Domestic Politices

Endless Space 2 covers domestic politics amazingly compared to Civ but it still leaves much to be desired. There is a maximum of six policy slots and they're mostly just bonus based instead of political. It might increase the influence of a certain party but that's really it. It's also completely party based. My basic idea specifically for HMKD to add some depth to this would be a major issue stance system instead of policy slots. Per era there would be a certain number of major issues that you will be required to take a stance on. These would be relevant to the era and perhaps the culture. Bonsues can definitely still exisit but currently it feels like they overshadow any actual politics that would bet there. Major issues could also come up over time in an era. If you hit a certain technology, for example artifical intelligence, you might have to take a stance on if you want to regulate it and if so how severly. I'm sure there are other cases where this could be used too but that's what I can think of right now. While ES2 has those two-option events they do not have many lasting effects if any I've seen. Just ten turn +'s or a tech or something. Now, your major issue stances won't neccessarily match the stances of your people. Let's say that you pick the policy of which the largest party of your nation would agree with. But while that party is the biggest, it is not greater or equal to 50% of the party divide. That would mean the majority of your nation could very much disagree with your stance. These policies would have an even greater effect in global politics.

Global Politics

War is no replacement for politics. Even in ES2, it is almost entirely war based. In Civ 6 you have some minsues or pluses to your diplomatic relations depending on your government but that's really it. I haven't tried the world congress in 6 but in 5 it was very underwhelming. War only happens because of politics so due to the lack therof it feels very shallow, espescially in the endgame. Either you are blindly conquesting the entire world or just chillin tryna get a sciene victory or something. In the latter scenario you might be in a war or two but usually not for a very meaningful reason. With more in-depth domestic politics other nations could react to those. In scenario one a democratic nation could change their government to a dictatorship. Your nation is in anarchy for ten turns and in these ten turns another nation, also democratic, decides your change of government is inhumane. They could go to war, sanction, cut off trade deals, agreements, things like that. I can't say exactly the conseqences since I don't really know the diplomatic options that will be avaliable in this game but those are some examples. Slightly unrelated but if your people rebel other nations could support the rebels either because they support the rebel's cause or because they want you dead. In scenario two, civil rights have become a big issue in your nation. You take a stance against it. A pro-civil rights nation could perform the aforementioned diplomatic actions against you because of it. If this system was just "democratic nation declares war on dictatorship" or "pro-x issue nation declares war on anti-x issue nation" it would be just as shallow as the old system. Without knowing more on how nations work it's hard to say how this would work, but different nations could feel strong to weak feelings on a given issue. Maybe that could be determined by party representation or culture or other such things.

I'm not really expecting this stuff. I don't think these ideas are airtight amazing. I made them in an hour or so. My goal here is to highlight how ignored politics have been. There are so many things that could add some depth to the politics and in turn the entire game. This should be taken on in some fashion, whatever that may be. Maybe it's too late in the dev cycle to do anything about this but wih only the early access being released in 2020 I believe there is much time for new things to be developed. If there's some news I missed that covers these issues feel free to call me stupid and give me a link. Or if you have any opinions I'm all ears. Lastly if you're a dev, thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks for any possible consideration.

Hello,

Thank you for your post and your interest in the game!

It's still too early to talk more about what we have in stock for politics but there will indeed be a system in the game to take stances on societal issues. It will be more abstracted than the system you propose, but for example the more stable your empire is, the faster you'll be able to make choices.

jhell wrote:

Hello,

Thank you for your post and your interest in the game!

It's still too early to talk more about what we have in stock for politics but there will indeed be a system in the game to take stances on societal issues. It will be more abstracted than the system you propose, but for example the more stable your empire is, the faster you'll be able to make choices.

For balancing purposes, I would recommend checking Europa Universalis IV Coalition mechanics. It really helps to balance the conquest as it works similarly as our current politics, where western countries put sanctions on aggressive countries for their aggression, thus attacking their economy without actual war 

jhell wrote:

Hello,

Thank you for your post and your interest in the game!

It's still too early to talk more about what we have in stock for politics but there will indeed be a system in the game to take stances on societal issues. It will be more abstracted than the system you propose, but for example the more stable your empire is, the faster you'll be able to make choices.

I know there isn't much that can be said yet, but I wonder if the values mentioned in the description of the event system during the PAX West Panel will be part of an 8 value political allignment system as it would seem, and what the impact on gameplay will be. For instance, the choices in dealing with the event for accusations of witchcraft as shown on the panel discussion were condemn, which promotes tradition inclination, or forgive, which promotes progress inclination. 

I wonder if the impact on gameplay will be simply a part of the event system, if it will provide passive boosts (tradition boosts stability while progress boosts science), or if it will have an active role in gameplay (too progressive and face revolution against despotic rule, too traditional and you can't implement reform). It seems like a cool feature and it would be nice to get more info on this.

hello and best of luck

I recently knew about the game and watched all the videos about it and I think it will be an amazing game.

i would like to share some ideas about internal politics in the game

-It would be awesome to see several factions inside a nation where the player is a part of it and where there is a competition for gaining power in the country/civ which can affect decisions and future nation's development 

-factions can be political families or parties or groups or else depending on nation's culture and political system. and each one gain power or not depending on decisions, influence, support based on circumstances.

-political systems have their own specifications

-if there is a democracy we should be able to see elections 

-corruption must be part of the game

-i think there must be a chance of emerging into civil wars, revolutions, rebellions, separatists.

there are a lot of ideas that can be included and which can make the game more realistic

and again Good Luck and thank you

I think one thing that holds developers back from really fleshing out mechanics like internal politics or geopolitics in any societal simulation is very straightforward: Balance.  It just becomes a huge headache to make a product that, in the end, is better off for having included an in-depth system that can be so broadly defined and far-reaching.  Anything with any real depth is going to be extremely vulnerable to community complaints, hotfixes, and patches ad infinitum, because every tweak causes new unforseen consequences with overall balance.  I believe this is why most games tend to settle for something oversimplified, that most players end up expressing disappointment about (e.g. see thread above).

A shortcut that is almost equally as obvious as identifying the problem is to make the problem less significant by reducing the impact of each moving part.  Basically, reduce the urge to have every decision directly tie to a resource/stat bonus or penalty and let more of the details be superficial.  You can flesh out politics by simply allowing the player to enrich their roleplaying experience, which I think is actually a really good fit for a game that intends to focus on creating a civilization with a unique, personalized culture.

Obviously geopolitics and internal politics must still have consequences, but they don't need to be so overt like most models tend to follow.  If you don't outright state what effect each decision will have it is a lot easier for those values to have some degree of randomness or uncertainty (which is more realistic, anyway).  Also, you could have cumulative consequences that do not immediately manifest.

I don't really have a brilliant idea here, just my two cents

I thought ES2's politics were underwhelming as well, but I think politics are a double-edged sword.  I feel like it just is at least used internally to determine AI behavior, for a more unique and accurate reaction by the AI to the player's actions, but advanced global politics can really bog down a game.  For example Stellaris Federations.  I loved it at first as I was discovering all the mechanics and so on, but in future playthroughs, I almost entirely ignored it.  The AI wasn't good enough to make realistic decisions, usually flip flopping between abstaining on policies or just following whichever stance had the most political weight, which I guess is good to simulate internal "congress debates" but makes for unconvincing and boring political cultures.  And games where warmongers are sanctioned by other nations usually fall into one of two categories, useless or brutal.  Sanctions somtimes only deter wars that the aggressor wasn't too certain about anyways.  Usually, the aggressor has calculated that defeating an enemy or taking a town is necessary, and the end benefits outweigh the sanctions.  Or, the sanctions are so brutal, that it becomes almost impossible to go to war at all, and the game grinds to a halt.  I feel like the politics shouldn't really be actions, but just developing the personality of the AI.  It was one of the things I loved about ES2.  Once the player learned more about the lore and background of the different factions, one could predict how they would react to various scenarios, and it gave the cool feeling of politically "playing" or manipulating the other empires.  Humankind needs to make the political stances of its AI empires clear, so the player can experience this same thrill.