Hypothetical SE Changes

[Quadhelix]

So here are the Datalinks descriptions of some hypothetical changes to the SE settings. It has been informed by many of the other threads on the topic, but I hope to keep it distinct. One aspect in particular is the transformation of Police State into something of a "peace-time only" government.

Of course, it is quite possible that the factions would have to be rebalanced to account for the change in SE settings, but that is a discussion for another day.



Politics

Frontier
Frontier politics represent the informal governing arrangements made
in early colonies, before populations reach levels requiring more
advanced forms of government. The ad hoc and disorganized nature of the system, however, results in a significant amount of inefficiency.

-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: None


Police State
Police States use oppressive martial law and covert "secret police" to keep its citizens in line. However, the heavy-handed domestic policies minimize the resources available for conflict abroad.

+2 Police
+1 Probe
-2 Support

Prerequisite: Doctrine: Loyalty


Democracy
Democracies allow citizens to participate in government, and forgo oppression and the stability it confers in favor of local government and civil liberties. Decentralized government increases efficiency while freedom of thought improves research efforts, but the emphasis on personal freedoms and governmental transparency reduce the effectiveness of police forces and covert operations.

+2 Efficiency
+1 Research
-2 Police
-1 Probe

Prerequisite: Ethical Calculus


Charismatic
Charismatic politics unite a society behind a strong, dogmatic religion or philosophical ideal. Evangelizing the populace can create loyal, even fanatical military forces, and the focus on traditional values results in faster population growth, but technological research tends to suffer under the continual assaults on intellectual integrity associated with such regimes.

+2 Morale
+2 Growth
-2 Research

Prerequisite: Social Psych


Economics

Simple
Simple Economics describes the informal, ad hoc economy which develops
in the early years of planetfall, before more organized economic
systems can be put in place. The disorganized nature of this system results in inefficiency and weakened economic output.

-1 Efficiency
-1 Economy

Prerequisite: None


Free Market
Free Market Economics turns market forces loose on society. Unfettered market economics can produce great wealth quickly, but draw resources that would otherwise go into military support. Also, citizens rendered suddenly poor by the actions unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their energy-fattened masters.

+2 Economy
+1 Efficiency
-3 Police
-2 Support

Prerequisite: Industrial Economics


Planned
A semi-market economy kept in check by fierce governmental regulation, Planned Economics promotes stable industrial growth and can allocate significant resources to military support, but sacrifices efficiency.

+2 Support
+1 Industry
-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: Planetary Networks


Green

Green Economics strive to integrate sentient progress with the needs of the biosphere. Green economies produce a significant focus on technological development and tend to avoid the excesses of industrial development which could provoke Planet's native life, but industrial output naturally suffers as a result of conservationist restrictions.

+2 Planet
+1 Research
-2 Industry

Prerequisite: Centauri Empathy



Values

Survival
Survival is of course the all-encompassing first priority of early human space colonies. "Survival" as a priority provides no special bonuses or penalties.

Prerequisite: None

Growth
Leaders seeking Growth will invest their resources in facilities and institutions promoting population growth and in the industrial base to support those institutions. They achieve rapid growth and development, but produce significant amounts of pollution as a byproduct.

+2 Growth
+2 Industry
-2 Planet

Prerequisite: Secrets of the Human Brain


Security
Leaders seeking Secuirty build strong, well-paid military and police forces to enforce their will. But Economic infrastructure may suffer from bloated "defense" budgets.

+2 Support
+1 Police
-1 Economy

Prerequisite: Advanced Military Algorithms


Progress
Leaders seeking progress will pour resources into education, research, and economic infrastructure. This will result in faster technological development and a stronger economy, but the higher emphasis on quality of life and family planning will slow population growth.

+1 Research
+1 Economy
-2 Growth

Prerequisite: Cyberethics



Future Society

None
"None", or no Future Society, simply means that your society has not
yet evolved to a far future society. No bonuses or penalties apply.

Prerequisite: None


Cybernetic
In the far future, citizens may turn many of the tasks of governing
society over to artificially intelligent computers, increasing efficiency and industrial output by applying optimal resources to each problem. But will workers continually displaced by unfeeling computers sink into despair, poverty, and possible unrest?

+2 Efficiency
+2 Industry
+1 Planet
-3 Police

Prerequisite: Digital Sentience


Eudaimonic
Perhaps the most pleasant to contemplate living in, this far future
society takes its name from an ancient Greek word for fulfillment
and happiness. Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to achieve
happiness through striving to fulfill completely his or her potential.
Population, Economy, and Research all experience healthy growth.
Violence fades as society grows more tolerant and just, and even when
this society's hand is forced it often shoots to subdue rather than
to destroy.

+2 Growth
+1 Research
+1 Economy
-2 Morale

Prerequisite: Eudaimonia


Thought Control
The ultimate in "Big Brother" methods, Thought Control effuses
subtle neurochemical triggers into the atmosphere to render its
population obedient, loyal, and resistant to outside ideas.
But significant resources are required to maintain this level
of control.

+2 Morale
+2 Police
+1 Probe
-3 Industry

Prerequisite: The Will to Power



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, so among the flaws that jump out at me: Growth is available far earlier than the other two value systems, and players may well choose it for the short run simply because it is the only option.

Also, Eudaimonic Future Society looks, to me, like a copy of Progress Values with an extra +2 Growth and a different penalty.

In any case, if there are any glaring flaws that I missed, please don't hesitate to tell me!

[Selador]

Hey, nice to see some modding going on here! It's been a while, but I've done some extensive modding of the SE Table in the past, so I'll give you my thoughts on the matter.

First, I love the idea of giving the default settings minor penalties . Not only does it give the early game a bit more flavor, I think it actually induces the AI to choose more advanced settings when they discover them instead of sitting idly on Frontier/Simple/Survival the whole game. This has been done before and I'm pretty sure it works, but further testing may be needed (obviously it's not a great idea if in fact the AIs refuse to switch despite the penalties).

So I'd like to see penalties applied to Survival and "None' future society. Perhaps -1 Research to Survival, to represent the lack of resources available for theoretical science due to the focus on more practical/pressing issues like finding enough food and energy in a hostile alien environment. For "None" future society, how about -1 Planet? This would reflect a lack of understanding/ability to integrate with Planet in less advanced human societies. I'd also change Frontier and Simple to only -1 Efficiency and -1 Economy respectively so that the negative effects of the default settings are too overwhelming.

Ok, now for some criticisms of the changes you made in each category:

Politics

Police State is now far too weak compared to the other 3 choices . Police is great to have in the early game, but less useful later in the game when drone control is less of an issue due to the availability to of anti-drone facilities, specialists, and psych output. Likewise, Support is most useful early game when minerals are in short supply. By giving + Police and - Support, you ensure that this SE will rarely ever be used since early game the support penalty really hurts, and later on the police bonus is all but useless. Also, having a support penalty doesn't really work thematically with PS (imo). I like the idea of giving a probe bonus, but change the penalty. Any of Efficiency, Economy, or Research would work better I think.

Democracy looks great . The original growth bonus didn't really makes sense to me, I think + Research fits better. Also the penalties to Police and Probe are more intuitive.

I don't like the name change to "Charismatic" . I mean, "Fundamentalist" isn't great either, but this change doesn't work for me. It's just not a political system, and it doesn't fit in with the other 2. I don't have a better idea right now though, so I'd just leave it as Fundy for now. I like the growth bonus , makes it a more interesting choice, though +2 may be a bit on the strong side. Not sure though, -2 Research is a pretty harsh penalty after all.

Economics

Yikes, this one's a mess. I don't like any of them . I feel the original econ choices are actually very well balanced. Here you've made FM even more powerful, while making Planned and Green much weaker. I mean green is really crappy now with -2 Industry, why would anyone ever pick it? It makes sense thematically, but it just doesn't work from a gameplay perspective.

Same thing for Planned; the biggest reason to go Planned in the original game is to pop boom. With no growth bonus there's just no reason to pick Planned over FM now. Personally, I'd like to see pop booming eliminated from the game, so Planned could be ok as is if you're going to do that, but I think you need to redo the other 2 choices. I have some ideas on how to do this that I may post later.

Values

My only problem with this category is "Growth" . Like "Charismatic", I don't really think it fits thematically. It just doesn't really seem like a value system to me. Maybe this would be a better spot to put Fundamentalism? Secondly, its far too powerful when compared with the other choices. Growth and Industry are probably the 2 most powerful SE factors (why do you think the Hive is so strong?). Even more so when you stack multiples of them together, and here you're stacking 2 of each together into one package. Not only that, but -2 Planet is basically a nothing penalty. This is a total no-brainer choice for every faction all game.

The other 2 choices seem fine .

Future Society

Looks good except for Thought Control . Note that negative Industry rolls over past -3 (if I remember correctly), which will be a problem when this choice is combined with Green. I'd change it to -2 Industry only, and change Green to -1 (it's too weak anyway). Also, maybe bump the Probe bonus up to +2 so that you can get +3 when combined with Police State.

For Cybernetic I'd replace the Planet bonus with something else, maybe Research, for thematic reasons. Although the original game gives a Planet bonus as well, I just don't see a machine-based society integrating well with Planet. Otherwise good though .

I like the fact that you nerfed Eudaimonic a bit , it was too strong before. It's still very strong, but since it comes later than the other 2 it's probably ok.

[Quadhelix]

Selador: thank you so much for your input!

I'd also change Frontier and Simple to only -1 Efficiency and -1 Economy respectively so that the negative effects of the default settings are too overwhelming.

I see your point about this: it can be pretty bad, especially when they stack (you start the game with -3 effic and -1 Econ).

Still, the basic idea is that these are short-term, ad hoc systems until you have something better, and no society should be running Frontier politics or Simple economics once all the other options are available.

Still, I'll keep that in mind.

Police State is now far too weak compared to the other 3 choices . Police is great to have in the early game, but less useful later in the game when drone control is less of an issue due to the availability to of anti-drone facilities, specialists, and psych output. Likewise, Support is most useful early game when minerals are in short supply. By giving + Police and - Support, you ensure that this SE will rarely ever be used since early game the support penalty really hurts, and later on the police bonus is all but useless. Also, having a support penalty doesn't really work thematically with PS (imo). I like the idea of giving a probe bonus, but change the penalty. Any of Efficiency, Economy, or Research would work better I think.

The basic idea behind the support penalty is to keep Police State players from building large armies. IMO, it does work thematically: you can fight a war either abroad or at home, and Police State fights it at home.

As for the penalty being too severe, why not a reduction to -1 support? This way, players can still have a free unit at each base and start new bases with free minerals.


(I will freely admit that I am not objective on this idea: the idea for a Police State support penalty is what started me on this whole mess in the first place)

I don't like the name change to "Charismatic" . I mean, "Fundamentalist" isn't great either, but this change doesn't work for me. It's just not a political system, and it doesn't fit in with the other 2. I don't have a better idea right now though, so I'd just leave it as Fundy for now.

I can see how "Fundamentalist" would qualify as a political system: basically, the leaders of the state, instead of enforcing their will via heavy-handed police tactics (as with a Police State), the leaders instead use religious propaganda. Sort of.

The reason that I changed the name to "Charismatic" was to include a broader theme of government: Fundamentalism, Fascism, certain forms of Communism, etc. Basically, any government where the leadership is selected/kept in power via oratory, hyper-nationalism, and a central ethic around which they base their platform.

I like the growth bonus , makes it a more interesting choice, though +2 may be a bit on the strong side. Not sure though, -2 Research is a pretty harsh penalty after all.

One of the main complaints about Fundamentalist politics is that it's -2 Research penalty makes it practically useless during peace time. The idea behind moving the +2 Growth from Democracy to Fundamentalism is so that players would have to go Fundy to pop boom, unless they use Golden Ages.

Yikes, this one's a mess. I don't like any of them . I feel the original econ choices are actually very well balanced. Here you've made FM even more powerful, while making Planned and Green much weaker.

Fine: Free Market, +2 Econ, +1 Effic, -4 Police, -4 Support

The reason, of course, for keeping police at -4 instead of -5 is so that running Demo/Market will still have the full penalties of both (since -6 Police is the same as -5)

I mean green is really crappy now with -2 Industry, why would anyone ever pick it? It makes sense thematically, but it just doesn't work from a gameplay perspective.

-1 then, or a completely different penalty?

Same thing for Planned; the biggest reason to go Planned in the original game is to pop boom. With no growth bonus there's just no reason to pick Planned over FM now. Personally, I'd like to see pop booming eliminated from the game, so Planned could be ok as is if you're going to do that, but I think you need to redo the other 2 choices. I have some ideas on how to do this that I may post later.

Okay, +2 Support, +2 Industry, -1 Efficiency

Does that work, or should I just go back to the drawing board?

My only problem with this category is "Growth" . Like "Charismatic", I don't really think it fits thematically. It just doesn't really seem like a value system to me. Maybe this would be a better spot to put Fundamentalism?

I'm aware that "Growth" isn't really a social value, but I can't really think of a better name for it. Maybe "Community," "Expansion," "Colonization,"...

Feel free to pitch in at any time.

Secondly, its far too powerful when compared with the other choices. Growth and Industry are probably the 2 most powerful SE factors (why do you think the Hive is so strong?). Even more so when you stack multiples of them together, and here you're stacking 2 of each together into one package. Not only that, but -2 Planet is basically a nothing penalty. This is a total no-brainer choice for every faction all game.

I see your point; would dropping the industry boost to +1 work (it would then be vanilla Planned with a different penalty) or would the lack of FM as competition still leave problems.

New version, perhaps: "Growth," +2 Growth, +1 Industry, -3 Planet

I don't know, though.

Looks good except for Thought Control . Note that negative Industry rolls over past -3 (if I remember correctly), which will be a problem when this choice is combined with Green. I'd change it to -2 Industry only, and change Green to -1 (it's too weak anyway). Also, maybe bump the Probe bonus up to +2 so that you can get +3 when combined with Police State.

The reason that I kept it to +1 was because, apparently, Probe values greater than 3 are treated as 0. This means that, if you have a faction with an inherent probe bonus running Police State and Thought Control...


To be honest, most of the Future Societies are still in flux for me: I'm wondering about changing Thought Control's penalty entirely (Research, Economy, or the original Support), moving Cybernetic's industry bonus to Thought Control (tireless, perfectly docile workers) and giving Cybernetic a Support bonus (computer regulated supply lines).

For Cybernetic I'd replace the Planet bonus with something else, maybe Research, for thematic reasons. Although the original game gives a Planet bonus as well, I just don't see a machine-based society integrating well with Planet. Otherwise good though .

I think that the idea behind the Planet boost is that the computers running the society would minimize waste, which would minimize planet's hostile response.

I'm not really sure about the thematic reasons for a research bonus, but anyway, here's an idea:

Cybernetic, +2 Efficiency, +2 Industry, +1 Research, -3 Police
Eudaimonic, +2 Growth, +1 Economy, +1 Planet, -2 Morale
Thought Control, +2 Morale, +2 Police, +1 Probe, -2 Industry

...or something like that.

[Selador]

Selador: thank you so much for your input!

You're welcome.

The basic idea behind the support penalty is to keep Police State players from building large armies. IMO, it does work thematically: you can fight a war either abroad or at home, and Police State fights it at home.

Well, the game already forces the player to choose between "fighting at home" and "fighting abroad" due to the fact that you have to keep police units stationed within a base for them to be effective. So if they're off fighting, there not policing, by design already. I guess the real problem is that the game makes no distinction between "military units" and "police units"; there are only "units".

As for the penalty being too severe, why not a reduction to -1 support? This way, players can still have a free unit at each base and start new bases with free minerals.

I guess that could work if you're really set on a Support penalty.

The reason that I changed the name to "Charismatic" was to include a broader theme of government: Fundamentalism, Fascism, certain forms of Communism, etc. Basically, any government where the leadership is selected/kept in power via oratory, hyper-nationalism, and a central ethic around which they base their platform.

Yeah, I see what you were getting at, I just don't like the name.

Personally, I think Fundy fits well with the new growth bonus, so I'd leave it at that.

One of the main complaints about Fundamentalist politics is that it's -2 Research penalty makes it practically useless during peace time. The idea behind moving the +2 Growth from Democracy to Fundamentalism is so that players would have to go Fundy to pop boom, unless they use Golden Ages.

Yes, I like this aspect very much.

Fine: Free Market, +2 Econ, +1 Effic, -4 Police, -4 Support

Uh, -4 support?? This will basically just force a beeline to clean reactors.

The reason, of course, for keeping police at -4 instead of -5 is so that running Demo/Market will still have the full penalties of both (since -6 Police is the same as -5)

Yeah, I understood that that was your intention. It's just that -3 police on it's own really isn't much of a penalty, and -2 support is pretty manageable. Meanwhile, you're raking in the energy AND get an efficiency bonus to boot.

The problem is that +2 Econ is just so incredibly powerful, you give up a lot by choosing a setting that doesn't have it. It's hard to offer a viable alternative to the coveted +1 energy/sq under the confines of the current SE mechanics (which we can't change). One way around this might be to redesign all the econ choices starting from a baseline of +2 Economy for each option. Then you could differentiate the options by adding other bonuses and penalties on top of that baseline.

-1 then, or a completely different penalty?

I like the idea of having -Industry for green, it's just that -2 is way too severe for the benefits it's offering. I think lowering the penalty to -1 could work, or you could consider bringing back the Efficiency bonus.

Okay, +2 Support, +2 Industry, -1 Efficiency

I think this is too much. Your original idea of +2 Support, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency should work if you tone down FM a bit and bring cut Green's Industry penalty in half. It would still be a good early game choice for most factions. Maybe change FM to something like: +1 Economy, +1 Efficiency, -3 Police?

Or, if you want to incorporate the idea of giving all the econ choices +1 energy/sq., you'd have the following:

Free Market
+1 Economy, +1 Efficiency, -3 Police --> +3 Economy, +1 Efficiency, -3 Police

Planned
+2 Support, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency --> +2 Economy, +2 Support, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency

Green
+2 Planet, +1 Research, -1 Industry --> +2 Economy, +2 Planet, +1 Research, -1 Industry

This way, anyone running an econ setting other than "Simple" gets the magic +1 energy/sq. However, the settings retain their distictiveness: Free Market is more efficient and gets an "extra" bonus to economy yielding better commerce, but also a smaller police presence and potential domestic unrest; Planned gets cheaper manufacturing and support, but is wasteful and inefficient with the energy it generates; Green is more environmentally aware than the other two, but its industry suffers from regulation.

I'm aware that "Growth" isn't really a social value, but I can't really think of a better name for it. Maybe "Community," "Expansion," "Colonization,"...

Feel free to pitch in at any time.

I dunno. I guess "Expansion" might work better.

I see your point; would dropping the industry boost to +1 work (it would then be vanilla Planned with a different penalty) or would the lack of FM as competition still leave problems.

New version, perhaps: "Growth," +2 Growth, +1 Industry, -3 Planet

I don't know, though.

I think it's still too strong. Balancing Growth and Industry bonuses with a Planet penalty just doesn't work imo. Maybe if you lowered growth to +1 as well. Honestly, i would rather just see this idea scrapped altogether. That way, pop booming is only possible with Fundy+Creche+GA until Eudaimonic arrives late game.

How about this: scrap the Growth bonus, move the +1 Industry bonus back to "Progess" (droping the +1 Research), then replace this slot with something providing Research. Call it "Innovation" or something. Maybe rename "Progress" to "Development" to make it a bit more distictive.

The reason that I kept it to +1 was because, apparently, Probe values greater than 3 are treated as 0. This means that, if you have a faction with an inherent probe bonus running Police State and Thought Control...

Yeah, true. However, the only out-of-the-box faction with a probe bonus is the Data Angels, but they have an aversion to Thought Control anyway.

To be honest, most of the Future Societies are still in flux for me: I'm wondering about changing Thought Control's penalty entirely (Research, Economy, or the original Support), moving Cybernetic's industry bonus to Thought Control (tireless, perfectly docile workers) and giving Cybernetic a Support bonus (computer regulated supply lines).

Yeah, they could probably stand some more tinkering. I kinda like the idea of giving Thought Control an industry bonus, actually.

[Quadhelix]

Well, the game already forces the player to choose between "fighting at home" and "fighting abroad" due to the fact that you have to keep police units stationed within a base for them to be effective. So if they're off fighting, there not policing, by design already. I guess the real problem is that the game makes no distinction between "military units" and "police units"; there are only "units".

The basic idea behind the support penalty is to prevent the player from creating anything other than police units; it might not be a bad idea, in this context, to move the "Non-Lethal Methods" unit ability to Doctrine: Loyalty so that it becomes available at the same time as Police State.

Yeah, I see what you were getting at, I just don't like the name.

Personally, I think Fundy fits well with the new growth bonus, so I'd leave it at that.

Sure, why not.

Uh, -4 support?? This will basically just force a beeline to clean reactors.

Note to self: move Clean Reactors to Industrial Nanorobotics. Also increasing Clean Reactor's cost from 2 (+50% unit cost) to 4 (+100% unit cost).

That should take care of things. Maybe a little too well ().

Yeah, I understood that that was your intention. It's just that -3 police on it's own really isn't much of a penalty, and -2 support is pretty manageable. Meanwhile, you're raking in the energy AND get an efficiency bonus to boot.

Yeah - that was something of an oversight on my part.

I dunno. I guess "Expansion" might work better.

Well, the Datalinks descriptions of the Values options always say "Leaders seeking X will..." so it's not out of place to say "Leaders seeking Growth will..."

Anyway, I'm trying to think of a name that would reflect an emphasis on population growth and industrial output. "Prosperity" doesn't quite work, because that would emphasize economy output rather than industrial.

I think, for now, I'll go with Productivity.

I think it's still too strong. Balancing Growth and Industry bonuses with a Planet penalty just doesn't work imo. Maybe if you lowered growth to +1 as well. Honestly, i would rather just see this idea scrapped altogether. That way, pop booming is only possible with Fundy+Creche+GA until Eudaimonic arrives late game.

Well, we could lower both growth bonuses to +1, so that players seeking to pop boom would need Fundy+Growth+Creche+GA until the late game.

On a side note, does the AI "GA farm" in order to pop-boom?



Currently, I've changed "Survival" to -1 Growth due to emphasis on staying alive rather and changed "Productivity" to +2 Growth, +1 Industry, -3 Planet, -1 Research. I may very well wind up removing the Productivity value, but in that case, there is no reason not to return to the old Power/Wealth/Knowledge system.

Yeah, true. However, the only out-of-the-box faction with a probe bonus is the Data Angels, but they have an aversion to Thought Control anyway.

Actually, the Believers also have a +1 Probe bonus.



Anyway, below is the modified version of the system

Spoiler:

Politics

Frontier
Frontier politics represent the informal governing arrangements made in early colonies, before populations reach levels requiring more advanced forms of government. The ad hoc and disorganized nature of the system, however, results in a significant amount of inefficiency.

-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: None


Police State
Police States use oppressive martial law and covert "secret police" to keep its citizens in line. However, the heavy-handed domestic policies minimize the resources available for conflict abroad.

+2 Police
+1 Probe
-1 Support

Prerequisite: Doctrine: Loyalty


Democracy
Democracies allow citizens to participate in government, and forgo oppression and the stability it confers in favor of local government and civil liberties. Decentralized government increases efficiency while freedom of thought improves research efforts, but the emphasis on personal freedoms and governmental transparency reduce the effectiveness of police forces and covert operations.

+2 Efficiency
+1 Research
-2 Police
-1 Probe

Prerequisite: Ethical Calculus


Fundamentalist
Fundamentalist politics unite a society behind a strong, dogmatic religion. Evangelizing the populace can create loyal, even fanatical military forces, and the focus on traditional values results in faster population growth, but technological research tends to suffer under the continual assaults on intellectual integrity associated with such regimes.

+2 Morale
+2 Growth
-2 Research

Prerequisite: Social Psych


Economics

Simple
Simple Economics describes the informal, ad hoc economy which develops in the early years of planetfall, before more organized economic systems can be put in place. The disorganized nature of this system results in weakened economic output.

-1 Economy

Prerequisite: None


Free Market
Free Market Economics turns market forces loose on society. Unfettered market economics can produce great wealth quickly, but draw resources that would otherwise go into military support. Also, citizens rendered suddenly poor by the actions unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their energy-fattened masters.

+2 Economy
+1 Efficiency
-4 Police
-4 Support

Prerequisite: Industrial Economics


Planned
A semi-market economy kept in check by fierce governmental regulation, Planned Economics promotes stable industrial growth and can allocate significant resources to military support, but sacrifices efficiency.

+2 Support
+1 Industry
-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: Planetary Networks


Green

Green Economics strive to integrate sentient progress with the needs of the biosphere. Green economies produce a significant focus on technological development and tend to avoid the excesses of industrial development which could provoke Planet's native life, but industrial output naturally suffers as a result of conservationist restrictions.

+2 Planet
+1 Research
-1 Industry

Prerequisite: Centauri Empathy



Values

Survival
Survival is of course the all-encompassing first priority of early human space colonies. However, the focus on the day-to-day struggle against the elements limits population growth.

-1 Growth

Prerequisite: None


Productivity
Leaders seeking Productivity will invest their resources in facilities and institutions promoting population growth and industrial output. They achieve rapid growth and development, but produce significant amounts of pollution as a byproduct. Furthermore, the industrious focus on practicality and the "here-and-now" weakens research efforts.

+2 Growth
+1 Industry
-3 Planet
-1 Research

Prerequisite: Industrial Automation


Security
Leaders seeking Secuirty build strong, well-paid military and police forces to enforce their will. But Economic infrastructure may suffer from bloated "defense" budgets.

+2 Support
+1 Police
-1 Economy

Prerequisite: Advanced Military Algorithms


Progress
Leaders seeking progress will pour resources into education, research, and economic infrastructure. This will result in faster technological development and a stronger economy, but the higher emphasis on quality of life and family planning will slow population growth.

+1 Research
+1 Economy
-2 Growth

Prerequisite: Cyberethics



Future Society

None
"None", or no Future Society, simply means that your society has not
yet evolved to a far future society. No bonuses or penalties apply.

Prerequisite: None


Cybernetic
In the far future, citizens may turn many of the tasks of governing society over to artificially intelligent computers, increasing economic and military efficiency while freeing humans for more creative endeavors. But will workers continually displaced by unfeeling computers sink into despair, poverty, and possible unrest?

+2 Efficiency
+2 Support
+1 Research
-3 Police

Prerequisite: Digital Sentience


Eudaimonic
Perhaps the most pleasant to contemplate living in, this far future society takes its name from an ancient Greek word for fulfillment and happiness. Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to achieve happiness through striving to fulfill completely his or her potential. Population and the Economy experience healthy growth, and society seeks a greater equilibrium with the environment of Planet. Violence fades as society grows more tolerant and just, and even when this society's hand is forced it often shoots to subdue rather than to destroy.

+2 Growth
+1 Economy
+1 Planet
-2 Morale

Prerequisite: Eudaimonia


Thought Control
The ultimate in "Big Brother" methods, Thought Control effuses subtle neurochemical triggers into the atmosphere to render its population obedient, loyal, and resistant to outside ideas and turning the workforce into tireless, obedient drones. However, such a system sacrifices a great deal of efficiency in order to maintain control.

+2 Police
+2 Industry
+1 Probe
-3 Efficiency

Prerequisite: The Will to Power

[Selador]

Note to self: move Clean Reactors to Industrial Nanorobotics. Also increasing Clean Reactor's cost from 2 (+50% unit cost) to 4 (+100% unit cost).

That should take care of things. Maybe a little too well ().

I don't think moving Clean Reactors up the tech tree will help. Right now, FM just isn't a viable choice until at least mid game because 2 min/unit is so crippling when mineral surpluses are small. If you made CRs available early (but made them very expensive or something), at least you'd have the option of running FM early on. The goal is to increase the strategic options available to players, right?

Right now, only Morgan can run FM, and only in combination with "Security".

Well, we could lower both growth bonuses to +1, so that players seeking to pop boom would need Fundy+Growth+Creche+GA until the late game.

On a side note, does the AI "GA farm" in order to pop-boom?

That's one option I suppose.

And no, I'm positively sure the AI isn't smart enough to induce pop booms via sustained GAs. However, it may be possible to "force" the AI into GAs by fiddling with their text files. You could add TALENT and NODRONE parameters to give them automatic GAs, for example.

Currently, I've changed "Survival" to -1 Growth due to emphasis on staying alive rather and changed "Productivity" to +2 Growth, +1 Industry, -3 Planet, -1 Research. I may very well wind up removing the Productivity value, but in that case, there is no reason not to return to the old Power/Wealth/Knowledge system.

Maybe a return to the old system would be best? It's currently the only category with name changes. I don't really see a good reason to change it. I'd rather just modify the bonuses and penalties myself, but to each his own.

Actually, the Believers also have a +1 Probe bonus.

Oops, you're absolutely right. Dunno how I forgot that.

Anyway, below is the modified version of the system

Spoiler:

Politics

Frontier
Frontier politics represent the informal governing arrangements made in early colonies, before populations reach levels requiring more advanced forms of government. The ad hoc and disorganized nature of the system, however, results in a significant amount of inefficiency.

-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: None


Police State
Police States use oppressive martial law and covert "secret police" to keep its citizens in line. However, the heavy-handed domestic policies minimize the resources available for conflict abroad.

+2 Police
+1 Probe
-1 Support

Prerequisite: Doctrine: Loyalty


Democracy
Democracies allow citizens to participate in government, and forgo oppression and the stability it confers in favor of local government and civil liberties. Decentralized government increases efficiency while freedom of thought improves research efforts, but the emphasis on personal freedoms and governmental transparency reduce the effectiveness of police forces and covert operations.

+2 Efficiency
+1 Research
-2 Police
-1 Probe

Prerequisite: Ethical Calculus


Fundamentalist
Fundamentalist politics unite a society behind a strong, dogmatic religion. Evangelizing the populace can create loyal, even fanatical military forces, and the focus on traditional values results in faster population growth, but technological research tends to suffer under the continual assaults on intellectual integrity associated with such regimes.

+2 Morale
+2 Growth
-2 Research

Prerequisite: Social Psych


Economics

Simple
Simple Economics describes the informal, ad hoc economy which develops in the early years of planetfall, before more organized economic systems can be put in place. The disorganized nature of this system results in weakened economic output.

-1 Economy

Prerequisite: None


Free Market
Free Market Economics turns market forces loose on society. Unfettered market economics can produce great wealth quickly, but draw resources that would otherwise go into military support. Also, citizens rendered suddenly poor by the actions unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their energy-fattened masters.

+2 Economy
+1 Efficiency
-4 Police
-4 Support

Prerequisite: Industrial Economics


Planned
A semi-market economy kept in check by fierce governmental regulation, Planned Economics promotes stable industrial growth and can allocate significant resources to military support, but sacrifices efficiency.

+2 Support
+1 Industry
-2 Efficiency

Prerequisite: Planetary Networks


Green

Green Economics strive to integrate sentient progress with the needs of the biosphere. Green economies produce a significant focus on technological development and tend to avoid the excesses of industrial development which could provoke Planet's native life, but industrial output naturally suffers as a result of conservationist restrictions.

+2 Planet
+1 Research
-1 Industry

Prerequisite: Centauri Empathy



Values

Survival
Survival is of course the all-encompassing first priority of early human space colonies. However, the focus on the day-to-day struggle against the elements limits population growth.

-1 Growth

Prerequisite: None


Productivity
Leaders seeking Productivity will invest their resources in facilities and institutions promoting population growth and industrial output. They achieve rapid growth and development, but produce significant amounts of pollution as a byproduct. Furthermore, the industrious focus on practicality and the "here-and-now" weakens research efforts.

+2 Growth
+1 Industry
-3 Planet
-1 Research

Prerequisite: Industrial Automation


Security
Leaders seeking Secuirty build strong, well-paid military and police forces to enforce their will. But Economic infrastructure may suffer from bloated "defense" budgets.

+2 Support
+1 Police
-1 Economy

Prerequisite: Advanced Military Algorithms


Progress
Leaders seeking progress will pour resources into education, research, and economic infrastructure. This will result in faster technological development and a stronger economy, but the higher emphasis on quality of life and family planning will slow population growth.

+1 Research
+1 Economy
-2 Growth

Prerequisite: Cyberethics



Future Society

None
"None", or no Future Society, simply means that your society has not
yet evolved to a far future society. No bonuses or penalties apply.

Prerequisite: None


Cybernetic
In the far future, citizens may turn many of the tasks of governing society over to artificially intelligent computers, increasing economic and military efficiency while freeing humans for more creative endeavors. But will workers continually displaced by unfeeling computers sink into despair, poverty, and possible unrest?

+2 Efficiency
+2 Support
+1 Research
-3 Police

Prerequisite: Digital Sentience


Eudaimonic
Perhaps the most pleasant to contemplate living in, this far future society takes its name from an ancient Greek word for fulfillment and happiness. Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to achieve happiness through striving to fulfill completely his or her potential. Population and the Economy experience healthy growth, and society seeks a greater equilibrium with the environment of Planet. Violence fades as society grows more tolerant and just, and even when this society's hand is forced it often shoots to subdue rather than to destroy.

+2 Growth
+1 Economy
+1 Planet
-2 Morale

Prerequisite: Eudaimonia


Thought Control
The ultimate in "Big Brother" methods, Thought Control effuses subtle neurochemical triggers into the atmosphere to render its population obedient, loyal, and resistant to outside ideas and turning the workforce into tireless, obedient drones. However, such a system sacrifices a great deal of efficiency in order to maintain control.

+2 Police
+2 Industry
+1 Probe
-3 Efficiency

Prerequisite: The Will to Power

Playtesting would obviously be required, but right now this looks like a winning strategy to me for most factions:

Take the standard beeline to Industrial Automation (picking up Productivity, Planned, Hab Complexes, and of course, the almighty Crawler), with a slight deviation at some point along the Social Psych --> Ethical Calculus line to get Fundy and Creches.

Then we run Fundy/Planned/Productivity for +4 Growth, +2 Industry, +2 Support. Use the +2 Support and Industry to crank out an army Formers and Crawlers, while building Creches and other base infrastructure as they become available. Grow like a weed when the Creches are Hab Complexes are up and running (+6 growth), and continue along the Social Psych --> Ethical Calculus -> Cyberethics line (albeit at -3 Research) to get Democratic.

Once you've maxed out your population and have Demo, switch into Demo/Planned/Progress for the rest of the game, giving +2 Research, +2 Support, +1 Economy, +1 Industry and -2 Police, -1 probe, -2 Growth (lol).

[Quadhelix]

I don't think moving Clean Reactors up the tech tree will help. Right now, FM just isn't a viable choice until at least mid game because 2 min/unit is so crippling when mineral surpluses are small. If you made CRs available early (but made them very expensive or something), at least you'd have the option of running FM early on. The goal is to increase the strategic options available to players, right?

Right now, only Morgan can run FM, and only in combination with "Security".

Okay, then I'm going to have to play around with this a bit. Right now, I've put Clean Reactors back at Bio-Engineering, but made it so that they double the cost of the unit (I might make them available even earlier - maybe). I've also reduced the Support penalty from -4 (2 minerals per unit) to -3 (1 mineral per unit).

I'm also thinking of replacing the Police penalty with a -1/-2 Industry penalty, but that might be too similar to Green.

Maybe a return to the old system would be best? It's currently the only category with name changes. I don't really see a good reason to change it. I'd rather just modify the bonuses and penalties myself, but to each his own.

Maybe: the change to the values system might be an artifact from when I had simply swapped with Probe and Support bonuses given by Police State and Fundamentalist, which made Fundamentalist too similar to Power.

Still, I think I might tinker around with it a bit before going back.

Playtesting would obviously be required, but right now this looks like a winning strategy to me for most factions:

Take the standard beeline to Industrial Automation (picking up Productivity, Planned, Hab Complexes, and of course, the almighty Crawler), with a slight deviation at some point along the Social Psych --> Ethical Calculus line to get Fundy and Creches.

Then we run Fundy/Planned/Productivity for +4 Growth, +2 Industry, +2 Support. Use the +2 Support and Industry to crank out an army Formers and Crawlers, while building Creches and other base infrastructure as they become available. Grow like a weed when the Creches are Hab Complexes are up and running (+6 growth), and continue along the Social Psych --> Ethical Calculus -> Cyberethics line (albeit at -3 Research) to get Democratic.

Once you've maxed out your population and have Demo, switch into Demo/Planned/Progress for the rest of the game, giving +2 Research, +2 Support, +1 Economy, +1 Industry and -2 Police, -1 probe, -2 Growth (lol).

Okay, first, changing both Productivity and Fundamentalist from +2 Growth to +1 Growth. This means that, even running both of them, you need to GA in order to Pop-boom. This is, theoretically, made more difficult by Productivity's hidden new -Talent modifier.

Also, changing "Planned" from -2 Efficiency to -4 Efficiency. Thus, according to the Bureaucracy formula, running a Planned economy without some sort of efficiency boost would result in one drone for every base that you had built: your Base Limit would be 0.

However, if you run Planned and Frontier, that would give a negative Base Limit, and I'm not sure how the game would handle that.

Therefore, running Fundy/Planned/Productivity gives +2 Growth, +2 Support, and +2 Industry, but at the cost of -3 Research and -4 Efficiency - which translates to an extra drone for every base that you have, plus the extra drones from Prod's -Talent.


I think that I might be overcompensating again.

[Mart]

The quote below is from other thread, but since in this one you consider SE modification I was thinking to post it here.

I still say that Thought Control and Police State are too similar in concept. If anything, I would make Cybernetic a Politics system (it is, after all, a system in which people have "turned over the tasks of governing to sentient computers") and make Thought Control a "Society" choice...of course, it would have to be a choice that is also different from Fundamentalist.

Just wanting to comment on the idea that you gave about making Cybernetic as a politics choice. The more I think about it the more I like it.
It is that Fundy is more like a value or society that political system, so replacing it or changing would be good thing. Placing Thought control over there was meant also to spread future society choices among other groups, like we might have one future political system choice instead of Fundy. Cybernetic or AI control or something like that would fit better than Thought Control.

[Quadhelix]

Just wanting to comment on the idea that you gave about making Cybernetic as a politics choice. The more I think about it the more I like it.
It is that Fundy is more like a value or society that political system, so replacing it or changing would be good thing. Placing Thought control over there was meant also to spread future society choices among other groups, like we might have one future political system choice instead of Fundy. Cybernetic or AI control or something like that would fit better than Thought Control.

The issue with Fundamentalist politics is that it is rather significantly different than both Police State politics and Democratic politics - sufficiently different that I am hesitant to remove it. This, of course, could just be inertia on my part.

The basic reasoning behind my thoughts on this matter is that Fundamentalist politics can be understood quite well as a sort of synthesis of Theocracy (under which the leaders posses the "divine right" to rule and, in certain circumstances, fill the role of both government and clergy) and Fascism (which controls the people by means of strong nationalist fervor and charismatic authoritarianism).

One possibility is to make Police State the "default" politics choice (as opposed to Frontier), perhaps with some sort of rename (I believe that you used "Command politics" in Unity mod), thus making the politics choices: Command, Fundamentalist, Democratic, Cybernetic.

This would, of course, require us to invent a new "Society"/"Future Society" choice from whole-cloth.

[Mart]

Yes, I renamed Frontier to Centralized, but Command is maybe better description.

There are 2 SPs that in vanila smax have hardcoded effects for:
Cloning vats: power in values and thought control
Network Backbone: cybernetic.

So any new choices in these 3 locations will be effected by any new SP in these 2 positions.

[Wobbo]

So far, I think Maniac has got it the best


Unitary Democracy/Federal Democracy/ Unitary Police State/ Federal Police State

Subsistence/ Private Free Market/ Planned/ Private Protectionist

Technocrat/ Junta/ Empath/ Plutocrat

Frontier/ Cybernetic/ Green/ Anthropocentric

The only change I would make is swap the positions of Unitary Democracy and Federal Democracy. Centralized governments are more efficient, advanced, and humane than federal systems, despite American propaganda. And it would make sense that they would require more technology and infrastructure to achieve than a more decentralized arrangement.

Other than that, this is the best SE mod I've seen so far, and it's much more balanced than the original choices.

[Quadhelix]

So far, I think Maniac has got it the best

I do like his system but I feel that it contains certain degrees of redundancy: two types of Police State, two types of Democracy, two types of of Private economy (nevermind that there is no reason that a Planned economy would exclude private ownership).

The only change I would make is swap the positions of Unitary Democracy and Federal Democracy. Centralized governments are more efficient, advanced, and humane than federal systems, despite American propaganda.

Not in context: efficiency, to a degree, represents the amount of bureaucracy in the system. If everything is handled locally, then there is less bureaucracy.




Anyway, I'm having a touch of difficulty integrating Cybernetic politics into the system I had set up: Cybernetic future society has almost exactly the same bonuses and penalties as my currency Democracy.

In any case, here is what I currently have for Politics/Economics:

Command: +2 Police, +1 Probe, -2 Efficiency, -1 Support
Fundamentalist: +2 Morale, +2 Growth, -2 Research
Democratic: +2 Efficiency, +1 Economy, -2 Police
Cybernetic: +2 Research, +1 Industry, +1 Planet, -1 Economy

Simple: -1 Efficiency, -1 Economy
Free Market: +2 Economy, -3 Police, -2 Support
Planned: +2 Support, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency, -1 Economy
Green: +2 Planet, +1 Research, -1 Industry, -1 Economy

[Brumec]

Yikes, this one's a mess. I don't like any of them . I feel the original econ choices are actually very well balanced. Here you've made FM even more powerful, while making Planned and Green much weaker. I mean green is really crappy now with -2 Industry, why would anyone ever pick it? It makes sense thematically, but it just doesn't work from a gameplay perspective.

I must say that giving industry penalty to green economy/society/whatever has always baffled me. I mean, in that way you actually say that for building something you need more polluting minerals which is precisely the opposite of supposed features of green economy. That is also my biggest complaint to SE in Smaniac's mod.

Green economy is supposed to be more efficient which means that it needs less mineral for producing something.

Also, there's an issue about democracy in SMAC - there are no elections. Each leader leads its faction from beginning to end which is justified with longetivity vaccines and what not...So there's no democracy. At best, there's enlightened absolutism or some strange kind of liberalism/libertarianism without elections.

And, by the way, good replacement for fundamentalizm could be "populism" with many similarities between the two.

[Brumec]

The only change I would make is swap the positions of Unitary Democracy and Federal Democracy. Centralized governments are more efficient, advanced, and humane than federal systems, despite American propaganda.

Ummm..depends what you mean by centralized and federal.

If centralized means doing most of the businesses, making all decisions and amassing all of taxed money in capital to be on disposal of some government bureaucrat(s) than - no, centralized government are certainly not more efficient, advanced and humane than federal states.

And there are good functioning federal or at least federalized european states, not just USA - Germany and Spain respectively. In last few years decentralization has been a hot issue in my country, Croatia, precisely because of excessive money flow to capital via taxes.

OTOH, if by federal you mean umpteen gazillion redundant ministries for each and every local government with associated bureaucracies then federal state is obviously not efficient.

However, me thinks that original idea of federation was not that of umpteen gazillion redundant bureaucracies, but of greater efficienca caused by greater governmental proximity to its base.

[Quadhelix]

I must say that giving industry penalty to green economy/society/whatever has always baffled me. I mean, in that way you actually say that for building something you need more polluting minerals which is precisely the opposite of supposed features of green economy. That is also my biggest complaint to SE in Smaniac's mod.

Green economy is supposed to be more efficient which means that it needs less mineral for producing something.

There are some problems with this analysis.

Firstly, at least judging by gameplay effects, your Industry rating doesn't necessarily indicate how efficient your industry, just how fast it is. You could have five billion mines supplying a city, and you are still going to get bottlenecks if there is only one factory in that city.

In other words, the Industry penalty for Green doesn't mean that your factories are less efficient, just that they are slower - it takes longer to complete a given project because you have fewer factories to work on it, and those factories are more focused on using the minerals efficiently rather than quickly. This also means that your mining output is reduced (as you don't need all of that surplus material). Nevertheless, all these effects just show up in game as it taking 10% longer to complete a project.

Also, there's an issue about democracy in SMAC - there are no elections. Each leader leads its faction from beginning to end which is justified with longetivity vaccines and what not...So there's no democracy. At best, there's enlightened absolutism or some strange kind of liberalism/libertarianism without elections.

Not exactly - democracy just means "rule by the people"; the extent and form of that rule can vary, however.

For example, there are probably millions of details that, as faction ruler, you never have to consider - zoning issues, public safety laws, various civil services, and more - that still have to be handled. The Politics SE setting may well determine who is in charge of them: under Police State, they're handled by military lieutenants; under Fundamentalism, the clergy serve as the ruling class; and under Democracy, either the local leaders are elected or the issues are settled by referendum.

OTOH, if by federal you mean umpteen gazillion redundant ministries for each and every local government with associated bureaucracies then federal state is obviously not efficient.

However, me thinks that original idea of federation was not that of umpteen gazillion redundant bureaucracies, but of greater efficienca caused by greater governmental proximity to its base.

Fun fact: the US began as what amounted to 13 different countries with a common army, rather than one country with multiple sub-divisions. This was actually something of a nightmare, in terms of efficiency, because each of the 13 states had their own currency and also tended to ignore the treaties into which the US as a whole had entered.

It was only when the Constitution created a relatively strong central government that the country was able to function.

[Brumec]

Firstly, at least judging by gameplay effects, your Industry rating doesn't necessarily indicate how efficient your industry, just how fast it is.
...
In other words, the Industry penalty for Green doesn't mean that your factories are less efficient, just that they are slower - it takes longer to complete a given project because you have fewer factories to work on it, and those factories are more focused on using the minerals efficiently rather than quickly. This also means that your mining output is reduced (as you don't need all of that surplus material). Nevertheless, all these effects just show up in game as it taking 10% longer to complete a project.

Well, I must admit that, from SMAC perspective, that could be smart explanation of industry rating. And this explanation works fine with lower industry rating under Power: more people under arms, less at work -> longer time to complete something, with countless examples from real history.

Not exactly - democracy just means "rule by the people"; the extent and form of that rule can vary, however. For example, there are probably millions of details that, as faction ruler, you never have to consider - zoning issues, public safety laws, various civil services, and more - that still have to be handled. The Politics SE setting may well determine who is in charge of them: under Police State, they're handled by military lieutenants; under Fundamentalism, the clergy serve as the ruling class; and under Democracy, either the local leaders are elected or the issues are settled by referendum.

Okay, but it still means that SMAC democracies are unlike democratic republics, and more like democratic monarchies for which we also have modern-day examples, from Spain to Sweden.

Fun fact: the US began as what amounted to 13 different countries with a common army, rather than one country with multiple sub-divisions. This was actually something of a nightmare, in terms of efficiency, because each of the 13 states had their own currency and also tended to ignore the treaties into which the US as a whole had entered.

Yes, but never forget that first US constitution was called Articles of Confederation, not "Federal Constitution". And yes, question of federation/confederacy was eventually settled in civil war.

It was only when the Constitution created a relatively strong central government that the country was able to function.

Yes - and that is precisely why I think that we may look upon Smaniac's federation as synonim for efficient post-civil war american federation or modern German Bundesrepublik, not as synonim for Confederation (with capital C) or medieval german Holy Roman Empire.

Of course, there's also that economy/free market problem in SMAC for which I think that Smaniac got better, but still not quite good solution. I absolutely see no reason why strongly regulated economy ("planned" in SMAC vocabulary) would have greater population growth and - surprise, surprise - there's no such example in history. Most planned economies had big problems with population agening, especially DDR.

There is much greater chance to have bigger population growth because of - democracy: at least democracies don't kill their own people by millions in gulags, concentration camps or wherever.

And while both planned economies and free markets took their share in environmental devastation, me thinks that planned economies did far worse atrocities on this issue than free markets. See Caspian and Aral Sea or chinese rivers - you don't see such catastrophies in North America or in former Yugoslavia ("socialist free market").

Basically, as in Smainac's reasoning for his mod SE, environmental protection is political decision, not some inherent feature of this or that economical system. Smaller complaint about his SE is still negative talent modification, but which is much better than -5 police rating in original SMAC settings.

[Wobbo]

OTOH, if by federal you mean umpteen gazillion redundant ministries for each and every local government with associated bureaucracies then federal state is obviously not efficient.

In fact, this is exactly what the United States has. We have 50 states with over 1000 different counties each with 100's of cities each one with its own often overlapping agencies, councils, counties, legal jurisdictions, and legislative responsibilities. There is literally nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Yes, some European governments may be relatively more centralized than EACH OTHER, but none come anywhere close to the redundancy and inefficiency of the American federal system.

American pay a huge price for their obsession with "decentralization" and "devolution"" and their irrational fear of "big government". We demand "local" and "autonomous" government, and it leads directly to the problems I just listed above. The massive irony is that exactly the problems of governance commonly associated with "big government" are actually CAUSED by small government.

Smaller is NOT better, despite what most Americans think.

Not in context: efficiency, to a degree, represents the amount of bureaucracy in the system. If everything is handled locally, then there is less bureaucracy.

That's simply not true. Not in theory, or practice. Everything cannot be handled locally - modern economies are and always have involved large border crossing/expanding projects. Accountability in regulation and taxation require cooperation over MUCH longer distances than a federal system can optimally allow; if money and power can simply leave jurisdictions to escape policies they don't like, how do you expect to have any sort of democracy - or politics at all?

Part of the reason why countries like Sweden and Germany have been able to effectively reduce poverty and unemployment is because government power is so concentrated. German businesses can't just move to Berlin if they don't like the rules in Dresden, but American companies often do move to Alabama if they don't like the rules in New Jersey. Likewise, Swedish banks can't pick and choose the regulatory agencies that regulate them - Sweden has a unified and centralized regulatory system. But unfortunately American banks can and very often do switch their classifications to manipulate regulations and tax codes all the time, because we have several overlapping and contradictory bank regulations.

Yes - and that is precisely why I think that we may look upon Smaniac's federation as synonim for efficient post-civil war american federation or modern German Bundesrepublik, not as synonim for Confederation (with capital C) or medieval german Holy Roman Empire.

This only helps my argument - the political economy of the united States was MORE centralized - and of course, humane, civilized, and decent - AFTER the civil war. Which was exactly my point. To paraphrase MLK Jr.: the long arch of history bends towards centralized government power - not the other way around. Centralized Democracy should be the more "advanced" choice than Federalized.

[Wobbo]

Of course, there's also that economy/free market problem in SMAC for which I think that Smaniac got better, but still not quite good solution. I absolutely see no reason why strongly regulated economy ("planned" in SMAC vocabulary) would have greater population growth and - surprise, surprise - there's no such example in history. Most planned economies had big problems with population agening, especially DDR.

Russia went from being a third world backwater to the 2nd most powerful country on Earth (the Soviet Union), with one of the largest economies in the world. And yes, they had MASSIVE population growth. In fact, as soon as the Soviet Union disbanded and adopted more free-market economic policies they experienced a massive population die-off: over 1 million people fewer were alive by the late 1990's in Russia as the late 1980's. This is unheard of in any country not experiencing war. Even Vietnam's population never actually decreased at any time during their wars - millions of people died, but economic growth meant that many millions more were born.

The only reason it looks like planned economies have problems with growth is because exactly the countries that tend to use them are impoverished. That of course doesn't mean that social planning is a bad thing - most of the countries on Earth are very poor.

Economic planning is a feature common to every economy that has ever survived in human history. Despite American propaganda and popular opinion, the United States had, until recently an "industrial policy" - as do the governments of every other First world country pretty much ever. Japan, Korea, Britain, Germany - you name it, if the country is economically successful, it has strong government interference in markets and industry.

That doesn't mean that planned economies are necessarily the best thing for a society to have all the time (imo they actually are but this isn't a political forum so I'll shut up about that), nor does it mean that a video game trying to balance out SE choices should make Planned the best option all the time. But it is definitely NOT a bad idea to make Planned the choice for growth - all of human history confirms that.

[Wobbo]

And while both planned economies and free markets took their share in environmental devastation, me thinks that planned economies did far worse atrocities on this issue than free markets. See Caspian and Aral Sea or chinese rivers - you don't see such catastrophies in North America or in former Yugoslavia ("socialist free market").

Uh, no. Historically, by FAR the biggest polluters are and always have been the United States, Britain, and Japan. Not just per capita, but in absolute terms of carbon dioxide emissions, direct ecological damage etc. Of course the Soviet Union was by no means an ecologically sustainable arrangement, but it isn't even a contest to compare free market economies to planned ones - deregulated free markets are always bigger polluters, and that's relative to other countries and even internal to countries.

However, you really have to look at the internal mechanisms of a society get WHY free market economies are so much more harmful. Any healthy society is going to have GDP growth. The question is how is that growth distributed? Factories? Solar Power? Dense Cities? Sprawling Suburbs? Toys? Cars? Services?You're right to point out that ecological sustainability is a political decision - but if the economic priorities are entirely determined by the market than you can't actually make political decisions, at all, can you?

Maniac (and Firaxis) got it exactly right - Planned economies aren't necessarily GOOD for the environment, but Free Markets are always BAD. Besides, it's good game balance.

[Brumec]

Russia went from being a third world backwater to the 2nd most powerful country on Earth (the Soviet Union), with one of the largest economies in the world. And yes, they had MASSIVE population growth.

Imperial Russia 1916 estimate: 181 million people

Soviet Union 1991 estimate: 293 million

USA: 1910 - 92 million, 1990 - 249 million

Compare for yourself...

Yes, SU did have population growth (as any other country in this period), but not so massive at all. Tovarish Stalin was responsible for this almost as much as his moustached nazi buddy. Ever heard of Holodomor, for example?

Soviet economy was dwarfed by US and western europen economies and relied mostly on armament production and natural resources export. Yes, they did catch West in many high-tech fields, but those achievements were used almost exclusively in military industry. No consumer goods. No chewing gums. No jeans. No home computers - and when they did appear, that were almost exclusively copies of Spectrum and similar machines. Hell, they even didn't manage to feed their own population because of collectivised agriculture and have never achieved grain production of Russian Empire.

By the way, Soviet agriculture was never totally collectivised - somwhere around 2 to 4 percent of land remained in private hands of soviet citizens - and these land produced as much as quarter of entire soviet agricultural output!

See for yourself about demographic catastrophy in DDR.

In fact, as soon as the Soviet Union disbanded and adopted more free-market economic policies they experienced a massive population die-off: over 1 million people fewer were alive by the late 1990's in Russia as the late 1980's. This is unheard of in any country not experiencing war.

They did not adopt more free market policy, but simply, during Yeltsin's rule, switched to kleptocracy.

The only reason it looks like planned economies have problems with growth is because exactly the countries that tend to use them are impoverished.

I'd say that planned economy made them impoverished or more impoverished than before. South Korea didn't use planned economy and is doing much better than Vietnam. Post WW2 Germany was bombed out of existence with western part under heavy refugee burden but that didn't stop them to rise again using free market.

Economic planning is a feature common to every economy that has ever survived in human history. Despite American propaganda and popular opinion, the United States had, until recently an "industrial policy" - as do the governments of every other First world country pretty much ever. Japan, Korea, Britain, Germany - you name it, if the country is economically successful, it has strong government interference in markets and industry.

I agree with you on that. But I wouldn't call measures of those countries' goverments "planning" because it lacked the main element of it - state ownership over means of production. In all those examples, government supported their own enterpreneurs using mush more subtle mechanisms as tariff policies. They certainly didn't kill and expell "burgeoisie".

That doesn't mean that planned economies are necessarily the best thing for a society to have all the time (imo they actually are but this isn't a political forum so I'll shut up about that), nor does it mean that a video game trying to balance out SE choices should make Planned the best option all the time. But it is definitely NOT a bad idea to make Planned the choice for growth - all of human history confirms that.

Still waiting for a single proof of that idea.

[Brumec]

However, you really have to look at the internal mechanisms of a society get WHY free market economies are so much more harmful. Any healthy society is going to have GDP growth. The question is how is that growth distributed? Factories? Solar Power? Dense Cities? Sprawling Suburbs? Toys? Cars? Services?You're right to point out that ecological sustainability is a political decision - but if the economic priorities are entirely determined by the market than you can't actually make political decisions, at all, can you?

Well, present-day attempts of EU legislature is deregulation of economy and greater environmental protection so our talk might be based on misunderstanding.

By "free market" I simply mean no governmental subsidizing of some businesses at the expense of taxpayers' money and other businesses and letting to businesses decision how much and what goods to produce, not to some governmental bureaucrat.

[Ivorrus]

Offtopic mode on

Imperial Russia 1916 estimate: 181 million people

Soviet Union 1991 estimate: 293 million

USA: 1910 - 92 million, 1990 - 249 million

Compare for yourself...

Fraud. In 1916 Russian Empire included Poland and Finland.
USA was not occupied as USSR in 1941-1943. Let's compare Russia and Germany or France.

Yes, SU did have population growth (as any other country in this period), but not so massive at all. Tovarish Stalin was responsible for this almost as much as his moustached nazi buddy. Ever heard of Holodomor, for example?

Nazi is your buddy, Ustashi.
Starvation was in many regions and it was LAST starvation.

...South Korea didn't use planned economy...

Offtopic mode off

Returning to gameplay. I completely agree with Wobbo

Planned economies aren't necessarily GOOD for the environment, but Free Markets are always BAD. Besides, it's good game balance.

[Brumec]

Fraud. In 1916 Russian Empire included Poland and Finland. USA was not occupied as USSR in 1941-1943. Let's compare Russia and Germany or France.

Russian Empire's Congress Poland population estimates in the eve of WW1 are hard to find, but are probably somewhere around 15 million, plus Finland probably about 2 million. So, Imperial Russia, I stand corrected, 164 million in 1916, SU 293 million '91.

So, my words are not fraud.