[Beren IV]

Political instability and revolution are, of course, a very important force in history: many times, a leader would not only need to pay attention to rival empires but also to rival factions within his or her own civilization. Of course, political instability is (generally) not very Tolkienian; most people of most nations seem loyal to the point almost of being fanatical in Tolkien. He does have some internal rebellions and subversions, such as Celegorm/Curufin's userping Nargothrond from Finrod, the Kin-Strife of Númenor and Gondor, etc., but they are nowhere near as common as in actual history, as evinced by the fact that his civilizations stand longer than just about any real civilization does.

So, the question: do we have political instability within TLA?

[Enarwaen]

interesting question there Beren

as you correctly mentioned, Tolkien doesn't really include things like dissent and revolutions in his tales. he only mentions political upheavals like your examples of the Kin-strife in Gondor and Celegorm's and Curufin's grasp for power in Nargothrond (amidst other examples).

we are currently not planning on having something like a dissent-o-meter in the game - but we will portray such acts of political turbulence with in-game events - which will have a profound influence on the gameplay

for example take the Kin-strife in Gondor. when that event 'fires' the player will get (if playing Gondor) a popup where he can decide which side he supports. accordingly to that decision the Realm of Gondor will be influenced (e.g. some provinces will fall to one side while other provinces stay loyal to the 'rightful' line). if Gondor is controlled by the AI - then this will be a scripted event (as it will be with any other event that we will depict in TLA)

but i'm afraid we cannot include stuff like revolutions because - frankly there's no basis for them in the books ... and to us the books are the solid source on which we design and build TLA

[Caedus]

The term 'political instability' can be taken very broad and the events that Bernd mentions, seem very suitable, to me, to fill that spot.

Would those events 'play' in a random scenario? And can they be scripted in the game editor?

[Clodhopper]

I'd say the Men and Dwarves should revolt, but only in extreme circumstances, and Elves should not, because they seem to be the wisest of all the beings. That's my opinion.

[Beren IV]

The Elves don't seem really keen on rebelling, if nothing else because that's not their government style. The Elven Kings are supposedly kings with absolute power, but with only the rare exception (Turgon in Gondolin) are Elves forbidden from deserting their Lord or Lady's lands and going somewhere more agreeable, including wilderness (I generally see Elves as almost semi-nomadic for this reason). Generally, I would think that if you get political dissent among your Elven population, you're going to lose production ability or even units, not because they've revolted but simply because they've left.

[Clodhopper]

Yeah, Ok, that sounds better.

[draugaer]

The only problem I see with this idea is: what motivation would there be for the populace to rebel? Orcs could not rebel against Morgoth because he had supream power over them, and why would Elves or Men rebel against their governments, they have enough to worry about with defending their lands from evil, let alone rioting against thier own leaders. I don't think political instability is prevelant enough in Tolkien's mythology to warrent a full built-in game feature, and I think it is better left to scripting in the map editor.

[Clodhopper]

Does everything have to be strictly Tolkien, though?

[Beren IV]

Well, that depends on when in the story. Certainly, there were some times in Arda's history (the late Second Age leaps to mind) in which the principal force of evil was a dissenting, greed-driven faction of Men.

[Enarwaen]

Anco said:

Would those events 'play' in a random scenario? And can they be scripted in the game editor?

if by 'random scenario' you mean an Age-spanning campaign - then yes (a little patience is still needed on your side - we will reveal our latest developements soon)

and yes - in the game editor you will be able to create specific events that 'fire' on user-defined conditions

Clodhopper said:

Does everything have to be strictly Tolkien, though?

errm - yes! but the player will have enough freedom to decide himself on what transpires in Arda ...

and again ... those scripted events will have noticeable effects on more than one civilisation - not only the one that the player controls ...

[Caedus]

*rub one's hands*
Mwuahahah....ahum, I mean: good!

Which reminds me: Eomer 'rebelled' against his king, because he thought it to be in the best interest of his people. And the latter days of Numenor also know their share of political tensions. Perhaps such things could be depicted in the form of a general drop of morale?

[draugaer]

The major reason I see against a "built in" political instablity system would be how to implement it. True there are many cases in Tolkiens works were there was political instablity or civil war these were caused by a unique series of events.

We still have to wait to see how the final game design will be before a really good choice can be made. For example if TLA ends up using a territory based map, then I could see political instablity being implimented like Medieval: Total War or Age of Wonders. (if you capture a province that was formerly owned by a faction you have poor relations with, that province will have a chance of revolting).

[Beren IV]

I love Age of Wonders. Have you ever played my Arda mods? (off topic)


I can see many problems that having a revolution could cause in terms of game mechanics. For example, suppose, for the sake of argument, that a revolution happens and creates another, revolting, faction. Realistically, this new faction should have all of the attributes and capabilities of a full player, including the ability to build an economy and train a military, and then use that military to launch subsequent offensives, just as an AI player would. How would the diplomatic relations of the new nation be concieved? Would it be at war with everyone? Would it retain the same diplomatic stance with other nations as its parent nation, but be at war with the parent nation? Might it even be of the same Civilization (e.g. could a Sindar player's colony revolt and turn into a Falathrim player)?

[Caedus]

Beren IV, on Jul 22 2005, 10:11 PM, said:

I can see many problems that having a revolution could cause in terms of game mechanics. For example, suppose, for the sake of argument, that a revolution happens and creates another, revolting, faction. Realistically, this new faction should have all of the attributes and capabilities of a full player, including the ability to build an economy and train a military, and then use that military to launch subsequent offensives, just as an AI player would. How would the diplomatic relations of the new nation be concieved? Would it be at war with everyone? Would it retain the same diplomatic stance with other nations as its parent nation, but be at war with the parent nation? Might it even be of the same Civilization (e.g. could a Sindar player's colony revolt and turn into a Falathrim player)?

Personally, I liked that feature in the original 'Seven Kingdoms' game. As for the diplomatic relations, depending on the reason for rebelling, that new faction could have hostile relations which it's original ruler and it's relations with the other players being dependant on that ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend'-principle). It would seriously complicate the game though.

Maybe an idea for an expansion pack?

Or a rebelling faction could be made a 'minor' civ. Then the player could try to conquer them again through force, or taking them over diplomatically by solving the issues that made them rebel in the first place (such as attacking friends/allies and that being viewed inproper).

This post has been edited by Caedus: 23 July 2005 - 12:17 AM

[Beren IV]

Quote

Or a rebelling faction could be made a 'minor' civ. Then the player could try to conquer them again through force, or taking them over diplomatically by solving the issues that made them rebel in the first place (such as attacking friends/allies and that being viewed inproper).

That was more-or-less what I suggested. Of course, this 'minor' civ could become not-so-minor over history. Eregion was founded by a bunch of Noldor that split off from other Noldorin civilizations back in the First Age.

[Caedus]

I certainly see much potential in this concept. But it needs some careful brainstorming, designing and tweaking to make it work gameplay-wise.

For example:
- how are leaders selected for new civs (random, pre-determined?)?
- how many resources and men do new civs take from the orginal one?
- how can players prevent defection?
- what is the goal of new civs (simply exist, or to wage war against the original, or maybe to cease war?)?

And likely more that I didn't think of now.

[Beren IV]

In order to answer those questions, I suggest some kind of a resent-o-meter, and moreover, this resent-o-meter would have to exist for every single unit and building, as well as for the civilization as a whole. There would be a civilization-wide measure of sources of unrest, which could include mistreatment, being used as crossbow-fodder, being forced to act contrary to the tendencies of the civ (in which each civ would need cultural tendencies), the civilization's being spread too thin (i.e. town centers on opposite sides of the map with nothing in-between) or even subversion by spies/agents of other civilizations. When the civilization-wide resent-o-meter reaches a critical threshold, a secession takes place, and when this occurs all units and buildings that have a sufficiently high resent value defect. The behavior and intentions of the seceedant civilization would be dependent upon the reason for secession, from "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (that would result from over-opression), to "we are the brothers of our other state" (which would result from isolation).

I am at present not clear enough on how leaders operate to offer any suggestions regarding them.

[Aztec_Brave]

Quote

Does everything have to be strictly Tolkien, though?

Woah! I really can't wait till Adam gets here!

[Enarwaen]

@Beren

again - we will *not* include something like a resent-o-meter in the game. all political happenings will be scripted into the game and become active once the 'historically' correct moment arrives. if a civ is to be divided (i.e. Gondor's Kin-strife) we will introduce a separate (new) faction that will split off from the original civ and receive a part of it's provinces. with introducing a new faction (that is in it's origins still part of the original civ) we can have a totally different diplomatic stance towards it's former allies while maintaining the consistancy of the civilisation in itself.

@Aztec_Brave
heh

[Beren IV]

Oops - I thought you were "not planning" on including a resent-o-meter. Pardon me.