{The List -} Government & Social Engineering

[Silpy]

Mmm...

Yes, the workers do have more power over their bosses now than a century ago. But, speaking as a Briton, we have seen Thacherite Capitalism marching ahead for 25 years, sweeping much of the benifits which had taken a century to create by trade unions, the Liberal and Labour Parites. All forms of socialism are now quite disregarded by mainstream politics. What an Labour MP could advocate in 1985 and be shouted down as a Capitalist would be now shouted down as a Communist. Even our remaining islands of the Welfare State are being assulted by capitalism, shouting (along with the Goverment) to let them in. It took a bit of battering by Sept 11 - Terrorism- Iraq , but like Marx said, Capitalism likes war, and they had simply forgotten it (blame the Cold War!)

Well, from what you have written, I would guess you are a Fabian Socialist (A Socialist who beleves in a gradual development to Full Socialism, solely by democratic means) I feel that this form will never be truly sucessful, because capitalism will stop it as soon as they can without looking like total reactionries. One of Marx's main faults was to define the 'working classes' as soley as the manual class, without including the white-collar workers, who in most respects are worse off than the semi-skilled manual workers. This form can acheive persific victories (ie better conditions, better pay etc) but could never intraduce a full plan.

With religion/terrorism, I wasn't linking them both totally. I was implying that a govt form of Fasicm/Communism/Fundimentalism/Anarchism/Nationalism should be allowed to have the terrorism option. Any ideology which can spur fanaticalism can (and usally does) use terrorism. I am sorry to all if what I said seemed to imply that terrorism is only lined to religion.

With civilian/military targets, there is a very gray area. What about bridges, powerplants, TV stations, hospitals, govermental bulidings? All are (or can be dual-use buildings.

EU II is a oldish one-trick game, but the one trick it does, it is quite good at. It has sliders of different traits you can play about with liberty, religious tolerence, etc. Quite interesting the situations you can get in!

PS Have looked at that link. Very clever sod(the author). Have wasted hour at work reading it.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Silpy
...
No, only one civ at a time could be 'International Communist' (not True Communist, that would be the next stage of development, which I don't want to see on Civ) There can be only one (true) International! Other cities would join you (Perhaps I am thinking that the International has simliar affect of that wonder in either CTP or CTP II, the Egitarian Act), but no civ could join you en masse, for all other civs would hate you like poison.

Why not make "The Internationale" a great wonder which only benefits communist nations? That would have the same effect.

So far, all the communism specific improvements feature the dark side of communism. How about a wonder that highlights what communism was meant to be?

This could also work for other nuanced governments too. Make the "Magna Carta" a monarchy-only wonder, the "Bill of Rights" a democracy-only wonder, etc, and you could have an increased number of government flavours.

[Drachasor]

Well, my point is that communism as it was meant to be can't happen. It isn't within human nature/culture, nor would it be easy to implement even if it was.

As for my political beliefs, I will call myself a "practical socialist." I like many of the ideals of equality of socialism, but any implementation must be done with a very close look at how it fits in with human psychology, culture, and current governmental activities. It must also be efficiently implemented. The socialisms of Europe tended to not care for these factors (particularly efficiency), and hence things such a telephone services were incrediably innefficient. That's why they haven't worked so well.

Oh, and I don't care much for the classical welfare state. While certain people must be fully supported by the state, others need to merely be lifted up and helped back on their feet. (Again, this is an efficiency issue).

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Oh, and as for terrorism, that is more to do with very unhappy citizens than anything else. There have been American terrorists on American soil. Islamic terrorists are able to exists because their countries are poorly off compared to the West.

Perhaps people that fall behind should be able to make terrorists.

-Drachasor

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Oh, and as for terrorism, that is more to do with very unhappy citizens than anything else.

Unhappiness is certainly a cause, but far from the only one. At the risk of getting political, I'd suggest you read up on the activities of the "School of the Americas" - the USA's own terrorist training camp.

Before you get upset with me for saying the USA sponsors terrorism, remember that irregular verb...

I am a freedom fighter.
You are a guerilla warrior.
He is an evil terrorist.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by lajzar


Unhappiness is certainly a cause, but far from the only one. At the risk of getting political, I'd suggest you read up on the activities of the "School of the Americas" - the USA's own terrorist training camp.

Before you get upset with me for saying the USA sponsors terrorism, remember that irregular verb...

I am a freedom fighter.
You are a guerilla warrior.
He is an evil terrorist.

True, but you don't see many Americans becoming terrorists*. (though that doesn't prevent facilitation). Though, the old spy system from Civ II was as close as needed to a terrorist system, I think. One of the main differences between terrorism and a legitimate military operation is the target. The former *targets* civilians, the latter does not.

Hmm, I suppose wether or not you can *make* terrorists should probably depend on social engineering choices. If you have some kind of extremist government, then you can train extremist citizens to go do extremist things, without hearing much trouble from your population.

Hmm, perhaps though terrorism should simply fall into the standard catagory of spy-activities. The difference between them and standard spy activities is that if you are caught, then it gives every nation a right to declare war on you.

-Drachasor

*There are some, but they certainly aren't happy.

[lajzar]

Kind of like how everyone declared war on the USA when it mined a purely civilian harbour in a central American country back in the latter half of last century?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by lajzar
Kind of like how everyone declared war on the USA when it mined a purely civilian harbour in a central American country back in the latter half of last century?

I said "could" not "would." Without the diplomatic penalty, that is. Though, you do bring up a point about how civilian targets weren't always avoided...it really has only happened since after WWII.

-Drachasor

[lajzar]

My point was that whether a given action is labelled terrorism or not depends entirely on whos newspaper is reporting it. It dont think the game engine should distinguish between them, as the effect is the same. As long as it reflects the fact that there are two principal ways they are produced (state sponsored "terrorism" schools and chronic unhappiness), the results shouldn't differ.

No one would care much how the agents were produced

it really has only happened since after WWII.

Sadly, this is not true. The USA's track record for funding these activities goes back almost as long as US history itself.

I'm gonna try not to make any more posts on this topic, as it shouldn't be about nation-bashing.

[Drachasor]

I was referring to the fact that targetting civilian areas has only been avoided much since after WWII. Perhaps it is the live TV news that has caused this, but now it is avoided quite stridently by the army.

What's been considered acceptable to do in war has changed drastically over the last few thousand years.

-Drachasor

[Mr. Orange]

I posted this in the civ section, but it applies to government as well, bascially the way you build you civ identity also influences how the government shapes, but while your "culture" is fixed and based on your first selections, actions in game or how you work the tech tree... the policy section is mutable (to give you a boost depending on circumstances, etc.), with you having more options in certain areas if your culture is predisposed to it. Hard choices like "democracy" seem silly as all countries do similar governmental ideas differently.

http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/61738/CivIVIdea.xls

[Kuciwalker]

And yet is there any difference, on a civ scale, between US democracy and British or Italian or what-have-you democracy? (No)

[Fosse]

Not on a Civ III scale. But many people want one on a Civ IV scale.

If not a representation of the differences of the US or British republics, then at the very least some differences akin to SMAC.

A representative government with a tightly controlled market versus one that is completely free, vs a police state with a planned economy vs a police state that ignores the market and thus has a free one.

So you can have all countries doing similar governments differently.

[Kuciwalker]

Not on a Civ III scale. But many people want one on a Civ IV scale.

What possible differences could there be, that are representable on the scale of any strategy game?

[Fosse]

The body of this entire thread is full of examples. People want to have democracies with different economies, they want to have policies to set, and governmental decisions to make beyond the generic government pick and tax rate settings.

Mr. Orange's spreadsheet a few posts up gives some great examples of what we might call these things. Dozens of posts give examples of how the gameplay mechanics could factor in.

Some possible differences: A version of a Republic with a senate, and one without. Not having a senate gives you more direct control of military operations, diplomacy, and taxes. The trade off is that the people are more likely to revolt or riot or depose to another civ because they are more unhappy with the ruler above.
If you choose to have a senate, they might get to influence diplomacy (if they don't want to make a civ mad then they might not allow you to make certain demands. If they hate a civ they might not want you to pay too much for a resource), set a range for tax policy, or have any other controls in place.


That's just ONE idea from the top of my head. People who design games for a living can probably come up with a few more, not to mention the other ones posted previously on this site.


Whether or not it is sensible to go down that road might be another matter entirly, but there are all kinds of example of "possible differences."