Social cohesion? (Asabiyyah)

Future Game Society Stage
41

I think the player should be notified of most of them, unless the movement itself tries to hide itself (secret independence movement for example)

2 Likes
42

Would they be notified when the movement is founded or after it has reached some milestone?

2 Likes
43

Depends on the design approach, will there be 300 movements? Only notify the player of the ones that are amassing popularity. Will there be 8 movements? Notify the player of all of them.

2 Likes
44

Hm. You could then remove the movements with some kind of a spectrum between peaceful methods and violent methods I suppose?

2 Likes
45

Youโ€™d be able to give each movement a variable that represents their willingness to resort to violence, with the higher it is the more likely the effects of the movement will be violent (obviously I suppose) being at a range of -10 to 10 or -100 to 100

2 Likes
46

If a movement grows too powerful for you to contain does it automatically become a rebellion?

2 Likes
47

If they would grow powerful enough they can attempt a coup/revolt/rebellions and maybe multiple movements would form a coalition even? And if they would succeed theyโ€™d reset the cohesion back to 100? Or invert it instead?

2 Likes
48

Maybe itโ€™s a gameover condition?

1 Like
49

well, you still have the same society and change of government/ideology/belief is inevitable so I donโ€™t think that would be a good idea.

2 Likes
50

Shouldnโ€™t the player still get punished for letting that happen in some way? Maybe other nations carve up parts of your state?

2 Likes
51

well the player would naturally try to perfect their society in accordance with their current conditions, any change would make it so that all of their perfecting needs to be redone, so they naturally would try to avoid it. Tho this might need to be tested, and it might not be clear to the player that that is the case. So maybe adding some really nasty slowdown to their development/ resource gain/ anything that would be affected by being forced to apply the change that was asked of them, just to make it clear they should avoid it if possible, but if this is to be implemented then the player should have the ability to embrace a movement and push it, still hurting them in some way due to the fact that most of their populace wouldnโ€™t accept such radical ideas, especially if embraced too early.

2 Likes
52

What if the Player creates his/her/their own fringe movement?

2 Likes
53

Why couldnโ€™t they just slowly implement them as non-movements but state policies or stuff?

1 Like
54

I donโ€™t think the player should have the ability to do that honestly.

Thatโ€™s the goal of the movement basically (or at least most of them) to change the laws of their society, which the player should be able to change to some extent on their own, with obviously some negative effects/ limitations so they wouldnโ€™t instantly get the best laws.

2 Likes
55

I suppose leaders could also improve cohesion a lot, for instance with many nations being ruled by 1 person?

1 Like
56

A leader would definitely be able to improve cohesion if good enough, but a bad leader might decrease as well. Not sure exactly by how much per what, but that shouldnโ€™t be difficult to figure out.

2 Likes
57

Maybe it just should generally be more competent=more cohesion?

1 Like
58

A good rule of thumb, of course assuming a single ruler society.

2 Likes
59

And for multiple it would depend on their amount and roles, so the more there are the more averaged it is, right?

1 Like
60

More or less yeah, it should work something like that.

1 Like