Development Diary Pre ReleaseUpdate 13/09/24A Quick Look at the First Major Change
You now have two tabs: one for elections and one for governance.
This update simplifies the process by separating election and governance functions, while also expanding the UI for governance. There are many more options available now, with a few events still needing refinement.
My thought process was that, since elections are infrequent but governance is ongoing, the governance section should be clearer and easier to use.
Below is the UI for the GOVERN tab. The ELECT tab is still in development and resembles the previous version, without many of the new GOVERN elements that have been ported to the updated sheet. Now, everything is click-and-select, eliminating the need for typing.
I am also nearing the completion of another major requested feature and hope to share some news early next week.
Update 16/09/24Introducing the First Major New Feature: Unrest
In the past, I encountered challenges introducing a meaningful unrest level without disrupting existing calculations and the need to use potential unrest levels in the game.
The main issues were twofold: First, societal polarization due to one party gaining dominance to the point where it was nearly impossible to remove them from power without a forced intervention (for role-playing reasons) by the player. Second, the mechanics would either generate constant unrest and instability or none at all.
So, What’s Changed? A Lot…
The first major change is that when a government loses power, all race attributes will be reset to the median level of 50. This adjustment addresses the issue of polarization. Additionally, when using the sway vote (previously veto powers) or having their motion rejected, the government will now lose legitimacy or political power. If this power falls below 50%, the government will be disbanded.
This event will trigger two effects: First, more voters will turn out for the election to express their dissent over the government’s inability to govern effectively. Second, these voters will primarily be opposition supporters, with each government type assigned a "foe." For instance, a Totalitarian government might face a more libertarian force being elected, with sufficient power to potentially change laws and the constitution, leading to a change in government type within one or two legislative sessions.
Below is an example of the maximum polling expected when the event is not triggered:
And here is an example when the event is triggered:
The minimum polls will also show an increase, resulting in more opposition members being elected regardless of the RNG roll.
With this now fully functional, I can finally introduce more meaningful leaders, which was another major requested change. I will discuss these in the coming days, as the code rewrite is complete but not yet tested.
The goal, once everything is finalized, is to have leaders and governments behave organically, with real consequences if they fail to achieve their objectives or when a leader with different ideals takes charge. This aspect will still involve role-playing, but players will now have a clear and meaningful path by aligning with the hearts and minds of their characters. Unrest and political disagreements should naturally occur, eliminating the need for players to artificially create them.
Update 17/09/24Before introducing the leaders, we need to cover one final component of the government and unrest overhaul: Government Stability.
With stability and the clear-cut aspects addressed, it’s important to examine the more ambiguous areas.
So, what happens if the player receives the final warning and chooses not to take any further action? The player can indeed choose to do nothing, but this will still trigger an event called "Frozen Government." While the consequences of government dissolution are severe, the "Frozen Government" event still results in a penalty for the next election due to the previous government’s partial inability to handle day-to-day operations. This penalty is less severe than government dissolution and does not cause any additional voters to turn up at the election.
Below, you’ll find an outline of all three stages.
Please note that there are minor issues and incomplete functions in the UI as this is based on a previous test version. These issues have been addressed, so future screens will display the fully functional leaders. The events are still pending, as they are minor adjustments not crucial for balancing or testing purposes, and I am still unsure if I will be introducing them or not.
Update 23/09/24Here is the completed "ELECT" sheet. All functions have been implemented and included:
Some of the new features are the Racial Trait Modifier and the Campaign tab.
The Racial Trait Modifier has been introduced to limit the rapid changes of the Racial Traits. Simply put, the higher the value, the lesser the impact of laws on dynamic value changes.
This can be used in various ways. I am starting it at 5, and with each election won by the same party, I increase it by 1 to simulate the radicalization of the population. So, it starts at 5, then goes to 4, 3, and so on. In the case of a government dissolution, I bump it up instantly to 1, emphasizing that radicals gain more power. After that, I reduce it back to 5 year after year and increase it again if no changes occur. You can use it as you see fit, but at least you now have a tool to control radicalization that works in tandem with government dissolution.
Changes at Level 1
Changes at Level 5Now, onto the campaign. Leaders are now much more in charge of their fate than in previous versions. By campaigning, each leader can attract more votes from a particular group or smear the reputation of other candidates. Interestingly, while the attack ads are very powerful (I’ll explain why later), targeting a specific group instead of another could strengthen another candidate rather than gather more votes due to the different percentages of preferences during recalculations.
Likeability now plays a major role. While this was a hidden feature in previous versions, it wasn’t possible to account for it or modify it. Now, it's important to understand that some candidates will find it very difficult to win if their likeability is too low compared to their opponents. Character traits will determine a candidate’s likeability, along with the attack ad buffs active at the time of the election. As mentioned, this was already a significant hidden component, and I am now releasing the relevant information to clarify how it works.
In the first round of the election, all candidates have the chance to secure 50.01% of the votes required to be appointed as leader. If this does not happen in the first round, the candidate rated third will be eliminated, allowing one of the remaining two candidates to reach a majority. This process involves persuading all undecided voters from the eliminated candidate to support the candidate with the highest likeability.
In the attached screenshot, there are multiple ways for each candidate to win, depending on both their campaign abilities and the RNG seat generation. Campaign funds serve as promotion points, with attack ads costing 10,000 points and standard ads costing 5,000 points. Overall, a highly-rated character will have a better chance of winning against a poorly-rated one. Conversely, a well-funded, balanced character may have multiple paths to victory against a poorly-funded, well-rated character.
I’m conducting some additional testing to prevent everyone from relying solely on attack ads. This process may involve adding an extra attack ad, creating a basic and a higher-level version, or modifying how they currently function. The attack ad not only diminishes opponents’ standing but also slightly increases the attacker’s likeability. I might consider splitting these effects.
The concept is established, and I’m confident I’ll find a way to make this less overpowered over time. Moreover, I’m extremely pleased with the strategic layer now in place. With the right role-playing, an elected leader can behave very differently from another, and now they all have a shot at getting elected.
Update 24/09/24After some testing, I have balanced and modified the system, and I must admit I’m thrilled with the changes.
First, I added the basic likeability factor to the mix and then split the likeability adjustments after ADs. I revised most of the buffers and changed the ADs, also separating the attacks and the popularity boosts for individuals.
Now, you receive a small likeability boost when performing party group ADs, a major likeability boost for personal ADs, and a significant debuff for the target of attack ADs. These attacks are now designed to target only one leader at a time.
Finally, once everything is concluded, the CUT leader has the option to endorse one of the candidates, potentially altering the election's outcome and requesting a high price in return. This allows them to subtly or overtly push their own agenda from behind the scenes, as they could potentially withdraw their support anytime.
The RNG and endorsements will change each election dramatically, making the leader's choices strategic and calculated. I’ve included two different election screenshots to illustrate how the RNG not only affects the outcome but also the potential for a losing leader to endorse another, effectively securing victory for the endorsed candidate.
First Roll
Second RollWhat’s exciting is that the percentages during settings change according to the current government structure, meaning you won’t fully grasp the impact of your ADs until the election is run. This requires you to strategically target specific groups, boost your reputation, and avoid wasting resources on attacks. Your only guide at this stage will be the polling expectations of both the leaders and the population. Would you aim for 50% of the expected 40% of pacifists in the first round, or would you prefer to reach a broader audience? Perhaps you could focus solely on Democrats and liberals, leaving out conservatives who might not vote for you anyway. Alternatively, you could try to build a personality cult and secure a majority of seats by just barely meeting the first cut threshold.
This opens up many possibilities for organic role-playing actions, which is what I’ve always aimed for since starting this project nearly four years ago.
Update 25/09/24A Quick Update on Balancing and Bug Fixing.
Yesterday was another full day of testing and balancing. I discovered a significant bug while recoding some formulas, which explained why I couldn't achieve the balance I was aiming for. This led to a minor change: status and role are now separated, allowing leaders to be classified as either "Active" or "Inactive." This change overrides the "None" function, which can now be assigned to a leader who lacks a specific background. Over time, I hope to expand the background function, especially since likeability and leader skills significantly impact elections.
Once that was in place, I also revisited a feature I was considering for the previous version: activism.
Currently, the population system relies on demographics and other factors to identify its makeup. One major issue is that the population is flat, and ideals affect the base population uniformly. As a balancing tool, I’ve always believed that activism (and possibly radicalization later) would be effective in ensuring that minority ideals retain a small but meaningful level of support. For instance, in an excessively pacifist environment, a military minority could become radicalized first and activists later, thereby ensuring the military party receives a small number of votes, regardless of the RNG. This balancing tool will be applied only to ideals that have consistently fallen behind in representation year after year, even though radicalization and activism can also affect majority groups in real life.
The main reason for this approach is that implementing a two-way system would require more tools than I currently have available on a simple calculation sheet. Factors like real-time economy, crime, education, and political environment all play significant roles in radicalization and activism. Without objective data from Aurora 4X on these factors, any system I create would feel artificial and disconnected from the player's experience. While some aspects of this might hold true for the overall framework, much of the data is derived from the game itself: leader character and personality, promotion points, racial traits, and events are all tied to uncontrollable elements from the database and influenced by Aurora's RNG, not mine.
So, what’s in store for the future? Once I’m close to release, I plan to play another Aurora: A Political Story - 2024. This will allow me to move beyond quick experiments based on previous solo games and fast-forward through 20 or 30 elections without actual game time under my belly. This approach will ultimately help refine the final balance and address any lingering bugs in the new features.
Thankfully, over the past year and a half, this file has gone through seven iterations, and I’m confident that all the old features are now well balanced and largely bug-free while also backed by several gameplay hours.
In terms of functions, aside from radicalization, I feel there’s still something missing to effectively integrate all the new features, though I’m not quite sure what that is yet. While I continue to ponder this, I want to share my plans for implementing radicalization. There are two paths forward: I can either add activism to the unrest pool and make activists a percentage of the radicals or create an entirely new mechanic. Currently, I am experimenting with the former approach to work within the existing formulas and concepts, but the effects are still failing to blend together. The challenge with a new mechanic is that it would be a massive addition, potentially rendering all the balancing done so far redundant, a risk I am not sure it's worth taking at this stage.
Update 26/09/24Just another bug squashing day.
I caught a big one and also fixed the 2nd and 3rd place leader ex aequo visual bug that afflicted the file since early conception. I think these are one of those minor fixes that everyone knows that are there and simply always slip through the cracks
Update 27/09/24New Major Feature: Visible Unrest
After a final day of balancing and bug fixing, along with the completion of the UI and the addition of the Unrest feature, I finally feel that the missing element has been found. A fully functional and visible Unrest factor has now been implemented. While unrest has always been present and functioning in the background, I have decided to separate it from threats and attacks, making it its own entity more closely related to policies and the political climate. The goal is to introduce an additional stability (or instability) factor, presenting players with significant challenges regarding policy implementation and constitutional changes.
Currently, unrest is linked exclusively to police, justice, and activism. However, I have already begun working on radicalization and activist reactions to policy implementations.
These factors will have a lesser impact, as they already provide their own benefits to the voting population. Nevertheless, they will still contribute to a small percentage of activism, leading to a rise in unrest levels. Some popular policies may even act in the opposite direction by easing government scrutiny in the eyes of the public (for instance, Civilian Pensions).
The system operates as a closed loop, as I am now fully aware of how overpowered the buffs can become after numerous policies are implemented. So, what does this closed loop entail?
Simply put, policies will contribute to existing radicalization rather than increase the overall value that drives radicalization. This means that if a policy reduces 1% of activism among the liberal radicalized population and that population is already at 0%, it will remain at zero. However, if a policy impacts 1% of the radical militarist population, causing them to become activists, then the buffer will decrease the radical population by 1%. For example, if 1% of a radicalized population of 100,000 becomes activists, that amounts to 1,000 radicals, which will then be reduced by 1%, leaving 990 radicals.
Below some screenshots of where the unrest is now visible, along with the effective Activist Population counter.
Update 30/09/24New Flavor Feature: Ideology
By utilizing the Government Types in the database, I have allowed players to choose from existing government forms and define their ideologies. This is purely for flavor; however, since it is linked to the database and racial traits, it should provide deeper insights into the population's orientation, enhancing role-playing depth. In summary, if the racial traits align with the parameters for a specific ideology, it will be displayed in the list; otherwise, it will be omitted.
I do not plan to make this parameter influential at any level, but I will work on refining it over time to ensure it aligns with potential combinations, avoiding disjointed results and descriptions.
Additionally, I have made progress on balancing over the weekend, and the integration of policies into the activism system has been implemented.
I feel we are very close to the AAR test play, which will serve as a teaser prior to release and will allow me to further balance the file.
Update 01/10/24I have made a minor update to the ideology slider by adding a small area that highlights how many types of ideologies are available at any given time. The idea is to give players, especially at the start and during the game, an understanding of what kinds of government could be accepted by the base population. In the example below, for instance, I have 4 out of 4 available ideologies for Federation and only 2 out of 7 Republic ideologies. Interestingly, a Federal Republic is not one of the 2, which suggests that our population would likely prefer a Federation over a Republic entirely, without even accepting a blend of the Federation type of government with the Republic kind.
Another minor change was the addition of a few Republics as the original DB had only 2: Republic and Meritocracy.
Finally, I have been considering changing the word "ideology," as the current data could refer to a specific form of government. However, I am still not fully convinced, since the kind and form of government are already identified by the general statute, which is why I initially chose "ideology." I’ll see how it develops, as this is currently unimportant and not related to any calculation or mechanic. For now, I’m inclined to leave it as is.
Update 08/10/24I’ve reached V11 of the updated Government Sim, and I’m feeling ready to post an AAR. I’ve already prepared it, so all the groundwork for creating a new system, factions, ships, and more has been completed. Now, I just need to hit play!
On the development front, I’ve focused on identifying disconnected functions and formulas, tracking down a bug or two, and balancing the file. The most significant change is the reduction in the number of "points" required to run ADs, which has been lowered to help administrators and scientists who rely solely on their level to collect points. The original system—outlined in the main post with the rules—requires 1000 promotion points per level. Unfortunately, civilian leaders will have a considerable advantage at the beginning of each game, but this should balance out quickly once military personnel start receiving service medals and conditional ribbons.
