Union of countries feature
What if countries could form international unions, similar to the European Union? Instead of countries only having individual alliances, players could create or join a permanent political/economic union with other countries. The union could have its own parliament and elections, where citizens of member countries vote for union-level parties or representatives. It could also have its own president or leadership system depending on how the union is structured. Countries could decide how much power the union has. For example, it could start as a simple economic/trade union and members could gradually give it powers over trade, immigration, defence, foreign policy, environmental laws, human rights, etc. The union could also have a common budget, with member countries contributing money and the union spending it on infrastructure, development, defence, research and other projects. There could be optional features such as free movement, common citizenship, a common currency, shared military forces and common foreign policy, depending on what the members agree to. Countries should be able to apply to join, vote on new members, suspend/expel members and leave the union. Major changes could require votes or referendums in member countries. The most important part would be making it customizable. Players could choose how decisions are made, such as majority voting, unanimous voting, population-based voting or one-country-one-vote, as well as how much authority the union has. This could allow players to create anything from a small economic bloc to an EU-style political union or even a full federation. I think this would make diplomacy, elections and international politics much more interesting. 🌍
Comments3
lawmaker-dev
Aug 17
One thing that is very important to me in Lawmaker is that I don’t lose track of what the game is and is not. It is not trying to turn into nationstates where users play as countries. There are thousands of games like that. Lawmaker is a specifically political simulator where users play as a political party and I don’t ever want to lose track of that.
If you read the above all of the decisions are “countries decide” which doesn’t really make sense in Lawmaker. I always need to answer the question “what do the 9/10 players who aren’t leading the government do”.
Having said that, I do plan to implement some version of the above, probably initially a treaty system whereby countries can sign up to international treaties which will restrain how they can pass laws, their budgets, etc. This could definitely morph into a “supranational organization” feature which has some of the features of the above.
An Anonymous User
Aug 17
That makes sense, and I definitely don't want the feature to turn Lawmaker into a country simulator. My original idea was more about creating another level of political gameplay for the parties, rather than letting players control countries directly.
For example, the treaty system you mentioned could be the foundation. Countries could sign treaties, but those treaties would have to be approved through their political systems. A group of countries could then form a supranational organization where the parties themselves participate in union-level politics, rather than players controlling the countries.
The organization could have a parliament made up of representatives from the member countries, with political groups/parties competing for seats and forming coalitions. This could give players something to do internationally while still keeping the core gameplay focused on being a political party.
For example, if my party is part of a treaty/union, I could campaign for its policies, vote on union legislation, form alliances with ideologically similar parties from other countries, and potentially gain seats or influence in the union parliament.
The union could then impose certain treaty requirements on its members, such as limits on budgets, trade rules, environmental standards, human rights laws, etc. National parties would still be responsible for their own countries, but they would have to operate within the commitments their country made through the treaty.
So I think the treaty → supranational organization progression you mentioned actually fits the idea really well. The important part for me would just be making sure there is meaningful gameplay for the political parties inside those organizations, rather than turning it into a nation-management system.
An Anonymous User
Aug 16
really good idea