Simulation Mechanics

 

In order to better highlight some of the different ways in which politics can influence the world around us, the simulation World of Mir was created. Mir is a rich fictional environment that mirrors some of the structures, countries, negotiations, and policy issues that we are facing in the real world. Mir consists of 5 countries (Belogal, Ghanidash, Hin-Klia, Mikhailistan, and Pramatra) that represent different aspects of real-world countries but are not modeled after a single country.

​

Students represent these countries and specific roles within these countries while playing multiple scenarios as part of class (either online or face-to-face). Countries will face different challenges and opportunities and will engage with each other through cooperation, bargaining, competition or conflict. Participants will negotiate with each other both on the international and domestic level regarding different policy issues, budget allocations, and resource trade. At the beginning of each simulation scenario country teams get goals that they have to accomplish to receive between 1 and 10 achievement points. The country with the most achievement points at the end of all simulation scenarios, at the conclusion of the semester, wins the simulation.

 

Specific game play varies depending on the class in which you are playing this simulation. Please review the specific instructions you received in class. This page summaries all activities that are common to all simulations, both for online and face-to-face classes. Every simulation scenario requires you to engage in the follow activities: 

​

​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

International Relations of Mir

​

​​Power and relationship are important to consider when participating in this simulation. While power relationships are more structured and institutionalized in the domestic context, power manifests itself differently in the international context. Countries must consider both of these dimensions to navigate the simulation scenarios most successfully.

​

The international system of Mir is inherently based on the concepts of anarchy and sovereignty. There is no international government that is able to dictate to countries what they can or cannot do, which makes the international Mirian system foundationally an anarchy. Within this anarchy individual countries, not peoples, have the power to decide their own destiny and the way in which they operate domestically and engage with other countries. Due to the lack of an international enforcement mechanism and the autonomy of states, power plays a significant role in international outcomes. Power is most generally defined as the ability of one individual, group, or state, to make somebody else do something they would not have otherwise.

​​

Sources and Structure of Power in Mir

In the context of Mir, power has more concrete aspects. Power in Mir can be thought of as having both tangible and intangible sources. Tangible sources of power include military might, size of territory and topography, climate, size, age and health of the population among others. Intangible sources of power include the political, social, and economic organization of a state along with connections to other states that are based on shared histories or shared identities among others. Some countries in Mir have primarily focused on their soft power, especially economic influence, instead of just focusing on military might. The United Mirians (UM) only has a very weak enforcement mechanism that depends entirely on individual countries using their resources if enforcement becomes necessary, which has rarely happened in recent Mir history. Overall voluntary cooperation was the most common way of interacting in Mir in the past, which has made power a more recent dimension countries thrive for.

 

 

When looking at the power distribution in Mir at this point, a few things are apparent. The former hegemon Belogal, while significantly weakened in a variety of ways, is still seen by many as the most powerful country in Mir due to its singular status as a nuclear power.

 

Preferences and Negotiation Spaces

Each country in Mir has its own history, its different ethnic groups, and relationships with other countries that range from longstanding cooperation and mutual support to colonial exploitation and large-scale war including the usage of weapons of mass destruction. These and many other aspects impact what preferences each country has. In some cases, there is broad agreement within the country regarding a certain situation, while in other situations different interest groups, political parties, and the government may have quite different views on things as you saw in the previous Domestic Politics section.

​

In negotiations between countries

the negotiators will identify one

position that can be seen as the ideal

outcome for their country. This is

described in the bullet point list in

your instructions for the scenario you

are playing. In addition, at the end,

the instructions also include what

have to achieve at a minimum in

order to receive your achievement

points. You can understand this

information as your least acceptable

outcome.

​

​As each country has such a preference structure, we can think of negotiations between two countries in the following way. Both countries have ideal points that are distinctly different from each other. Therefore, in a negotiation situation, neither country is likely to achieve its

most-preferred outcome. Countries may be able to achieve outcomes that is better than their least acceptable one through negotiations; however, not knowing the other countries ideal point and least acceptable outcome it will only become clear through negotiations which outcome you may be able to achieve. If there is an area of outcomes that are potentially acceptable to both sides, we call it the negotiation space. Theoretically, any outcome within the negotiation space is a possible outcome of the

negotiations and the skills of the country negotiators will determine the final result. In your negotiations, try to identify the ideal and least acceptable outcomes of the other countries to help you strategize and maximize your results.

​

Negotiations and War

There could be situations where no negotiation space exists between countries, which would likely lead to war, but you are unlikely to encounter such situations in the simulations that you play. While this cause of war may be rare in Mir, other situations may lead countries to engage in war instead of pursuing further negotiations.

​

War imposes a significant cost on all participants by losing all of the military points that you used in the war, no matter if you win the war or not. This is of course a significant loss and will leave your country more vulnerable to attacks due to your reduced military strength. This is in part why most countries only engage in war as a last resort; however, there are situations where war may be a feasible strategy for a country. If we think about war in the context of the negotiation space, we can conceptualize it in the following way.

​

Let’s assume State A and State B have engaged in significant negotiations with the green points representing the two ideal points for countries and the yellow circles indicating the least acceptable outcome for each state. Therefore, the green area on the bar is the negotiation space for this situation. State B assumes the following likely negotiation outcome when negotiations conclude. State B is assumed to be satisfied with the outcomes since it is within its range of acceptable outcomes and superior to its least acceptable outcomes.

​

​

​

​

​

​Nonetheless, there may be situations where a better outcome is desired due to a variety of reasons. Multiple issues or dimensions may be negotiated, and the overall outcome may not be acceptable to State B. Alternatively, State B may face significant domestic pressure to negotiate a better outcome. In addition, State B may also decide that a preventative war to reduce the power of State A in the next negotiations

may be desirable. In all of these cases

and others, State B may consider

engaging in war. Let’s assume that State

B announces that it wants its ideal point

realized and is willing to go to war over it.

Even if State B assumes it can win the

war, which may certainly not be a given,

it will not be able to achieve its ideal

point because of the cost of war, i.e. the

loss of all used military points and other

less tangible costs such as creating the

impression that the country is not a

trustworthy negotiation partner which may lead to other countries hesitating or refusing to cooperate with State B in the future. These costs of war can be expressed in the following way.

​

 

 

 

Declaring War

If one or more countries declare war, the following steps must be taken. The deadline for declaring war is the penultimate round of play in any scenario. First, each attacking country will submit an Activity Report (described in section xx) that includes:

1. The name of each country declaring war

2. The target country or countries of the war declaration

3. The specific war objectives of the aggressor country or countries

4. The number of military points each country is devoting to the war effort

​

Government Budget Point Allocations

 

Each country begins with a different number

of budget points in the very first round of

interactions. This allocations only happens

one time. After that you need to allocate

budget points well to increase them over time.

The number of points reflects the resources

available to each country’s government at the

start of the simulation.  Mikhailistan starts

with the largest allocation (1000 points) and

Hin-Klia with smallest number (400 points).

The initial number of points for each country

are listed in the table.

​

Each country will allocate budget points at the start of each round. Allocations can be made to promote political stability (Stability), promote economic growth (Growth), build military strength (Security) or for actions planned for that round (Action). Allocations must be made before the round begins and may not be changed in the middle of a round. It’s important that each team considers both the long-term needs for the country and any short-term actions the country plans to complete.

​

Political stability refers to the ability of a government or an entire political system to endure over time. Government stability rests on the allocation of budget resources to generate support among influential members of society and the public. An allocation of at least 50 points per round is necessary to maintain the Head of Government (HoG) in power. If less than 50 points are allocated, the Opposition leader becomes the HoG at the start of the next round, and the former HoG becomes the Opposition.  If allocations fall too low, the entire political system will lack the legitimacy required to function. Any allocation of less than 10 points in a round will result in a government changing from democratic to authoritarian or vice versa at the start of the next round.

​

Promoting economic growth requires resources. Allocations made in the growth category reflect investments in industry, new technologies, infrastructure, and social services that will benefit the overall economy. Points invested in Growth help create larger future budgets. Countries receive 1.5 times the number of points invested in Growth during the next round of play. For instance, if Ghanidash invests 300 points in Growth in Round 1, then in Round 2 they will receive 450 points (1.5 x 300). This example is presented in the Budget Allocation Worksheet below.

​

Security is the ability to project military power abroad and defend the homeland. In the simulation, security is created by investing budget points in the country’s military strength. Military strength is cumulative; that is, the sum of all budget points invested in Security since the start of the simulation. For instance, if Hin-Klia invests 50 points in Security over the first three rounds, then the country could use up to 150 points in an armed conflict during the third round. Once Military Strength points are expended in an armed conflict, those points are lost regardless of the outcome.

​

Action points are resources allocated for a particular initiative. Action points may be used to fund international organizations, can be loaned to another government, or donated as foreign aid. Governments should be careful to only allocate the number of points needed in that round of play. Any unused action points are forfeited at the end of the round.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Under most circumstances, countries are overall interested in increasing the amount of budget points they have over time. This means a significant allocation of points toward growth will allow for budgets to get bigger every round and will then allow of increased future spending. This desire to grow your resources needs to be done sustainably by balancing it with stability and security needs of the country. Insufficient security spending to build military strength may leave countries vulnerable to attack, while too much spending on security will diminish the economic growth potential of the country. If countries grow their budgets over time, they are also more readily able to use action points in order to influence negotiations, develop positive relationships with their neighbors, work on collaborative projects, or join international treaties and assume international obligations.

​

​​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Domestic Politics 

​​

​Domestic politics reflect the type of political system and the interactions of key political actors. In Mir, the two basic categories of political systems are democratic and authoritarian. The roles are divided into Head of Government, Opposition Leader, and up to three Interest Group Representatives.​

​

Political systems in Mir are divided into four categories. Authoritarian systems are either single party dictatorships or oligarchies. Single party dictatorships are political systems with a strict hierarchical structure and a single ideology, while oligarchies are systems with dynamic power sharing agreements among a few key actors.  Democratic systems are either liberal or illiberal democracies. Illiberal democracies are regimes with very limited democratic elements, such as periodic elections, but citizens lack basic rights and liberties.

​

Government and Opposition

Each political system has a leader who represents the government and an opposition leader. Heads of Government (HoG) are either presidents or prime ministers. All actions taken by an authoritarian or illiberal democratic country only requires the agreement of the HoG. The type of Opposition Leader depends on the political system. In democratic countries, the HoG is opposed by the leader of the opposition party. In authoritarian systems, the Opposition is outside of the government, typically a representative of a large group in society.  In democratic countries, any action must have majority support among the leadership, including the HoG. In authoritarian and illiberal systems, the Opposition can only exercise power by persuading the HoG to take a particular action (or avoid taking an action) that is consistent with the Opposition viewpoint.

 

Interest Groups

In addition to the HoG and Opposition Leader, each country’s leadership team may contain the representatives of several important interest groups in society. In Mir, the interest groups fall into one of three categories: social, economic, and security. Interest group representatives must choose how to best convince the leadership team to take actions that would be agreeable to their constituents. In democratic systems, an interest group representative has one vote on each policy action under consideration. The roles for each country are contained in the table below.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​​​Team Objectives and Roles

Each team’s goal is to maximize the number of scenario points over the course of the simulation. The maximum score for each team is 31 points. Each scenario allows teams to earn between 10 points and 1 point by achieving their country objectives. While aiming to earn scenario points, a tension will often exist between meeting the country’s objectives and the preferences of the individual players.

Regardless of the scenario or number of players, students should regularly communicate with teammates and participate in all negotiations. The number of roles filled will depend on the size of the class. Smaller classes may have less than five players per country, while larger classes may have more than one player per role. As described earlier, your team may have a Head of Government, an Opposition Leader, and several Interest Group Representatives.

The role responsibilities are:

​​

Head of Government

The Head of Government (GOV) is the ultimate decision maker in Mir. All actions taken by a country must have the agreement of the GOV. A successful GOV will listen to the viewpoints expressed by the country’s leadership team but also decide how to prioritize some goals over others. While earning scenario points for the country is the GOV’s focus, staying in power must also be a priority. The individual GOV winner is the government leader that scores the most scenario points while maintaining power throughout the simulation.

​

Opposition Leader

 The Opposition Leader (OPL) must balance the good of the country with the desire for political power. In democratic systems, the OPL can use their vote to cooperate with or oppose the HoG. In any political system, the OPL seeks popular support by emphasizing economic growth over maintaining stability. The individual OPL winner is the one who becomes the HoG for the most rounds of play. If a tie occurs, then the winner is the OPL in the country allocating the most budget resources to Growth.

​

Interest Group Representatives

The Economic (ECO), Social (SOC), and Security (SEC) interest group representatives attempt to maximize the resources and country actions that favor their group’s policy preferences. While the IGRs participate in all discussions, some scenarios may feature issues that are particularly important to their constituents. The winner among each category of IGR is the one scoring the highest number of points in the scenarios directly affecting their constituents. 

​

 

Distribution of Tasks by Role

Each Cabinet member fulfills different roles during game play. If you are playing this simulation in the context of a fully online asynchronous course, please skip this section and follow the instruction that are provided on Brightspace. If you are playing the Mir simulation in the context of a face-to-face class, please follow the instructions You are given in class. If you are playing Mir in a face-to-face class together with students from another university, please follow these instructions here: 

​

Each Cabinet member helps the overall functioning of the simulation by taking on specific tasks. Every Cabinet member must complete their tasks each week. Be mindful in choosing your role and pick one where the associated work caters to your strengths or brings you the most joy. Each position also requires kind of tasks with different timings, so pick a position that fits your schedule best. 

​

Head of Government (GOV): The GOV is responsible for all official communication of the country such as press releases or announcements of signed agreements, etc. The position requires you to be well-aware of all actions in the simulation. The work will require active participation in the Country Cabinet. The student who takes on this role should enjoy taking on a leadership role as well as writing text that is often longer than a paragraph and more structured and formal in style every few days. 

 

Opposition Leader (OPL): The OPL is responsible for keeping track of all activities that are occurring as well as writing and submitting the weekly activity reports. The work for this position allows the student to do some of the work in the background. The ideal OPL is well-organized and able to synthesize all activities of the week into an efficient and effective Activity Report (see instructions below). This position has this one larger weekly task in addition to participating regularly in the country cabinet chat. 

 

Economic Interest Group Representative (ECO): The EcoIG is responsible for maintaining the government budget and is in charge of all trade negotiations. Ideally the ECO is very comfortable with entering data in Excel sheets. In addition, the ECO should have the ability to plan ahead when it comes to the budget and update it weekly. The ECO is also responsible to lead all trade negotiations (and potential longer-term trade agreements) to ensure sufficient resources for the population. Trade negotiations may be intense in the beginning but if trade agreements are signed, the work declines in frequency. 

 

Security (SEC) and Social (SOC) Interest Group Representative: The SocIG and SecIG share the responsibility of communicating on behalf of your Country Cabinet in negotiations in the embassies and the General Assembly of the United Mirians (GAUM). The SEC and SOC should enjoy communicating your country's stances as well as negotiating and interacting with other countries and their representatives. Instead of fewer bigger tasks of the other rules, the SEC and SOC interact often daily with others, but each interaction is short (regularly less than 5 mins). The writing the SOC and SEC do is much shorter than official press releases and usually range from a sentence to a short paragraph. It is advised that the two representatives split the workload formally to best fit your schedules.   

  

​​​​

​

Natural Resource Factor Allocations

 

Countries must have access to natural resources to achieve social, economic, and security goals. In Mir, the three basic resource categories are energy, food, and raw materials. Food is the most abundant resource, while energy resources and raw materials are less common. Sixty food resource factors, but only fifty factors of energy and raw materials, are distributed among the five countries. Resource factors do not change during the simulation. The table below shows the factor allocations for each country.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Countries require resources to maintain a functional economy. In Mir, the minimum for each of the three resources is 10 factors at the end of any round. Since factor allocations vary across the countries, trade is necessary to meet the required minimum. For instance, Hin-Klia has an abundance of Energy (25 factors) at the start of each round but needs to trade for Food and Raw Materials. Hin-Klia starts each round with only five Food factors and zero Raw Materials factors. Hin-Klia may trade some of its Energy for 5 Food factors and 10 Raw Materials factors to meet the minimum and avoid a penalty. While no incentive exists for exceeding the minimum, trade relationships can be used as leverage to achieve other diplomatic goals. Resource factors may also be exchanged for Action budget points.

 

The Resource Trading Worksheet is below. To simplify trade, a minimum of 5 factors can be exchanged between any two countries. Each country logs the number of factors at the start and end of each round. Failure to meet the minimum of 10 factors per resource results in a penalty. For each resource that ends below ten, a 50-point penalty in government budget points is assessed at the start of the next round of play. For instance, if Hin-Klia ends Round 1 with 10 Energy but only 5 Food and 5 Raw Materials factors, a total penalty of 100 points will be subtracted from Hin-Klia's Starting Total in Round 2. This is illustrated in the first line of entries in the table below. The second line shows a round where no penalty is occurred and Hin-Klia receive no reduction of government budget points in the next round.

​

​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

 

Activity Reports

Teams will submit an Activity Report at the

end of each round. Any planned activities

are only official after a completed and

signed Report is received by your instructor.

The Report can provide details on policy

statements, agreements reached, govern-

ment actions, or anything else that the team

wishes to formalize.  Submissions are re-

quired even if the team was unable to agree

on (or does not wish to engage in) any

activity. Simply enter the text “no activity.”

 

The table below contains an example of a

completed Activity Report. In the illustra-

tion, Mikhailistan and Belogal have worked

with the Mir International Fund (MIF) to

loan Hin-Klia 450 budget points.

Importantly, the Report contains all the

details of the official agreement. If an

important detail is omitted, but an agree-

ment is reached with all required signatures,

the reported activity remains official. Only

if the agreement stipulates that a certain

condition is met, and that the condition remains unmet, will the activity be considered null and void. For example, if the agreement states that both Mikhailistan and Belogal must agree to the loan, but Mikhailistan fails to get the required signatures, then the loan is cancelled.

​

By now you should have a good idea of how to play this simulation. Enjoy!