I'm less in love with the idea of "rebels" in the position of unsatisfied populace. I prefer something closer to "thralls" or "drudges" to depict uninvolved people not enjoying their lives and not contributing more than the absolute minimum.
Although everybody who can read this has been exposed to people "rebels" all their lives, in economic terms, most "rebellions" of the last century were the expensive hobby of rich people. Genuinely poor and uneducated folk keep to themselves and try to get by in the best way they can, while giving up as little as possible to the lords/commisars they distrust and despise. Throughout history there have been notable uprisings, but until fairly recently it was not an activity that occurred on an ongoing basis. When the people in charge use cavalry as their ombudsmen, rebels have short careers.
The advantage of calling unhappy folk "Drudges" is that it changes the economic framework of the game. The oppressive Empire kingdoms will have predominantly "Drudge" populations, but the more enlightened Kingdoms can have more productive happy citizenry. This way you can have folks who are miserable but loyal...or at least too beaten down to overthrow their masters. Contrary to most popular representations of revolutionary transitions, it takes a lot to convert a "Drudge" to a happy citizen, but a lot of that is cultural.While it would be nice if everybody welcomed individual liberty, a distressing number of folks will put the slave collar back on, the first chance they get.
This new title is more in line with the experiences I've observed and discussed with survivors of Franco's Spain, Ceaușescu's Romania, Pinochet's Chile, Mubarek's Egypt, Assad's Syria, and Hussein's Iraq. I hope you will consider it, I give this to you freely.
Empires are Nietzschian in design. The weak are slaves to the strong. Kingdoms are monarchic in design. The masses are slave to the nobility. Both sides off freedom for some small group, but the masses are oppressed. A mod would probably want to change this to have Empires be more oppressive and Kingdoms offer limited freedom.
Then perhaps while Empires have Farmers and Citizen-Drudges ...
Kingoms could have Farmers, Noble-Citizens, and Peasants. (and Dissident Nobles)
Farmers: Medium Taxes
Citizen-Nobles: High Taxes
Drudges and Peasants: Low Taxes
Dissident Nobles: No Taxes (negative Taxes/corruption?)
Cities with stronger economies can support more Noble-Citizens, yet Nobles also require happiness. When you have too many Nobles and not enough happiness ... some of those Nobles turn into Dissident Nobles.
These are nobles that are contemplating rebellion and other non-loyal thoughts and actions.
If a city's nobles have ALL turned Dissident, then there is a chance (each turn) that the city flips (into an Independent city, most likely).
The city will start with an array of defenders that could have potentially been produced within the city's resources (defenders based on Population and Technology)
The independent city would continue to improve itself, but would focus primarily on Self-Defense (recruiting more soldiers, etc) for X turns.
If enough cities break away in such a fashion, they could "unite" to form a separate Faction, and start an active Civil War against the Sovereign.
(possible revolutions mod at least )
In any case ...
The current system of Farmer/Citizen/Rebel is simple to understand and very intuitive from a gameplay perspective.
You want higher production or higher taxes? simple and straightforward.
We could try and model reality a bit more closely, but I think this discussion is more for academic purposes.
More random thoughts along emulation of a more realistic model
Empire -> Farmer, Citizen, Drudge
Kingdom -> Farmer, Noble, Peasant, Dissident Noble AND emigration.
Empire -> Unhappy citizens become drudges.
Kingdom -> Unhappy nobles become Dissidents, Unhappy Peasants just leave (not all at once, but slowly until equilibrium is achieved, or taxes lowered again).
Empire can hold onto their citizens ... but sloppy Kingdoms may inspire peasants to leave, and may cause nobles to rebel.
A simpler form of the above could be ...
Kingdom -> Farmer, Noble, Citizen, Drudge, Dissident Noble
For a Kingdom, a drudge is purely a waste of space. Gives nothing ... might as well be a street bum (and likely is)
For an Empire, a Drudge is only slightly worse than a Citizen (slight being maybe 50% effectiveness).
For a Kingdom, there is the added bonus of Nobles, but the added danger of Dissident Nobles (only form of potential rebellion in the game)
For an Empire-> the normal status is a few citizens (the strong, the masters) and many drudges
For a Kingdom -> the normal status is all citizens(merchants and craftsmen, etc). With wealthy cities being able to support nobles (usually late-game)
and farmers = peasants/serfs
1.All monarchies are not the same and a lot has to do with the difference in the extent of individual sovereignty. For instance, and English commoner was much better off than a Russian serf. English commoners held rights to the land they lived on while Russian serfs were a part of the property they lived on. (This is a vast simplification, but for the purposes of this argument it is sufficient.) [Don't even get me started on the status of the Netherlands.]
2. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.
3. The kind of military service provided by persons with individual sovereignty is qualitatively different than persons without. When his back was to the wall, Stalin stopped (okay, slowed) talk about defending the great revolution and started talking about defending the mystical "Rodina", the embodiment of Russian identity.
4. While the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States changed the framework of freedom in the minds of men forever by affirming the ultimate sovereignty of the individual over the state, they didn't spring fully formed from the brows of Jefferson and Madison like Athena. The distinctions explored by the Magna Carta and other precursors describe methods of civilization that improve the overall quality of existence.
5. This is a game about creating a civilization from a desolate wilderness and defending it from wild beasts, ancient evils, and hostile opposition.
6. While most civilization games have a disgusting level of micromanagement and cultural relativism, this game has the "Star Trek figleaf" of social criticism masquerading in greasepaint. We can say some nice things about freedom without being stupid about it.
7. You can't say stupid things about civilization without ringing false notes.
Yes the western monarchies were more free than other nations AFTER the 1500s, albeit based on ideas (and laws) from the 1200s and earlier.
After the Black Plague, the worked-to-death peasants demanded better conditions. In most countires they got property ownership etc.
In england however, the peasants actually 'lost rights' as opposed to gaining them after the Black Plague.
The thing with England is that the nobility as a whole had far more power in relation to the king than the other monarchies, but its important to note that the peasants of England had to pay for their 'right' to work the land.
After the Glorious revolution, when England was ruled by an English Queen and a Netherlands King (Netherlands Incorporated), England had more experience with a corporate-like rule. All of these things led to the Industrial Revolution, which early on led to a level of powerlessness (among the working class) above and beyond what you could accomplish in any agrarian society.
However, admittedly, those with wealth (merchants and nobles, mainly just the rising merchant class though) had vast amounts of freedom to increase their own wealth and prosperity ... so of those free they were far more free than those in other nations.
What I want to know is why you posted a book about German military excellence and said that it had something fundamental to say about Freedom?
yea, please no more one-liners? They might sound cool, but they don't really communicate anything.
Why not just do a simple rename to Wastrels, Rogues, Loiterers, or Malcontents? (take your pick)
Sorry, I forgot to actually extrapolate on this. The brief summary of "A Genius for War" is fairly long, but worth going into.
Dupuy and Dupuy are the guys who first made accurate simulations of correlation of force for warfare using statistical analysis for games. Something that eluded them in their analysis was the statistical deviation associated with the historical record of German troops. German troops consistently outperformed their circumstances. More important than that is the realization that the two key founders of the German General Staff that made this exceptional fighting possible, Scharnhorst and Moltke the Elder, were adamantly opposed to the direction of absolute monarchy Germany ultimately took. Both Scharnhorst, who founded the General Staff training method, and Moltke the Elder, who developed it to amazing levels, were in favor of Constitutional Monarchy that limited the scope of government authority and had the military swear fealty to the State and not the King.
The importance of this classic Liberal (not the debased progressivism that goes by the name today) framework of power is that without a check on the monarch's power, there is no limit to expansion or repression in the name of the King. Without that limit inherent in the state's monopoly of force, abuse becomes inevitable. When that inevitable abuse occurs, every soul that does not wish to be subject to that tyranny must rise up against it. This is why, despite tremendously better application of force, Germany always lost. Because even the most outlandish lie of British propaganda had the grain of truth that nothing actually stopped such illusory atrocity from happening in reality.
Arguably the ultimate result of the flawed German General Staff system was not Rommel, it was Canaris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris A man who for six years fought to keep Germany as free as he could against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by leaking information to the British while head of German Military Intelligence. If the British had delivered better quality fuses to Canaris, WWII would have ended very differently. (To be honest, Rommel was complicit in a number of Canaris' assassination plots, but he wasn't a key a player as he could have been.)
The upshot of all of this complicated background is as follows: For true rebellion, you need true tyranny. As uncomfortable as early settlements of reconstruction might be in E:FE, they are not the conditions that breed rebellion. Exhaustion, not exalted treason, is the more reasonable result of privation due to circumstance instead of flawed rule.
You have to be rich to afford loiterers and such. We've been rich for so long we forget that urban poverty is something that comes to advanced and wealthy places. Because the land is torn and shattered, there aren't incredibly fertile river deltas that can support idle and indolent populations. While wastrels are not a celebrated indicator of prosperity, they are in fact a result of working free systems. While it is strange to describe Bangladesh as "rich" in any meaningful context, compared to the circumstances predicated by this game at start, they are.
The steps to my house have a moss problem because I live in the Pacific Northwest on the wet side of the mountains. My sister lives on the other side of the mountains and calling the ice damage on her steps a moss problem is inaccurate. The game specifies gathering refugees from a shattered wasteland, calling less productive folks wastrels because they are plowing fields with sticks instead of plowshares is inaccurate.
As an aside (Yes, another one.), there is a strong argument to be made that blacksmiths are an agricultural advance much more than a military one. Put together, a blacksmith, tannery, and access to heavy livestock is a potent combination for increased crop yields. Combined advancements would be a nice added depth to this game. While a standalone blacksmith should provide materials, a blacksmith and a tannery together should yield additional food.
Hmm.
Still, from a game perspective ... they want there to be some penalty for high taxation (as they want higher taxes to always produce more gold, albeit with increasingly less returns, as opposed to bleeding the taxbase dry).
The Magna Carta was signed in part because the nobles were really upset about the excessive taxes of King John, and it is possible that they were threatening Civil War.
below is an excerpt from Wikipedia (yes I know, its wikipedia ...) to demonstrate my point.
"In 1215 some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their King. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period. Every king since William the Conqueror had faced rebellions. However, in every previous case there had been an obvious alternative monarch around whom the rebellion could rally. In 1215, however, John had no obvious replacement. Arthur of Brittany would have been a possibility, if he had not disappeared (widely believed to have been murdered on the orders of John). The next closest possible alternative was Prince Louis of France, but as the husband of Henry II's granddaughter, his claim was tenuous, and the English had been at war with the French for thirty years. Instead of a claimant to the throne, the barons decided to base their rebellion around John's oppressive government. In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John confirm the Charter of Liberties, from what they viewed as a golden age.
John prevaricated. During negotiations between January and June 1215, a document was produced, which historians have termed 'The Unknown Charter of Liberties',[8] seven of the articles of which would later appear in the 'Articles of the Barons' and the Runnymede Charter.[9] In May, King John offered to submit issues to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as supreme arbiter,[10] but the barons continued in their defiance. With the support of Prince Louis the French Heir and of King Alexander II of the Scots, they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,[11] with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to a document later known as the 'Articles of the Barons', to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 June 1215."
The nobles considered his rule oppressive and worthy rebellion, even though it was only sloppy rule. Primarily the reason for their rebellion was likely the high taxes.
Indeed, the American 'Revolution' in 1776 went along similar lines, although instead of placing another king in charge they went the extra mile and actually created a new form of government.
It's important to note that the rights of essentially every little bit of England was parceled out, amalgamated by marriage, split by inheritance, and granted by gift from well before the Roman or Saxons came over to establish their imprimatur. The reason this massive collection of postage stamp holdings is important is because the way property rights and obligations were split up, argued about, and defended for generations. Because King John was overthrowing the institutions of England to extract new advantage, he slapped the face of everybody who had a ritual requirement to provide the first two dozen plover's eggs to the owner of the manor the eggs were taken from. King John threatened the rights of everyone who could claim to have them by establishing an unearned supremacy of right for himself.
We talk about taxes as if they were a simple monetary equation, like tipping a waiter. An honest analysis of history shows that obligations to the state in the form of taxes, paid in coin or in kind, are a foundational matter that affects the character of the people it presumes to govern. Undermining the principles of traditional obligations undermines the basis of governance in the society itself. (By the way, I'm not writing this from my stronghold in Norther Idaho between sessions of polishing my home-machined firearms, even if it might sound like it at times.) It was more a matter of right than the Wiki-pseudo-boffin lets on to take up arms against King John.
There needs to be a more clear delineation between the Empire and the Kingdoms, and the notion of individual rights is the root difference according to the graphics and text describing the two.
Does this mean that you disagree with the idea of dissident nobles, and the idea of a "wealthy citizen type" in the Kingdom (noble) that may lead to rebellion if not appeased by certain means?
(A wealthy but dysfunctional city will split off from the rest (in an attempt to maintain wealth and decrease dysfunction) ... ie Milan, Florence, and other Italian city states) -> albeit the circumstances of Italian city states was a bit different, during the post-Roman era, but nontheless an example I think of a wealthy city wanting either luxury or independence (so that they may attempt to better acquire said luxury, without paying homage to a home city)
and you are right, its not just a bill or a bar tab (ie empty amount of money), but instead it is the full economics of a situation.
I would argue that Economics drives culture, and Economic history is the driving force behind world history (just meaning just legal tender, but the full weight of the economy-> ie trading partners, various wealth agreements, land holdings, etc. What you mentioned would be included in this)
Did you know that before the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee were slave-owners with their own cotton plantations? their own constitution and newspaper? The initial reason for their uprooting was because those with economic power within the US wanted the Cherokee's plantations for themselves. (as Textiles were a very important commodity, and Britain was buying a lot of cotton for good prices-> from both Cherokee and American)
Now I am completely lost... Where does the slaughter of thousands of Jews by the German army factor in? Are they rebels or drudges? And what does that even mean in that context?
And where does the US war crimes in Nicaragua come in?
I thought this was about differentiating between totally oppressed populations in Empires and slightly less oppressed populations in Kingdoms.
Well, I got a little side-tracked.
As far as Rebels vs Drudges, we were trying to use strictly medieval contexts.
The Nazis were able to rise to power due to the desperation brought about by economically hard times.
Actually, there was a strong drive throughout the world for centrally controlled non-traditional government systems inspired by railroads and fueled by the introduction of mass media. That same centrally controlled non-traditional government got into everything it could and sort of screwed up the economy into a worldwide depression. "We're from the government and we're here to help!"
Beyond that, the German General Staff allowed themselves to be used by the Nazi's. Without that critical support, the Nazi's wouldn't have accomplished very much at all. Part of why we get so excited about military's being obliged to the people they protect is the complete failure of the German General Staff to protect Germany from it's own worst enemies.
Interesting side note on the nature of perverse incentives: Because Germany was forbidden by treaty from developing armored vehicles after WWI, they went to the Soviet Union and developed them there. Flash forward fifteen years, and German tanks encountered Soviet T-34's that cut them to pieces. In their efforts to minimize the German threat, the Allies did a whole lot to assist the Soviet Union in developing a tremendous armored threat that kept Allied troops garrisoning troops in Central Europe for generations afterwards.
Actually, I'm a small fraction Cherokee myself, although I've never owned slaves or cotton plantations.
I don't see wealthy citizens and dissident nobles splitting off in the first thousand turns because the economy isn't big enough. It would help if the time scale made sense, but that would make a boring game.
Well that's the thing. Cities would not start off with wealthy 'nobles'. And the cherokee example was just to show that a large portion of the Native Americans had economically assimilated into co-Americans with the Colonials until the Colonials decided that they wanted all the land under one economy.
A kingdom nation would start with all citizens (and worthless drudges if the taxes got too high), and then you could add buildings which added "nobles" which gave at least double taxes, and maybe some other benefit.
So depending on how many wealth buildings you had, would depend on how many of your citizens were nobles, and depending on taxes and how many luxury + culture buildings you had ... would have the nobles remain loyal.
-> at low taxes, there would be no dissident nobles
-> at average taxes, the occasional luxury of culture building would be able to satisfy a city of many nobles
-> at high taxes, the demand for nobles goes up. etc.
Keep in mind that at high taxes you have the perverse incentive subsidizing tax fraud, smuggling, and rebellion. One interesting study shows that over the last century, tax rates have fluctuated wildly, but tax revenues have stayed firmly tethered to 20% of Gross Domestic Product. Prohibition of alcohol subsidized a lot of criminal activity, and in fact underwrote the institutionalization of organized crime in America. High taxes subsidize unlawful behavior, up to and including treason.
One challenge this game is struggling with is defining a strong narrative of why the Kingdoms are a superior moral choice to the Empire. "I'm a supernatural power grabber and I'm getting mine before they can get theirs!" is a narrative, but not one that sells particularly well. I'd like this to be more about embracing freedom as the best method to achieve lasting security for states, but the power fantasy and goth fetishism is sapping the coherence of the implementation.
While I am impressed with your intelligence, you are overthinking this aspect of the game. There aren't even any citizens, farmers, and rebels in the current version. Instead we have a percentage of unrest that hinders production, research, and gildars. I think they realized how complicated the system would be and so went with something simpler.
I do like the idea of mods reformulating the population into thralls or minions. There could also be a Republic society that emphasizes personal freedom. It would have to be done by adding a building or tech that gives bonuses in the way you describe. The trade off would be something to think about. What negatives are there to a small scale free society?
Not as much territory because they aren't as violent and power-hungry?
Maybe city level should increase unrest. Or perhaps total population.
How do high taxes subsidize rebellion, organized crime, and possibly even treason?
And if this is the case (that taxes subsidize rebellion), then how would high taxes not lead to 'rebel citizens'?
Yes, perhaps from a game design perspective. But as an academic and/or modding exercise, I think it is worth looking into.
Agreed. And the more oppressed an exhausted citizenry feels, the less likely they are to work hard, and the more likely they are to try to hide whatever meagre means they have from the taxman. Fear is not as good a motivator as hope.
Really though, from a gameplay perspective, you're just asking for a change in terminology, right? Or have I missed something? For what it's worth, I agree, but it's hardly the only instance of poor terminology. Just look at what the level 4 & 5 settlements are called - would you ever use those titles in any other circumstance to refer to such a small population? Granted, in FE at least 500 people isn't called a 'metropolis' any more...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
