A way to implement policy gameplay

[roarer]

When I checked out the official announcement of Rome 2 will be included in Rezzed, I saw a game that will be shown in Rezzed too : Democracy 3. It is a government simulation game which players can pick policies and laws to change different aspects of a society. I immediately wonder, will this kind of gameplay help the Total War series. The mechanics of Democracy 2 is something like this:


The whole population is divided into sub groups, such as drinkers, poor, middle income etc. Some of the sub- groups are mutually exclusive , some are not. e.g. a person can either be a poor, a middle income, or a wealthy and he can never be both. However, a middle income person can also be a patriot, an environmentalist etc. An important note : ppl can change from 1 group to another over the course of the game. If the GDP get higher and higher in a country, the number of poor will drop, and more ppl will be in the middle income group. Other things like ppl become patriotic after a terrorist atk etc.


The game shows how everything is related to each other this way. Players can change the age limit and penalty for alcohol Law. A stricter law will make productivity higher, less crime, longer lifespan, liberals happier and lead to a less happy drinker group. Another example, state health service spending :



The more you spend on the health service welfare, there will be less unemployment, cuz you hired those guys, and less hospital crowding. This will make diff. group ppl happier and angrier. The goal is to have the player balance everyone's need and keep a budget surplus so that everyone is happy. For every turn, the number of changes can be make depends on how drastic those changes are, usually 2 policies maybe 4 at max.


The fundamental structure of that game can add so much depth to the campaign experience in the total war series. We can divide the whole population into sth like patricians, equities, plebs, slaves... then add in groups like merchants, patriots, religious frenzies etc. Just a simpler edition of Democracy 2. The best thing that can happen to the series is that, it gives more ways for a faction to show its own identify, and create more depth. Each faction may have different groups. Even using the same groups for dividing the population, Eastern factions may have a bigger group of merchants. The Egyptian can have a larger group of religious guys, and the same law may yield a stronger effect on them. Then when the player keep conquering new regions, more and more ppl will come into the system, changing the balance of different groups. Same old policies may need to be adjusted so that the new found empire will be stable. Simply put, the bigger the empire, the balancing of groups become harder with more and more groups emerging. The game will keep forcing the players to adjust his laws and policies so that the campaign experience may be different everytime. Of course, this aspect is not within the scope of democracy 2 or 3.

Another aspect is the allocation of money become way more complex. Besides armies and constructions, players may need to look out for different groups' and prepare for mounting unrest.

The question is, if this side tracks from the theme "Total War" too much? Is this the right direction to raise the depth of the campaign? Is it going to become too complex?

oh , by the way, everyone can easily get the demo of democracy 2 for free if you wanna look into the game.

[SturmChurro]

I don't care about the people, I want war!

Anyway, I already like how it is done in Total War, and they are adding internal struggles too!

Yes, I do think it would become too complex. Having to put down the already constant rebellions in the backwater side of the empire, and now having to micromanage everything not to get more rebellions than I already get?! I'd rather just exterminate every settlement I conquer.

[roarer]

I don't care about the people, I want war!

Anyway, I already like how it is done in Total War, and they are adding internal struggles too!

Yes, I do think it would become too complex. Having to put down the already constant rebellions in the backwater side of the empire, and now having to micromanage everything not to get more rebellions than I already get?! I'd rather just exterminate every settlement I conquer.

What you said is one way to look at it, but the other way to look at it is to give rebellions, and happiness more specific reasons. Players can actually predict if a place is likely to rebel before even waging war. They can change policies beforehand to accompany the conquest. I 'll just say it's requiring players to have more skills in empire management, but of course, as the polls said , not that many ppl want empire management.

All this system does is naturally put a leash on the players. The larger the player's empire, the more complex the management becomes. If you are Athen and just stay in Greece, I do not think this aspect will need that much attention from the player. It is only when you are uniting the whole Europe, Asia and Africa under 1 banner you will scratch your head to find a middle ground. If you do not like your conquest to be hindered this way? Then how do you wish the game stops a player from steamrolling after we become the rank #1 faction? I do not think the way CA is doing is that good cuz there is less depth (and they make it sound it is inevitable), while the way I suggested is more dynamic, and maybe play out differently every campaign. Or maybe you wish your conquest will not be stopped by anything so that you can steamroll the AI for fun XD?

At the end of the day, you can still exterminate everyone you conquered if your whole nation is patriotic ~ ~

I would like TW to implement policy like the Tropico series.

I have never played that series. A quick google tells me that different factions demand the government to implement policies, but google did not tell me the effects of those policies (beside satisfying specific factions). It seems it is just a reverse of what I said in the OP: instead having the gov. pick what to implement, the factions / groups tell you what to do, and you only have the right to veto. Could you explain more about how policies in the Tropico series work ?

For ppl who pick the 3rd option, can you guys kindly elaborate more on how this idea deviates from what you want?

[ChairmanCrassus]

I have never played that series. A quick google tells me that different factions demand the government to implement policies, but google did not tell me the effects of those policies (beside satisfying specific factions). It seems it is just a reverse of what I said in the OP: instead having the gov. pick what to implement, the factions / groups tell you what to do, and you only have the right to veto. Could you explain more about how policies in the Tropico series work ? For ppl who pick the 3rd option, can you guys kindly elaborate more on how this idea deviates from what you want?

There is a policy tab which contains a list of policies. You click the policy you want. Each policy has an effect and unintended consequences. I made a post about this not very long ago: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rms&highlight=

[Sir Sesshaku]

How can you like War without meaning to it? Im not saying this is what TW need, but it definetly need something more, something that makes me care about going to war.

[zagy20]

I voted for the second option however I think it is a pretty good idea although I prefer war. I am very warlike in Total War so the main diplomacy option I want is too order my allies to attack at a certain point at a certain time.

[RoyalNobody]

I wouldn't mind a tad few more options when it comes to managing my home, but TW is for me primarily about conquering and crushing enemies. I don't want to many distractions.

[Serkelet]

I don't think this level of complexity is what Total War needs, but definitely Rome 2 could use more depth.

[ChairmanCrassus]

I would like TW to implement policy like the Tropico series.

[killua]

Only thing I'd like to add is recruitement pools. One city shouldn't be able to recruit thousands upon thousands of chosen warriors lets say even though the definition of these is the select few​. You know what I mean. Same thing with Spartan elites.

[Ridgy]

I feel the best way to implement greater strife and political depth would be to have the game generate and automate some influential characters with-in your State, they'd all have agendas and will seek out support amongst your other generals and statesman. So something similar to the Crusader Kings 2 faction system. It would account for policy changes like tax cuts, increased salaries for generals, and if you're powerful and vast enough, full on declarations of independence from local powers of your empire.

[Argon Viper]

I think this is a bit much. I agree that I would like to see a bit more detail in terms of policy control, but the end result is that you're not trying to win an election in this game; you're trying to rule the world.

Give me some control over taxation and allow me to manage what kind of buildings I want in each city, but catering to interest groups would be far too time consuming and take me away from the battles that I prefer in this game.

[Jimakos1966]

It would be interesting to have a live interaction in Politics. Imagine a 3D representation of Senate. Watching the Senators during the whole process of voting and etc. For example if you have democracy you will need to take Senate's approval to declare war at Gauls. This could be HUGE and take R2TW to the next level. Any similar system to this, could be epic.

[Ichon]

Democracy the game sounds interesting and follows some Paradox titles such as Victoria but adds even more depth. I can't see it for TW series at this point because of time management. I'm waiting for a game which blends TW real time battles and depth of Democracy and Victoria but the only way I can see it working in a fun and interesting way is with 'action' points or something similar where the player can only intervene directly so many times in a given period so deciding which battle or policy is crucial is as much important as trying to steer an empire/state in certain directions. So if in a certain span 20 actions which player can influence directly (control a battle, increase odds of certain policy being implemented, sway the vote or public opinion, etc) the player can actually only intervene in 5 things directly and has to choose wisely where to invest the time while AI or different sets of odds dictate outcomes for the other actionable events so even without player intervention a certain policy may still pass but it has lower odds of success. Secondary mechanic would be the more times in a row good results were obtained the higher chances of success in the next event within a certain time frame so waiting for key moment and spending all points at once ensures more likely odds of success than spreading out over time so it is most efficient but also maybe much more difficult to control when such circumstances with key events in a row align.

[roarer]

Democracy the game sounds interesting and follows some Paradox titles such as Victoria but adds even more depth. I can't see it for TW series at this point because of time management. I'm waiting for a game which blends TW real time battles and depth of Democracy and Victoria but the only way I can see it working in a fun and interesting way is with 'action' points or something similar where the player can only intervene directly so many times in a given period so deciding which battle or policy is crucial is as much important as trying to steer an empire/state in certain directions. So if in a certain span 20 actions which player can influence directly (control a battle, increase odds of certain policy being implemented, sway the vote or public opinion, etc) the player can actually only intervene in 5 things directly and has to choose wisely where to invest the time while AI or different sets of odds dictate outcomes for the other actionable events so even without player intervention a certain policy may still pass but it has lower odds of success. Secondary mechanic would be the more times in a row good results were obtained the higher chances of success in the next event within a certain time frame so waiting for key moment and spending all points at once ensures more likely odds of success than spreading out over time so it is most efficient but also maybe much more difficult to control when such circumstances with key events in a row align.

Hi Ichon. I did forget to mention in the OP that, there is a system limiting the amount of policies, laws established, changed, canceled for the game, depending on how drastic those changes are. In Democracy 2, we are usually talking about 2 changes per turn, which is quite manageable for me. When you talk about about time management and passing policies without players interaction, I am wondering if you are thinking at least over 5 policies changes are made per turn, that is quite overwhelming. The more options a player have, the more time consuming it will be for him to understand all the options. However, when a player know that only 1 or 2 policies can be changed a turn, he will simply find out the most important one or 2 things to get done. After that, most guys will just end turn and leave other options for the next turn.

I would rather say the most time consuming action for the players are assessing the interest groups in enemy territories, and to pick policies according to their expansion plan, or pick expansion route according to the political situation in their own state. I would argue that this adds so much depth to WARS, which is the theme of our beloved series ~ ~. I do not see a real issue of time management here.

Regarding the passing / altering policies without players interaction, it is quite an interesting idea. However, putting a limit on how many battles a player can control within a turn might not be supported by a lot of ppl. I would rather leave that part out of the equation. For every turn, let players pick 1~3 laws (the number depends on how drastic the changes are) they wanna change and guarantee they will succeed, while having one policy change depending on the opinion of the senate / other councilors etc.

I have to admit I do not quite grasp the secondary mechanic. By "good result", do you mean, a policy is actually passed by the player's interaction? or do you mean, the AI agree the passing of the law ? The other thing is the accumulation of points. Are you suggesting a player can have more policies passed if he does not do anything in the first 10 turns. If that's the case putting a cap on how much points can be accumulated is essential, so that things do not change too drastically.

I feel the best way to implement greater strife and political depth would be to have the game generate and automate some influential characters with-in your State, they'd all have agendas and will seek out support amongst your other generals and statesman. So something similar to the Crusader Kings 2 faction system. It would account for policy changes like tax cuts, increased salaries for generals, and if you're powerful and vast enough, full on declarations of independence from local powers of your empire.

A constant struggle of popularity between the central government and influential individuals? That is pretty neat. The question is what the individual can do to combat the authority of the state? What can the players do to counter those actions?

There is a policy tab which contains a list of policies. You click the policy you want. Each policy has an effect and unintended consequences. I made a post about this not very long ago: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rms&highlight=

Just read it. If the unintended consequences are fixed, then it seems similar to what is said in the OP, right?

[Razor]

I agree but to me it should go a tad farther.

Seriously, to all you guys. Try Victoria 2 or Europa Universalis 3 from Paradox (and try to overlook the 'real time' campaign which is the one aspect I hate and from which all evil - like getting overwhelmed by pop-up spam - originates). Only then you will realize what Total War is missing. To me Total War is classic in its combination of turnbased campaign and realtime battles. But honestly it stops right there for me.
It looks beautiful, but has little meaning and gives little sense to everything and few challenges - hence why I stopped playing the recent installments not long after starting. Internal politics and making up policies and issuing edicts and laws and the whole impact on your society is what adds flesh and spice - and dare I say meaning - to it all. It's not all just wars, wars originate from something, be it political, economical, social whatever, which is what's lacking in Total War games.

Also - a crucial aspect if you'd ask me - wars are just wars and there's no distinction made between the different kinds of wars. For starters, there are no war goals laid out: what does one want to achieve with a war (tribute, conquer province x, add to sphere of influence, remove faction x from enemy sphere of influence etc.). Instead Total War's AI will just randomly conquer a province out of the blue and... well that's just it. No peace signed to cash in your demands following the results of the war to conclude the hostilities, but instead endless senseless wars with an AI that doesn't know what its interests are, doesn't know when it's defeated and what it should be doing.

Add these aspects to Total War and the experience will improve by A LOT if you'd ask me.
Of course CA could just let it be or perhaps continue the trend by adding 'new' features and mechanisms (and effectively try to re-invent the wheel) that are already tried in other games and increasing the poly count in every new installment (to absurd heights if you'd ask me).
Perhaps it's also just me getting older and outgrowing the somewhat simple Total War series and looking farther than external looks.

[roarer]

I agree but to me it should go a tad farther.

Seriously, to all you guys. Try Victoria 2 or Europa Universalis 3 from Paradox (and try to overlook the 'real time' campaign which is the one aspect I hate and from which all evil - like getting overwhelmed by pop-up spam - originates). Only then you will realize what Total War is missing. To me Total War is classic in its combination of turnbased campaign and realtime battles. But honestly it stops right there for me.
It looks beautiful, but has little meaning and gives little sense to everything and few challenges - hence why I stopped playing the recent installments not long after starting. Internal politics and making up policies and issuing edicts and laws and the whole impact on your society is what adds flesh and spice - and dare I say meaning - to it all. It's not all just wars, wars originate from something, be it political, economical, social whatever, which is what's lacking in Total War games.

Also - a crucial aspect if you'd ask me - wars are just wars and there's no distinction made between the different kinds of wars. For starters, there are no war goals laid out: what does one want to achieve with a war (tribute, conquer province x, add to sphere of influence, remove faction x from enemy sphere of influence etc.). Instead Total War's AI will just randomly conquer a province out of the blue and... well that's just it. No peace signed to cash in your demands following the results of the war to conclude the hostilities, but instead endless senseless wars with an AI that doesn't know what its interests are, doesn't know when it's defeated and what it should be doing.

Add these aspects to Total War and the experience will improve by A LOT if you'd ask me.
Of course CA could just let it be or perhaps continue the trend by adding 'new' features and mechanisms (and effectively try to re-invent the wheel) that are already tried in other games and increasing the poly count in every new installment (to absurd heights if you'd ask me).
Perhaps it's also just me getting older and outgrowing the somewhat simple Total War series and looking farther than external looks.

I would say my suggestion focus on the consequences of wars more than the origin of wars. It provides means for player to interact with all these different consequences. As you said, one of the problem in the Total War series is like.... no one has any incentive to sit down and live a peaceful life. The whole population of a faction is like blind followers of the god (the player) : if war is what can please our god, we will sacrifice our lives to please the god. When you have to face the fact that not everyone want to risk their lives to conquer the world, that's the moment you pull the players from the heaven back to earth. You are no longer a god, but a person who has to make others follow your will. Even someone as great as Alexander has to stop his conquest because of his soldiers' demand. To me, this aspect help creating immersion, and of course --- add depth.

Policies are not separate gameplay from wars, but means to make people willing to die for you. I must admit some players might just want fast pace campaign where they can simply use their mighty army to force everyone else to bow down to him. I respect their opinion, and that's why I have that option in the poll. By the way, you forget to vote.