SMAC analysis of real life nations

[Zeiter]

The "what faction would you join in real life?" thread got me thinking...

If real life nations were SMAC factions, what would they be like?

The United States:

Morgan running demo/FM, but oddly enough, power. While developing very well structurally and economically through demo/FM, it is strangely hindering its own growth and industrial and economic capabilities through its huge investment in its military. (right now the U.S. spends over $400 billion annually on its military.) Its focus on power has given it well-trained and highly advanced armies, but the -2 ind has caused it to lag recently to other countries industrially. Considering the U.S. lacks an agressive next door neighbor such as Yang (whose empire fell apart over a decade ago) it seems odd that the U.S. chooses to run power.

It also seems odd that the U.S. invests in missle rovers when it should be investing in probe teams in order to combat terrorists (which are basically probe teams. Think about it: they sabotage, redirect funds, assassinate, and (hopefully not) induce genetic plagues- anthrax.)

I wanna go on a little side note here:

Okay, as SMAC players, we all know that there are several ways to combat probe teams. You can create some probe teams of your own, and engage in probe team warfare. You can make your society less suseptible to probes by running fundy (but who wants to do that? Fundy? I'd rather eat donkey sh**.). You can go on the offensive and destroy the source of the probe teams, namely, enemy bases. Those are about your options. Stockpiling missle rovers in your bases is NOT an effective means of combating probe team infiltration.

To worsen matters, the real-life terrorist probe teams don't have a "home base". Like mind worms, they arise due to a variety of factors, such as agitation. Thus, going against other bases with your missle rovers will not significantly help to stop terrorist probe teams from spawning. What you have to do, like with mind worms, is get rid of the factors that cause them to arise in the first place. With mind worms, it is ecodamage. It could be a variety of things with terrorists.

So, what I would do if I were the U.S., is I would be investing in my own probe teams (human intelligence) and I would try to figure out how to keep this terrible 8th faction from arising in the first place. And no, destroying home bases doesn't really work because they don't have a home base. (Although friendly bases where they can repair and upgrade at monoliths and such could be possible targets).

But anyways, I will end my analysis of the U.S. with this question: Why are they running power when they should be running wealth or knowledge? And why are they investing in missle rovers instead of probe teams?

Next faction: China

Of course, I don't live in China (or India, or Europe, for that matter, so I can't as accurately gauge what each is like, but I will try my best.)

I think of China as a Yang on the rise, running police state/FM/wealth. FM and wealth have allowed their industry and economy to rise rapidly, all the while keeping their citizens in line with police state. Their pop-boom created opportunities, as well as problems. Overcrowding became a huge problem, but they are currently trying to invest in some hab facilities. Drones were somewhat of a problem, but new facilities and police state have for the meantime controlled drone problems. On the other hand, their massive population has allowed them to become an industrial powerhouse. Also like Yang, their military relies on sheer numbers instead of advanced technology, at the moment. With a rapidly expanding infrastructure, China looks to be strong world power in the future.

India:

Sort of a frontier/simple/knowledge society, I would say. Their focus on education in fields of science and mathematics have made them an emerging information technology powerhouse. India seems to be just a bit behind China in effectively dealing with its pop-boom, but it is making progress. While infrastructure is lacking at the moment, the huge population and focus on IT research give India great potential for the future.

Western Europe:

Definitely Lal, I'm thinking. Probably running demo/green/wealth (although I may be wrong.) Investment in recreation commons and psych has made for a very stable society with many talents and fewer drones than the U.S. (The U.S. has by far the most people in prison.) While green may not lend the rapid growth of FM, it provides steady and stable growth with remarkable efficiency, all the while protecting the environment. Recovering from years of Yang invasions, Europe has rebuilt itself at a remarkable pace. Infrastructure is now very well developed. Its military is of reasonable size and strength, not too big to be a burden on support, but also not too small to stand up to world threats. Lacking the raw energy credits that come with FM, western Europe has made up for it through steady growth and a stable society.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

[Commy]

I don't want to correct you or anything, but the United States is really running a Knowledge society. That is why terrorists pick up on the lack of security. Translate the -2 probe to lets go bomb the US, and their intelligence will never catch us. The United States is not doing power, because it has the best industry in the world. Yes, China might produce half the products used in the United States, but who makes more money selling things? The US does. America has been the leading industry leader since the Industrial Revolution. There was only one thing that the USSR could never beat the US in at any point in time. It was not population or technology or wealth or education, it was industry, and that's pretty bad coming from a country 3 times bigger.

I have never seen Morgan do power, and Lal do Wealth (and I play the game a lot), and I'm not saying they never do. THe united state would definitely be Lal. Of course it really depends on how you look at communism. The US fought against communism for what? Democracy, or Free Market? Personally, looking at Lal's advantages with Planetary Council, and the extra Talents, I'd say he represents the US nicely. The UN is backed by European Union and US. The only other world powers are CHina and Russia. Russia is struggling to rebirth its society with Democracy, and CHina could honestly care less about other countries. If Europe didn't have the US as an ally, the rest of the world would be doing communism, and Europe would be the only oddball, not CHina. I'd say Europe is more like Morgan. It believes more in free welfare, and the European Union pushes more on the economic side than the political. It excepts only countries doing Free Markets (though most Free Markets are supported by Democracy). The Ideals of America and the EU are very similiar, so you really could say Morgans or Peacekeepers. As for the Hive, I agree with you on China. University, definitely Russia. Believes fully in research. Look at who got into space first. The only reason the US made it to the moon was because of wealth and industry. Spartans would probably represent Colombia. Those Geurrilla down there solely believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Even the US "peacekeepers" can never quite get rid of them. Gaians, probably just where she came from, Scotland, or someother small, non-urban European country like Ireland that wishes to protect its lovely environment from the urban powers like Britain and US and CHina. Believers, who knows, maybe Israel, though Miriam is from the "Christian United States". Drones, Pirates, Angels, and Cyborgs would all vary, as most countries have the ideals of Free Market and Democracy or Communism. But I still think US is knowledge, and represents the Peacekeepers. Look how many wars we have created and intervenned to spread democracy. I have always noticed, the Peacekeepers seem to have the same military size, if not with better technology, than the Hive and Spartans.

[Jamski]

US is running Fundy, FM, Power. Just because it calls itself a democracy means squat.

-Jam

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Jamski
US is running Fundy, FM, Power. Just because it calls itself a democracy means squat.

-Jam

The US as a fundamental state is a real stretch. It's true that are insidious religious influences that are trying to shape laws that favor Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs, and a few laws do draw on religious influence.

However, the government itself enforces no specific religious tenets, endorses no official state church, and has a judicial branch that has guarded fairly tenaciously against the influence of church and religion in the public domain. It just doesn't add up.

The US is most closely matched to the Peacekeepers running Dem/FM/Knowledge. It's a society that encourages growth and the freedom to pursue goals (happiness?) with little government intervention. It also places a high value on the "free flow of information" in public, private, and academic sectors. And there's of course, unfettered capitalism.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


The US as a fundamental state is a real stretch. It's true that are insidious religious influences that are trying to shape laws that favor Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs, and a few laws do draw on religious influence.

However, the government itself enforces no specific religious tenets, endorses no official state church, and has a judicial branch that has guarded fairly tenaciously against the influence of church and religion in the public domain. It just doesn't add up.

Fundamentalism doesn't neccessarily mean religion. With Miriam, yes. But let's say suppose Diedre was running a fundamental setting, it'd mean her followers are rabid about perserving the Planet and are more willing to give up their lives if neccessary to protect the Planet. While in a democracy setting, her followers while striving for the ideal world in which people live in harmony with the Planet, would be willing to be more realistic instead of blindly adhering to the green ideology.

So in this case of US, it could be argued that US is being fundamental regarding the war on terrorism. As a nation Americans have paid a high price in terms of diplomancy and reputation in their attempt to destroy the source of the 'evil.' Look at the phrase used - 'Axis of Evil.' And a large portion of the population still feel that the president is doing the right thing .

Considering your statements, what about Bush's policy of funding religion-based organizations, hmm?

[Commy]

DataAeolus, you have a point in saying that fundalmentalist is not necessarily based on religion, look at the Planet Cult. But, I don't think you can say that America is Fundalmentalist. Terrorists attack America for two reasons: They hate America, and simply because they can. Our previous lack of security could have lead to our downfall if these terrorists were actually an organized group the size of a nation, and with resources. If we were so fanatical, we would all support Busch going to war, which isn't true, and the terrorists wouldn't have even been able to get in America at all. America is a democracy. Yes, there may be some bad leadership and a little corruption, but name one country that is powerful that doesn't have anything wrong with it? The only thing I can come up with is New Zealand, and possible Luxembourg. And, these countries have done nothing significant but sit there and make postage stamps!!

[Jac de Molay]

So in this case of US, it could be argued that US is being fundamental regarding the war on terrorism. As a nation Americans have paid a high price in terms of diplomancy and reputation in their attempt to destroy the source of the 'evil.' Look at the phrase used - 'Axis of Evil.' And a large portion of the population still feel that the president is doing the right thing .

Im talking about Fundamentalism in the SMAC definition of what the society/government is. And the definition doesn't fit for one BIG reason alone: aversion to knowledge. American society has always thrived on inventiveness, innovation, and the free flow ideas necessary to facilitate both.

Compare to that states like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, which employ "culture police" to enforce Islamic tenets regarding dress, free press/media, and conduct, and there's is a huge difference. Our society is simply too large, diverse, and amorphous to be considered Fundamentalist in any shape or form.

We can get into semantics about how the US is being fundamentalist with regard to the War on Terror, but you could plug in that definition to any clash of ideology in civilized history.

Considering your statements, what about Bush's policy of funding religion-based organizations, hmm?

There were already MANY faith-based organizations recieving funding from the government before Bush was in office, and churches enjoy tax-exempt status for theie charitible and humanitarian works. The Supreme Court has been vigilant to draw the line so that these organizations do not violate the First Amendment in using federal/state to espouse their religion while using federal funds for charitable works. The concept is nothing new.

[CEO Aaron]

In order to correctly pigeonhole the US, you'd need to come up with another Government Type: Plutocracy. In this system, political power is predominantly in the hands of those who donate the most money to the elected officicals. Such a system has good industry and economy, but rotten efficency (porkbarrel projects and miscellaneous graft) and a horrid planet rating.

Having predicated that, I'll say that the US is running Plutocracy/Free Market/Power. To those who claim that the US places high value on knowledge, I point to constant budgetary constriction on education, declining test scores, and by comparison a huge military/industrial complex.

[Jamski]

It's possible to argue Fundy/Knowledge, for the USA, as the two would cancel the tech boost.

Demo is right out. Extra Effic and Growth with less Support? Doesn't sound like the USA in my world.

-Jam

[Commy]

Originally posted by Jamski
It's possible to argue Fundy/Knowledge, for the USA, as the two would cancel the tech boost.

Demo is right out. Extra Effic and Growth with less Support? Doesn't sound like the USA in my world.

-Jam

The United States definitely has support problems. Look at Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Iraq. Not to many people were happy about war, now were they? Yes, maybe war was necessary, but America isn't called a democracy for no reason. We have freedom here. We live in no crazy fundalmentalist state. We do not support any particular religion. Yes, the prodominent religions are Christian associated, but 40% of America is religiously unaffiliated. We have no other fanatic ideals either that are not religion. America was founded on democracy, and still is. Yeah, there is a little corruption with leadership, but look at one country that has none (disclude New Zealand). We are very efficient compared to most nations even half our size. Look at CHina. Practically its whole entire leadership is corrupted (or at least, was, maybe it got better). America can't be doing fundalmentalist, because we have such low security. The ONLY fanatiscm that we may possibly fight for is freedom, which, again leads us back to democracy. However, some may interpret this as fundalmentalist, maybe we're some weird cross between liberals and fanatics, who knows.

[Jamski]

Actually, on consideration the only possible values for the USA are Frontier.

We live in no crazy fundalmentalist state. We do not support any particular religion. Yes, the prodominent religions are Christian associated, but 40% of America is religiously unaffiliated.

So 60% is?!?!?! Yikes In Europe about 98% is religiouly unaffiliated, and we laugh at the Americans when they say crap like "In God we trust"

Frontier or Fundy.

-Jam

[Nubclear]

I don't want to correct you or anything, but the United States is really running a Knowledge society

Is it really a knowledge state when almost all of your educated populace is imported?

America is a democracy. Yes, there may be some bad leadership and a little corruption,

A "little" Hijacking an election and making the constitution null is just a "little" corrpution
Though I guess by Russian standards its true.

America is probably a....

Democracy/Free Market/Power/Thought Control

Democracy in that they still have elections. I'm tempted to change this to police state.
Free market in that its a free market.
Power in that America spends more on its military than the next, what, ten nations combined?
Thought Control in that Americas output of propaganda is so incredibly high, and the people buy it!!!!!

Fundamentalist and Police State could be argued: Americans are a fundamentalist people especially when it comes to nationalism.
Police state because democracy merely is an illusion; lawyers are not elected. Bankers are not elected. and such.


Free market cannot be argued: The US is the biggest polluter and its hardly Soviet-style government control over the market.

Knowledge cannot be argued: The US populace is uneducated and its educated populace largely comes from France, Germany, Russia, India, and China.
Wealth could be argued in that the US is technically an oligarchy.

Cybernetic nor Eudimonia could not be argued: One hasn't come yet technologically and the US government is hardly simply looking to make its peoples lives the best they can be (For example, denial of universal healthcare).

[Jamski]

Democracy in that they still have elections.

Yeah but its like choosing between McDonalds and Burger King. You still get a crap excuse for a meal whatever you "elected"

-Jam

[Nubclear]

I know, but thats how democracy inheritly is.

[Jamski]

Only a political/representative democracy. True democracy would mean all citizens being informed on all issues, educated enough to undertand the issues, and then allowed to vote on them.

Therefore there can never be true democracy, its an unworkable system.

-Jam