Is there any further discussions after these 3 posts or anywhere else related?

Thank you, very well reasoned!

I decided to separate the urban/rural divide as a distinct category (in addition to whatever demographic feature is used to divide the population into ‘color’ factions) because I felt it is an especially important and fairly universal feature of human societies throughout time and geography (though that may well be a bias of perception because of my academic focus on the Middle East). All the reasons you mentioned are examples of why a faction would have to take different approaches toward garnering support from a population depending on its density, even if the population otherwise shares the same characteristics (or in simulation terms, if the population shares the same ‘color’).

Ibn Khaldun famously wrote of the enduring social conflict between cohesive rural tribes and the decadent, urban dynasties that ruled them in Middle Eastern Islamic societies. Cycles of usurpation occurred like clockwork; desert tribes threw the old decadent dynasty out of power, then slowly became like them over several generations as they became the new urban ruling elite.

I was also struck by Thomas Barfield’s description of the ethnic and tribal groups of Afghanistan, in particular the political rivalry between rural and urban Pashtun confederations. Cycles of mullah-driven, rural-based uprisings (the latest being the Taliban movement) are similar to the urban/rural social dynamic described by Ibn Khaldun.

The urban/rural divide can technically be represented with population ‘colors.’ For example, if Red represents Pashtuns, then eastern, urban Pashtuns can be distinguished by using the color Pink. Pink and Red would share more affinity with each other than with, say, Green (Uzbeks). I decided not to go this route because (A) I think the urban/rural divide should always be represented (when applicable) instead of having to be consciously injected into a scenario design, and (B) using colors to distinguish several demographic characteristics at once (the one the scenario designer thinks is pertinent + urban/rural) does not seem like it would be intuitive. I plan on having a different visual cue for a hex’s level of urban build-up.

Some of my games use the idea of Political Support Levels, divided by Political support Points – this is a mixture of the ideas of political capital, as you put it (though it’s not differentiated, for simplicty) and the general health and acceptability of the faction. In “colonial” situations the Authority player has a finite amount of this but expended it to get more resources (from his infinite stock at home) and conduct more operations, representing his exhausting the patience of his home government; while the insurgent gatthered more resources from his increasing popularity and dominance of populations.

Something like the focus matrix was a feature of Joe Miranda’s seminal insurgency game Nicaragua, where leader had to choose a platform (Liberal Democracy, Marxism, Oligarchy etc.) that was more or less palatable to different social classes, who were represented in different geographical areas and whose support you needed to woo.

And oddly enough, you might even look to an old fantasy game by SPI, Sorceror, for its ideas of colour dominance among fighting factions on the map! (still looks like someone melted a bag of Marshmallow Peeps on the table, but neat idea)

Question about including the urban/rural divide: is this because of the difference in communications, infrastructure, access to services and large amounts of people (a more physical approach), or do you feel that urban inhabitants’ ethnicities, tribal affiliations, religious ties, etc. are altered because they have left the coutnryside (or never lived there in the first place) and have a different economic class structure?

Interested to see where you’re going with this!