@Apos said in Good Political Game Design:
@Pandora said in Good Political Game Design:
Maybe it's a perspective thing. I play code-heavy games, so I'm very used to seeing 'Might makes right' & the idea of a game with an emphasis on politics and relationships going the way of 'Idiot with a big militaristic force and no political support, leadership platform, or allies steamrolling to the top via brute strength' would just be disappointing to me, personally. Everyone has their own vision for these games, I'm just stating my opinion that I am against that particular vision and can only hope it doesn't come to pass.
I am for changes in the effective strength of domains, and the system is designed for the wax and wane of domains and ultimately potentially the military conquest of other domains. I think there needs to be a careful balance between making societal change possible, so you don't have permanent stasis, and making change so easy that you have nothing that feels like a real institution. So the advantages of the status quo can't be so crushing that it is impossible, and the advantages of new people coming in can't upend the social order with a trivial investment in time. Even for a hierarchical structure, I felt the baseline for that would be to make any liege slightly weaker than any 2 immediate vassals combined, or in rough parity to a vassal that is combined with their vassals' military forces.
That said, the social systems are imo far more important than the military ones, in so much the social systems will be the single largest determining factor for wealth and a healthy economy ultimately, and it will not be possible to support significant military forces that pose a realistic threat without gaining widespread support, or a significant economic expansion. And no players are creating new domains out of thin air- they are replacing existing NPC placeholders that codedly exist, and if a war happens, those NPCs are going to take sides, and those are going to be entirely social checks. And in macro army combat itself, I think morale will be way more important than most other factors, in that battles will be over if one side routs, and that would be extremely likely if a commander isn't well liked or respected. I prefer to make significant military advantages be the logical conclusion of social victories, pretty much.
I'm fine with all of this, it's logical and fine and if it's not exactly how I would do it, so what; checks and balances and social warfare engagements are the crux of my argument. Like I said, I'm against any system in which being the stronger militaristic force, despite lacking in all other political/social/economic arenas, means you can stare down your liege and say 'Make me'.
Realism isn't often a strong argument in system design, despite it being constantly made. Realistically, people have to stand in lines, catch colds, deal with racism/sexism/wtfever-else-ism, and a million other things that are realistic but curbed or outright cut of out games to make them enjoyable.
