Episode 229: Rebels, Dissent, and Treason

[Rob Zacny]

Rob and Troy discuss how rebellion and discontent have been represented in strategy games, and why they can be so crucial.

 

Listen

[sclpls]

Although the point that it would be inadvisable for a grand strategy game to get too deep into the weeds of rebellion is well taken, I always find it unfortunate when you have a game like Civilization where there is a lack of specificity to rebellions. Rebellions ought to have different sorts of characteristics depending on what is the source of discontent. U.S. anti-war protests in the 1960's have a different flavor from the FARC in Colombia, that are different from the so-called "Arab Spring", etc. Strategy game factions don't necessarily need a lot of flavor, but as a game like Alpha Centauri proves it is really nice when they do. I feel the same is probably true of rebellions. Nonviolent protests are quite a bit different from guerrilla warfare, and it would be nice to see a game that captures these nuances without getting too granular.

 

I also think it is really nice that GMT seems to be single-handedly ushering in a bunch of high quality counter-insurgency board games. Andean Abyss is a game that has endlessly fascinating results, and does a fantastic job of capturing a national government that is more powerful than the pretenders to the throne, but it is at an information disadvantage, and is much less nimble in its ability to perform operations that advance its objectives. It's the perfect David vs. Goliath scenario. I'm very much looking forward to other games in that series.

 

More games from the point of view of insurgents would be welcome too.

[hexgrid]

More games from the point of view of insurgents would be welcome too.

 

Seconded.  It's a problem space I don't think games have explored nearly as fully as the "clash of god-emperors" space.

[Procyon Lotor]

EU4 is the first game with a rebellion mechanic that I've enjoyed.  I like that the factions make sense in the context of your empire and the world-at-large, rather than being angry drones with generic gripes. 

[clyde]

This episode has significantly excited me. Instead of satisfying thirst for info about dissent and rebellion in strategy-games, it has created a withdrawal; I just want more. When Troy says he has spoken before about counter-insurgency in games is he referring to episode 23?

Victoria II sounds incredible from the way you talk about it in this episode. Now I'm curious.

I love the term "moral-calculus" for player-decision in quantitative ethic-systems in games.

I'm having difficulty expressing how much value I get out of this discussion. Both the specific subject the two of you address here and the knowledge-base prerequisite is either unique or rare. I appreciate it. Keep up the good work. Sugo Haseyo.

[Troy Goodfellow]

Yeah, I was thinking episode 23 on changing models of conflict - which was a helluva lot longer ago than I remember. Damn, the show wasn't even six months old.

 

Thanks for your kind words. I really like the chances we get to dig into themes and concepts that repeat themselves in games, and I'm lucky to be surrounded by very smart people.

[hexgrid]

Thanks for your kind words. I really like the chances we get to dig into themes and concepts that repeat themselves in games, and I'm lucky to be surrounded by very smart people.

 

If you're ever stuck for episode ideas, it would be worth going through the back catalog of episodes and doing "on further consideration" followups.  Time considerations mean I'm sure some ideas were left on the floor in the earlier episodes, and I'm also sure ideas have developed and minds have changed since.

[clyde]

The argument you guys make beginning around 24:30 regarding putting cities to the sword is so interesting. You explain so clearly how the combination of designing rebellions as an annoyance to the player; multi-prong responses to rebellion being available; and a lack of incentive to compromise, leads to the use of genocidal tactics. Bonus points are given for a relevant Princess Leia quotation.

I found this webpage that seems to explain how ideology relates to happiness and dissent in Brave New World.

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Ideology_(Civ5)

[clyde]

Also, the conversation you guys have after the hour-mark is so inspiring. Rob's ideal victory being defined by the compromises his civilization has had to make is something that I would love these games to strive for. At the end of a game, I want to look at the resulting map and see a reflection of the goals my nation chose to achieve and the compromises we had to make in order to achieve them. A cultural-identity based on the various factions acting within and outside of my nation, and the methods with which we decided to interact, creates a history. That's why I'm playing Civ 5, to form a history. The more that the history is reflected through presentation and mechanics, the more i can take pride (or be shamed) by it.

This was such an enjoyable show.

[Gormongous]

The argument you guys make beginning around 24:30 regarding putting cities to the sword is so interesting. You explain so clearly how the combination of designing rebellions as an annoyance to the player; multi-prong responses to rebellion being available; and a lack of incentive to compromise, leads to the use of genocidal tactics. Bonus points are given for a relevant Princess Leia quotation.

 

I liked this too, especially. I thought about it in my latest Europa Universalis IV game, when I was in a race to colonize all of North America first and so was running my armies through, slaughtering natives, so that they couldn't rise up later and damage my unattended colonies.

 

It's funny how a limited number of options can cause a gamer's sense of efficiency to override their sense of decency. Not to play this card again, but I wonder how much that actually maps to real life.

[clyde]

I liked this too, especially. I thought about it in my latest Europa Universalis IV game, when I was in a race to colonize all of North America first and so was running my armies through, slaughtering natives, so that they couldn't rise up later and damage my unattended colonies.

 

It's funny how a limited number of options can cause a gamer's sense of efficiency to override their sense of decency. Not to play this card again, but I wonder how much that actually maps to real life.

I'll play that card any time you want me to.

Essential reading.

[spillblood]

Great episode with an interesting topic. It would be pretty interesting to see the rebellion mechanic fleshed out some more in Grand Strategy games. Applying the politics system of Cliff Harris' Democracy series (or other games with a similar topic) to a grand strategy game, IE simulate different interest groups in a society could simulate this in more detail, but I guess it would make those games less straight forward and streamlined, especially Civilization.

It'd be also pretty cool to have a strategy game where you play the rebels, IE try to take over a country (there were some, I remember an old C64 game and some PC strategy game from the time around 2000).

[riadsala]

There's a great Civ IV mod, legends of the revolution, that allows for empires to  break in two, civil wars etc. I only played a couple of games with it (before getting distracted by FfH2) but I thought it was pretty well implemented and made for a really interesting game. Civil wars were linked to game play mechanics rather than random events so they were nowhere near as frustrating as in the TW games. And the game world felt far more organic and interesting. I should really return to it and write up an AAR