If I were tasked with designing a COIN simulator, this is what it would look like:
1) Sand-box mode: an established framework to define player interaction, simulating a country similar to the Arab states; preferably a browser based system to mitigate admin bias, but a text-based game would be effective also.
2) Each player would control a faction; there would be kinds of factions: political, paramilitary, and conventional military. Factions would be measured a credibility variable. More on that later. Factions would have a prescribed set of policies/causes which can be changed at great cost to credibility.
3) Each faction type would have unique options and units. Player action would take place through these units. There would be many unit types with different capabilities, but each will be measured by common variables such as loyalty, leadership, religion, ethnicity, etc. This would allow for a wide combination of units (i.e. a US military faction and native military faction would share an Infantry unit type, but with different variables for them) and different kinds of interactions. This also allows factions to take on various shapes as the game develops. Some units could also be made available/unavailable depending upon a faction's policy/causes. Units can be killed, captured, turned, etc. Better units cans be recruited/assigned/purchased with higher credibility.
4) There would be one country divided into regions, each region with different population elements defined by similar variables as units. This would make it more difficult for Faction X to operate in Region Y if it does not share with it a common identity. However, this can be mitigated (or exasperated) by a faction's credibility rating. The greater the differences between factions and the population, the more credibility is required to operate effectively. Each region will also have a prescribed set of "wants" similar to a faction's causes/policies.
5) Holding local and national government positions (through units) would give factions more options; i.e. guiding infrastructure projects, lawmaking, etc. These options will also have an impact on a faction's credibility.
6) If two or more player actions contradict (i.e. how to use a common resource or defining local policy), the decision always rules in favor of the unit with more (fire)power (for better or for worse).
7) Game runs in real-time. No pauses. No time to think unless the player was able to create sufficient space and privilege for himself. Game ends when active players agree to call it quits.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks