ideology?

[SPasmofiT]

Have you ever stopped and think about the ideologies of the different fractions? SMAC is a great game because, in it's own way is a "Ideologies for Dummies" tutorial...

Does anyone these days thinks about different systems than our own/yours? Current culture clashes made me think a lot about this. (China vs US - both countries insists on judging the other from it's own narrow point of view, but that's besides the point)

Are there any more thinkers? Any more revolutionaries?
Besides few nottable and sometimes succesful exceptions, most of the world fancies itself as Free Market Democracies... but are they?

So... anyone here has non-mainstream political views? Do you think that games like SMAC make this non-mainstream ideas more `acceptable` for `the public`?

My opinion is that we should have more games that are culture-oriented and less blazing-3D-purple-lime-GeForce-blasting-mind-numbing-arcades... I really think that gaming, and any `ludic` activity can be a educational bonus!

[gwillybj]

Let's see if I can open a can of worms
Political Correctness be damned! Unfetter truly Free Speech! People are too afraid of offending just one oversensitive jerk with a knot in their shorts to speak out and stir the soup.

But, within the parameters of SMAC, I think my personal philosophy would lean to Fundamentalist Green Knowledge Eudaimonic.
If I did the math right, this combination gives me these modifiers:

Efficiency +3, Morale -1, Planet +2, Probe 0 (Fund+2 Know-2), Growth 0 (Green-2 Eud+2), Police 0 (no mods), Industry +2, Research 0 (Fund-2 Know+2), Economy +2, Support 0 (no mods).

I don't really know where this puts me with regard to the 21t-century politics of Right or Left, Liberal or Conservative, or whatever other such classification, but it has lead to some rather lively discussions at lunchtime
[This message has been edited by gwillybj (edited April 18, 2001).]

[knowhow2]

In Sweden the system used to be demo/plan/wealth..... at least during the 80s. Although the planned economy could be discussed....

[Cybergod]

I think that many countries worldwide are using Demo/FM/Survival today. Exception:

Germany: Demo/Green (is it true that they have 'green' government)/unknown
USA: Demo/FM/Power (to support many world-wide troops also it makes me feel as if the US government wants to be a sort of a global policeman)
China: PS/Planned (SWITCHING SLOOOWLY to FM)/Power?
Various Middle Eastern countries: Fundy/Simple/Survival or Power

I haven't noticed many (if any) countries running Knowledge since I really believe that we should invest more in our future (research) instead of greedy wealth (economy). I mean come on, there are loads of countries in the world, esp. in 3rd world, that need help urgently and all you people are doing is building up greedily wealth and shamelessly too. This doesn't apply to everyone but please think.

I am also sickened by the scientology scheeme run by the 'tv-evangelist'.

PS. Sorry to end this on a sad note

[Cybergod]

I also feel very concerned with our own Planet (Earth). We are killing it and there is no fictional worm-rapes or fungal blooms to stop us.

[knowhow2]

quote: Originally posted by Cybergod on 04-18-2001 10:25 AM I haven't noticed many (if any) countries running Knowledge since I really believe that we should invest more in our future (research) instead of greedy wealth (economy).

how about Japan? Consider their development the last 55 years or so in tech advances.

[xeno7667]

Switzerland: Demo/FM/Knowledge

I hate my country for this: energy-suckers (+2 Economy), people with bad green moral (-3 Planet), unethical (-2 Probe). So, I often play green and fundy in SMAC...

[johndmuller]

quote: It is true that Switzerland is not member of the UN ?

It appears that Switzerland is not a permanent member of the UN,

www.UN.org/...

but rather a permanent observer (as is also the Vatican).

www.UN.org/...

I think that there are a bunch of big UN operations out of Geneve, which is a little strange if it is true.

[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited April 18, 2001).]

[Tenchusatsu]

quote: Originally posted by Cybergod on 04-18-2001 10:25 AM USA: Demo/FM/Power (to support many world-wide troops also it makes me feel as if the US government wants to be a sort of a global policeman)

I think USA is actually Demo/FM/Wealth, not Power. Let's face it, the American military depends more on high-tech gadgets (that money can buy) than sheer training and morale. And yes, America has to support many troops world-wide, but the high support costs are made up for with huge (and inefficient) military budgets.

Power might be a societal value that Israel follows, with its mandatory military service, even for women, and the constant paranoia of invasion by any or all of their neighbors.

By the way, I've always wondered why "Green" is an economic choice, not a societal value. I've never understood how a system of economics can be dictated by the environment, at least here on Earth. Plus, I believe that society can indeed be environmentally friendly without giving up a Free Market economy. In fact, there are many free market solutions to problems with the environment. (I only wish those idiots in California's state government can at least figure this out.)

[Fitz]

I think USA is actually Demo/FM/Wealth, not Power. Let's face it, the American military depends more on high-tech gadgets (that money can buy) than sheer training and morale. And yes, America has to support many troops world-wide, but the high support costs are made up for with huge (and inefficient) military budgets.

1. American Military depends on the highly trained professional. You are incorrect in stating it 'depends on' high tech gadgets, they are just a bonus. Besides, from the point of view of this discussion, the Free Market aspect is what brings in the cash to cover the cost of the high tech gadgets. The training/high morale of U.S. troops indicates Power to me.

2. You are correct that the support costs are very high. But this is primarily a factor of size of the military, not expense of support. However, I will concede the point that the U.S. has a very inefficient military spending plan. This could indicate a low support rating.

3. Wealth vs. Power for the U.S. is really a perspective of their domestic vs. international standpoints. In the internation arena, the U.S. focuses on Power (especially the Republicans), while in the domestic arena, the focus is Wealth.

[Tenchusatsu]

quote: Originally posted by Fitz on 04-18-2001 02:16 PM 1. American Military depends on the highly trained professional. You are incorrect in stating it 'depends on' high tech gadgets, they are just a bonus. Besides, from the point of view of this discussion, the Free Market aspect is what brings in the cash to cover the cost of the high tech gadgets. The training/high morale of U.S. troops indicates Power to me. 2. You are correct that the support costs are very high. But this is primarily a factor of size of the military, not expense of support. However, I will concede the point that the U.S. has a very inefficient military spending plan. This could indicate a low support rating. 3. Wealth vs. Power for the U.S. is really a perspective of their domestic vs. international standpoints. In the internation arena, the U.S. focuses on Power (especially the Republicans), while in the domestic arena, the focus is Wealth.

1) I'll probably anger some military types and patriots, but my impression is that American military training isn't as tough as the training of other countries. If you give the wealth and technology of America to Israel or some other Mideast country, you'll see much stronger and tougher troops than anything America can produce. Plus as a nation of wealth, America has a very weak stomach for any protracted war. That might already be represented by the -5 Police rating of FM, but I contend that the wealth also has a negative effect on combat morale of American soldiers. Of course, all of this is made up for with the equivalent of Command Centers and the High Morale upgrade for military units. (Both cost more, but as a wealthy nation, America can afford it.)

2) We're in agreement here, so no more comment necessary.

3) I disagree. Even in the international arena, America focuses on Wealth. Consider this: The U.S. goes to war over oil. America occupies Japan and Korea after WWII, but the focus of the occupation is to rebuild the countries' economies, not just to maintain foreign outposts. And our dealings with China suggest that we'd rather trade with them than assert our power. During the Cold War, we might have favored power over wealth in international affairs, but not now.

[knowhow2]

quote: Originally posted by xeno7667 on 04-18-2001 11:57 AM Switzerland: Demo/FM/Knowledge I hate my country for this: energy-suckers (+2 Economy), people with bad green moral (-3 Planet), unethical (-2 Probe). So, I often play green and fundy in SMAC...

Slighty off-topic:

It is true that Switzerland is not member of the UN ?

[Blake]

New Zealand, (my home country) runs the most free free market on earth (now, if another country would join us maybe some of that trade income would turn up...). I would say many countries actually run frontier, slowly changing to FM. Much of Europe has high import taxes, which means they aren't really free. Or prehaps they just havn't discovered the benefit of planetary economics .

We even disbanded most of our aircraft (to stop drone riots, heheh). Or prehaps that is from crap support from running demo. Or both.
For some reason worm rape doesn't happen on a regular basis, but that is probably due to very low levels of production.

[Jokka das Trevas]

Hey man, making Demo/FM/Power and using the support to justify the choice of "power" doesn't make sense.

After all, Demo cuts support on -2 :P



------------------
-----
Long live THE HIVE!

[Sikander]

OK, I'll bite.

I would have to say that the U.S. is running Demo / ? / Knowledge. Knowledge is a much better fit for the U.S. strengths and weaknesses than either Power or Wealth. With so many of the world's premier institutions of higher learning, and so many technological firsts over so long a period I think this one is a given. Our excellent technical intelligence skills, and terrible human intelligence skills, as well as our open society explain the probe penalty fairly well. Our investments in training facilities and building trained troops give us Commando or Elite forces across the board. The '?' above indicates that there is no SMAC setting which accurately portrays the U.S. economic system.

I would also agree with Fitz that the U.S. relies on the professional skill and training of our troops a good deal more than on our technology. Our tech lead is quite obvious, but uneducated draftees could not account for the skill and courage with which these systems are utilized. A quick review of the performance of our heavily outnumbered and out-gunned troops in Somalia in an ambush should disabuse anyone of the notion that the U.S. is only as good as it's technology in warfare. Our troops gave a good account of themselves with a very good kill ratio even though they didn't have the advantages of significant airpower, any artillery or armor, and with the enemy holding the initiative. It was pretty much a straight up infantry battle, with almost equivalent weapon technologies.

I would disagree with the premise of this thread that SMAC teaches much of importance via the social engineering. SMAC is an excellently balanced game which has successfully managed to balance it's SE ratings to produce a number of competing settings which can lead to success. Real life is a lot less forgiving. Does anyone really think that a planned economy can hold a candle to a free market economy? A communist type government may make a primitive nation more powerful in the short run, but it is folly to think that it can improve anything for a socially and technologically advanced society. Take a look at East and West Germany for instance. Or at North and South Korea, perhaps a better example since both were fairly primitive 50 years ago.

SMAC is in fact a failure in that it does not meet the minimal realism standard for a wargame, in that it cannot reproduce situations which are common to our historical experience. Only Yang can run Police State / Planned and still have a large empire due to his factional bonuses. Yet the PRC and the Soviet Union both managed that feat with limited success. The SE ratings do an injustice to the free market economy. It is so good that several dubious disadvantages are piled upon it to make the other selections more competitive with it. While Sweden is perhaps the most socialistic economy of Western Europe, it is nonetheless it's ability to compete in a free market (and the efficiencies that creates) that allow it to function as well as it does. A regulated market system is the most efficient economic system bar none, and there is no challenger in the wings that I can see.

The ratings given to Green are based upon some future Green philosophy, certainly not the often incoherent collection of Luddites which make up a large proportion of today's political movement. They don't want global warming, and yet reject out of hand the only solution possible (given the limitations of the political reality and technology) which is nuclear power. Why? Well, many of them were raised (intellectually)in the nuclear freeze movement and are still overawed by it's propoganda regardless of any scientific evidence to the contrary. So instead of global warming free nuclear power, they insist upon no power (given the current tech limitations), which is a guaranteed political loser. Plus two efficiency? Not hardly, though the -2 growth and the positive planet ratings are probably fair enough.