just a quick glance on what it could be...

@Zarax - quick question. I did not install BI-XGM initially and now regret it as I would like the shield wall. Can I install it and continue my campaign or must I start again? Many thanks.

I *think* you will need to restart as AFAIK BI does not import RTW savegames...

[Froggie5]

Zarax,

Thank you for your reply. This looks quite interesting indeed, perhaps adding more depth than religion in BI (mainly loyalty and some units). I was intrigued by the following:

"As you can see, you can add detail to the system by giving the player more choice and at the same time slowing down conquest rushes (but allowing for better empire management if implemented through additional buildings)."

Does this mean you are also considering using different government buildings (as in EB) along with the belief system to represent/develop these different government types?


One last question - to use BI-XGM I need to have the BI cd in the drive, nit the RTW, correct? Thanks again.

[Zarax]

Well, while I don't really aim to get at EB level (I don't have the time nor the skills for that) the system can be used to represent different "styles" of government (as you get only 3 fully working slots you cannot have high levels of detail) which have different advantages and disadvantages without being necessarily one better than the other... Hopefully it will be more balanced than BI (where paganism was a bad long term choice) but it can't do much more than it does with BI (that level requires a lot of extra traits and ancillaries, it will take more than one release to get there) although some more tech tree changed and other little things can be added... Just don't expect RTR or EB level on here, we don't have the resources for that kind of work.

Other than that, yes, XGM-BI requires the BI CD in the drive as it uses the expansion pack executable.

[Zarax]

Well, consider that the belief system allows only for 3 active slots, so that the "governments" will be quite generic as listed before...

Anyways, while tribalism is a way to represent the barbarian more loose way of government (usually most factions were confederations of tribes), despotism is used for the factions or cities which were governed by a king-like figure (sparta is a bit on the middle of despotism and populism) while populism covers the broader forms of government, from senatorial republics like rome and carthage to atenian "democracy"... It's not a very accurate system but I hope still abstract enough to work into game mechanics and give a credible way to represent civil strife rather than religious one and the increased unrest when one conquers a place with a different government represents the population's allegiance with the previous social structure, as the change would revolutionize it...

I haven't touched that part yet but both greek and romans shold have a populistic "government" with the only exceptions of Sparta and Syracuse as they were governed in a much stricter way and so they would get a despotic "government" although game balance might dictate differently.

I will start working seriously on that only later this week but if DBH agrees on the system i listed you might get something like that:

All barbarians, thrace, schitya and numidia: start with tribalism and may choose despotism

GCS, rome and the city of Carthage: start with populism and may choose despotism (carthaginian colonies might get despotism at the start, making for an historical tendency to rebel)

Egypt, seleucids, macedonia and most eastern culture factions: start with despotism and may choose populism

[Rosacrux redux]

In the way you are putting it, Sparta was as "democratic" as Rome and Karthago. In every possible way, Sparta (as Rome and Karthago) was a full-fledged Oligarchy. A state ruled by a few people and by a single social class. The kings were mostly figureheads and wartime leaders, the real power lied within the Spartan senate.
Whereas in Athens and other city-states (including Syracusae, actually, although the latter had in several instances tyrants as leaders - the most prominent being Dionysius, Agathocles, Gelon - but the Syracuseans had a very much Athens-like democracy in place, although more prone to manipulation by gifted demagogues and powerful individuals) the whole body of free citizen was the dominant class.

Just offering some insight on ancient politics, in order to aid this magnificent mod! BTW I like the structure of the "governments". Makes sense, indeed.

[DimeBagHo]

I've been thinking about the possiblities for government types, and I still like my setup better than the one Zarax proposed . But I think it's worth some more discussion.

Here is what I proposed (Zarax has already seen this in a PM):

Federal: The Greeks Cities and the Barbarians were typically organised in loose federations. They should get high law bonuses and tax penalties to reflect the fact that, because government was local, there was less trouble keeping order, less corruption, but it was much harder to raise money, and raise armies for the Federation as a whole.

Republican: Modeled on early Rome and the early Greek empires (Athenian and Spartan). Power is more centralised, but also more democratic. The instability of democratic government makes maintaing a large empire harder. Modest law bonuses maybe.

Imperial: Modeled on late Rome, Successor states, Eastern empires. Power is centralised, and monarchic. Government tends to be more stable, so it is easier to maintain a large empire. Maybe the same law bonus as Republican, and a happiness bonus as well.

In many ways this setup is very similar to the one that Zarax proposed because we are trying to capture the same political divisions: decentralised vs centralised, democratic vs oligarchic (or monarchic). But I think my setup is more historically accurate, both in terms of the names used, and the way it follows actual historical development.

The term "despotism", for example was used almost exclusively for eastern governments. "Tribalism" can only be applied to the barbarians, even though what was important about both the barbarians and the Greek Cities is that they were decentralised at a faction level. "Populism" was certainly an important political force in the Greco-Roman world, but not so much anywhere else, and populism sometimes meant democracy, and sometimes meant tyranny. The early Roman emperors were populists, while the defenders of the Republic were oligarchs.

I guess another possibility would be to have democracy/oligarchy/tyranny, or maybe democracy/aristocracy/monarchy, if we want to represent the conflict between the populaists and the oligarchs, but I think Federal/Republican/Imperial gets closer to how the factions were actually organised.

[Zarax]

Thanks Rosacrux redux, being no historian it's easy to make such mistakes...

[saxonhero]

I thought one could add more "religions" to the game with their own traits, icons etc?

[Zarax]

I thought one could add more "religions" to the game with their own traits, icons etc?

You can add up to 10 religions but only 3 are working with unrest and all...

[Zarax]

Well, the problem is that with the setup intended this way you're almost thinking in an evolutive way rather than a "competitive" one like "religions" should be...

While this would be an excellent government setup I have my doubts in how this could be balanced (unless you want a BI-like setup where christianity was the only good long term choice) and how could they really be conflicting... I mean, it's a good system but you have to fit into a competitive and mutually exclusive logic...

[DimeBagHo]

While this would be an excellent government setup I have my doubts in how this could be balanced (unless you want a BI-like setup where christianity was the only good long term choice) and how could they really be conflicting... I mean, it's a good system but you have to fit into a competitive and mutually exclusive logic...

I'm not so worried about this. The trend in the period was towards one particular form of government, and it can still be made a tough choice as to when to change, and whether it is worth the pain. But...

Well, the problem is that with the setup intended this way you're almost thinking in an evolutive way rather than a "competitive" one like "religions" should be...

...the more I think about the more I think you are right about this. Federal/Republican/Imperial just doesn't work as well as a model of competing forces within a society. Your system is much better suited for modeling social factions. But I think, if we are just limited to three, then it should be tribal/democratic (or populist)/oligarchic (or aristocratic), because the big social conflicts of the time were between democrats and oligarchs.

If it turns out that we can have more slots that actually work we could have Tribal/Democratic/Oligarchic/Monarchic. Tyranny doesn't work so well as a social faction because, like I said before, tyranies were just as often supported by populist factions as by oligarchic factions.

*Edit* I guess what I'm getting at here is that we really shouldn't be modeling systems of government, but rather the political factions within a society.

*Edit* The choice between using democratic or populist is also difficult. Populists thought that government should be *for* the people, in the sense of "for their benefit" but didn't neccesarily think it should be *by* the people. Democrats tended to think that is should be for the people and by the people.

[zodmaner]

The choice between using democratic or populist is also difficult.

In my humble opinion, back at those time the form of "democracy" as a government for the people "by" the people is very rare (with Athen being a special case, and even then it was only by "free citizen" for "free citizen".) So I think using populist is more appropriate. In addition, it can represent more type of governments. (eg. republic, (early) democratic, etc.)

But then again, I'm no historian. But I think you should try to keep the system as abstract as possible so that it can be apply to many types of government system.

Edit: Hm... I'm a little confused, when we talk about government system, on what level are we talk about? Are we talking about government system on a level of faction as a whole? Or are we talking about the system for each settlement? Because if we talk about the system for the entire faction then DimeBagho system is more appropriate. (I especially like the federal ideas for the Greek cities.) But if you talk about the system for each settlement then zarzax system seems better.

[DimeBagHo]

Edit: Hm... I'm a little confused, when we talk about government system, on what level are we talk about? Are we talking about government system on a level of faction as a whole? Or are we talking about the system for each settlement? Because if we talk about the system for the entire faction then DimeBagho system is more appropriate. (I especially like the federal ideas for the Greek cities.) But if you talk about the system for each settlement then zarzax system seems better.

That's just what I was thinking. If we want to model the government structure at the level of the faction, rather than the settlement, then Federal/Republican/Imperial is better. But I now think we should drop the idea of modeling types of government, and instead model political factions. The religion mechanism would model which faction, or political party if you like, has power, and how much support they have, rather than the type of government.

[Zarax]

That's just what I was thinking. If we want to model the government structure at the level of the faction, rather than the settlement, then Federal/Republican/Imperial is better. But I now think we should drop the idea of modeling types of government, and instead model political factions. The religion mechanism would model which faction, or political party if you like, has power, and how much support they have, rather than the type of government.

Well, as long as you can have 3 different entities that are mutually exclusive, competing and with no long term advantage over each one I can implement the thing without too many problems...

Religions are of course out of question, government systems are doable but we need to find a common position...

I'm open to anything that makes sense, really... Our worst problem is the hardcoded limit, otherwise things would have been a lot easier.

Just consider that in this case local effects matters a bit more than global ones, as "religion" is managed on a per city basis while there are global penalties just in case the faction leader religion is different than the settlement's own, which tends to take out a few other possible things from the equation...

[Rosacrux redux]

The way I see it: If you want to be accurate, those should be the government options:

- Democracy. The Athenian model of democracy, dominant in the bulk of city states, both in mainland Greece and southern Italy/Sicily. The political power is in the hands of all free citizen (slaves are not free citizen, mind you) and is exercised through everyday practice and democratic institutions. Should have a small penalty in tax money, a large boost in happiness.

- Oligarchy (or, if you go Platonic, Aristocracy). The Roman Republic, as well as Sparta, Karthago, a dozen Greek city states and a few others, had such institutions in place. Although nominally all free citizen have political power, in reality it lies within the hands of the ruling class (the great senatorial families in Rome, the wealthy merchants in Karthago, the old aristocracy - homoioi - in Sparta). A bonus in tax revenue but a penalty in morale-law and happiness

- Tyranny. The misunderstanding about Syracusae lies within the fact that the great city of Sicily has had as its most prominent leaders a number of Tyrants. Tyrant is a non-nominal despot, one that comes to power by exploiting weaknesses of the government. Should be applied to those states who actually had tyrants during that period. Large bonus in law and security, a penalty in happiness and tax revenues.

- Despotism. The hellenistic monarchies and all other traditional monarchies, should be put under despotism. Modelled on the eastern-type despotism (Persian empire and such) it should offer a bonus on law but a decrease on happiness. Seleucids, Egypt, Armenia, Pontus, Makedonia, Parthia should be despotic.

- Tribal. Think of "barbarians". Large penalty on tax, large bonus on happiness, methinks.

Those are five and, well, the problem is that you have only three slots to work with...

I like Zarax's model more, because it is more close to the actual governments. Although DBH's model seems more concrete as a concept and fundamentally correct, it lacks historical equivalence in terms and as such seems more "foreign" to the period. Especially lumping together the basic Greek and "barbarian" gov. seems to me innapropriate.

Whatever you pick I'll be with you, guys! You are doing a great job!