|
One of the most important teaching elements in AFMP is planning: how to devise a sensible and feasible plan from a bewildering array of information and choices - just like in the real world. Since, ultimately, the Tactics are how the player interacts with the game model in AFMP, we spent a lot of time on getting the list right, and then getting the effects of each individual Tactic to work properly.
We started with the work of Gene Sharp, whose "Methods of Nonviolent Action" provided an excellent jumping-off point for a list of Tactics the player could use. We then pooled all the information we had from our historical research and the materials ICNC's subject-matter experts provided us to come up with a similar list of Tactics reserved for the regime.
Then, we had to trim the list. Some Tactics overlapped enough with one another that we could combine them. Others were so complicated that there was no sense in creating a one-size-fits-all algorithm to model what results are produced by each tactic. Others were just too hard to model on a day-by-day basis, so they had to be modeled as lots of individual attempts at a smaller, simpler Tactic.
Once that was done, each Tactic had to have an algorithm written for it. To compute its success, the average Tactic algorithm has about 10 or 11 parts, plus a plethora of other conditions and special data that restrict its use under various conditions (we didn't want peaceful religious groups conducting assassinations!), and also several functions to affect how the artificial intelligence prioritizes the Tactics the regime can use. The effects had to undergo similar treatment. We wanted to have interesting choices that made realistic sense. You use different tactics, appropriate to the target: someone who is supporting the regime for purely financial reasons will require very different Tactics to isolate or persuade him than if he or she were an ideologue or a loyalist.
Finally, much supporting text had to be written for each Tactic. Descriptions, historical background and reference for the Resistopedia, and internal documentation were all required, so players could, if they paid close attention, make informed choices as to what they wanted to do in the game.
Then, the really hard part began: testing. Of course, Tactics were tested repeatedly as they went on-line. We anticipated the sheer amount of work involved, though, and since we made getting the Tactics done far in advance of release, we were able to test them very well. We were also able to submit the full working array of Tactics to Ivan Marovic, our primary subject matter expert, for "reality checking". This yielded a lot of useful feedback and resulted in a great many tweaks and balance changes.
At the very beginning of the project, York Zimmerman emphasized that for the game to work on the level they intended, the player should face a bewildering array of choices, since that's the problem confronted by real-world nonviolent movements. They are often stuck at one of two extremes: paralysis by indecision, or purposeless frenzies of activity. Both will hurt a movement tremendously. The first hurts because people get attached to particular ideas or fears and can't reach consensus about what to do - but solid strategic planning and analysis can achieve "buy-in" and get people to understand where the movement is headed much more quickly than activists realize. The second hurts because the public can sense confusion. When a movement holds a march or a mass action without really knowing why, the public can perceive the lack of direction, and discount the movement as unserious or dangerous. Would you want to hand political power and influence over to a bunch of people who don't really know what their vision for the future is?
We feel our Tactics list achieves this goal. The game had to remain playable, but it also had to make players go through exactly the sort of thought process that, when adopted by real-world movements, has been shown in the past to create good results. Thus it couldn't be overly simplified or transparent. It had to be rigorously grounded in historical and real-world context, and make it difficult to succeed while just "diving in". This distinguishes AFMP from many other strategy games.
|
