Why did social engienering gone?

[Hoek]

I think that the reason they scrapped it is because if the ideological factors, and that certain factions couldn't choose certain options. That wouldn't really work for civilization, but some variation of it could. Perhaps if you picked "fundamentalism", you wouldn't be able to choose "knowledge"

[Sarxis]

I always felt that Social Engineering worked well for SMAC, but wouldn't fit right with a more classic CIV game. I mean, the term itself sounds futuristic.

[Urban Ranger]

Elevated terrain doesn't add that much complexity, though it adds literally a new dimension.

As for Social Engineering, I reckon it is the absence of those futuristic choices that leads to its exclusion. Though I think SE used as a generic indication of overall policies can work. For example, choosing the "Green" policy causes a reduction in production andpollution, but an increase in happiness and trade (increased tourism).

[Dimorier Maximus]

Yeah, SE sounds pretty cool. I think it should have somehow been implemented in Civ3. Oh well. I think Civ3 is going to be great anyways.

[Dimorier Maximus]

As for the raised terrain in SMAC. It is one of the primary reasons why I never bought the game.

[Blake]

The SE in SMAC was really good.
But I dont think it would fit in Civ3, altough it looks like you'll have two fields to choose from: Goverment, Military Readiness. Something like a mini SE.

CTP1/2 had a sorta-realistic sorta-SE for Earth, but it sucked
Stick with goverments

[Cyclotron]

Still no response on exactly what it is that elevated terrain does... so far, it sounds like a waste of memory. One word: Why?

[korn469]

well if i had to make a guess, I would assume that they made the changes for the following reasons

*considered governments to fell more like "civ"
*thought it was better for gameplay

now what i wonder is if Brian hadn't of quit, would civ3 had of used the government system from civ1 or the SE system from SMAC? i assume that it would have used something like it

instead we get the exact same system that civ1 had

is that innovation or what?

too bad they didn't have the money or the time to come up with something better

[korn469]

cyclotron7

elevated terrian in SMAC did a couple of things

*determined rainfall (and rainfall determined food output), it rained much more on the western side of a mountain
*elevation determined energy output, the higher the elevation the more energy
*it allowed players more control of terraforming (you could raise or lower terrain)
*it created a more "realistic" map
*it's in 3D!

[Cyclotron]

If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have. The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire. Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim. If you want to keep pollution down, you should have to deal with it on the city level (sell factories, replace power plants with hydro, build recycling centers, etc.) and not just use presets to solve all your problems.

[tniem]

Thanks korn for answering all of that. I wasn't up for the task tonight to try and reanswer these old arguments.

[Blake]

SMAC's SE was wonderfull from a gameplay point of view, but wasn't really echoed by the actual play style.... there was absolutely no reason why a Green economy couldn't smother the planet with polluting boreholes and enviromentally damaging Condensors (weather control devices). Ironically the Free Market economy benefited most from a 'green' play style, using mostly 'clean' forests.

The goverments model will dictate your play style a lot more, it represents the 'people' a lot better, and what they will stand for. So while the freedom granted by Social Engineering is great in a sandbox sort of way, it really doesn't model real civilisations very well.
(The best argument for SE is on a gameplay vs realism basis, but I think goverments will make the game more challenging, and that is also important for gameplay)

[korn469]

If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have.

yeap it'd be a real shame if we had a few more ways of getting into the game, i for one would hate that

The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire. Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim.

God forbid that ever makes its way into civ! I mean I would hate if there was one thing i would switch to when I was at peace (democracy), that would ruin the game! I can't even imagine switching to another system to fight a war (communism)...that would destroy game play...i mean just imagine if you were forced to choose the same options game after game depending on if you wanted to fight or research! god that would suck, thankfully civ is nothing like that

and just imagine if you could switch from a war government to a peace government without any penalty (religious)! *shudder* i'm so glad that civ3 won't have anything close to that! i mean that would ruin the game wouldn't it

not just use presets to solve all your problems

like i said cyclotron7 lets be thankful civ3 has nothing like that

[tniem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have.

Oh yeah and that does a ton to actually imitating how real empires and civs work.

In actual civs there are issues that a government decides on such as how people are going to be represented or what kind of freedoms there are going to be. None of these have anything to do with the sliders you are giving us. None of these are going to be answered by simple city improvements. Government policies are not figured or can even be computed by the few things that you have pointed out.

The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire.

I don't think you understand the idea of SE. I think you are getting it confused with the attributes that each faction was given in SMAC.

SE gives certain bonuses and minuses to certain things such as building costs, governmental control, or science based on the governmental choices you make. Want to have total control of your populace, then thought and science are harmed. Want to make tons of money and have high growth, then you will harm the environment. SE is all about picking your government's representational and social choices and having those choices effect what happens to your civ.

Meanwhile, faction attributes do dictate to a degree how you play the game. They can force you into a more research or militaristic mode. That is another debate, if you want to get into it on either side I would be willing to get involved in it in another thread.

Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements

As I already stated that does little to achieve the differences found in a one man/woman dictatorship or a true direct democracy. Neither of which are possible in the government system of Civilization (democracy is really representational Republic, but that is another debate).

and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim.

Last I checked that is not how government policy is necessarily formed. And how is switching from Communism to a Democracy overnight last of a diametrical switch than say Totalitarianism to Direct Elect?

They aren't. See the biggest and best thing about SE is that they are gradual shifts in one policy. Meanwhile going with the status quo is a shift of the entire governments policy from representation to the economic model. That is not something that changes easily. Such switches should trigger decades if not century long times of upheavel. Meanwhile making smaller changes can happen slowly over time without rebellion. That is what SE is trying to imitate.

If you want to keep pollution down, you should have to deal with it on the city level (sell factories, replace power plants with hydro, build recycling centers, etc.) and not just use presets to solve all your problems.

Who said anything about pollution? Are you talking about the Green Economy? That has nothing to do with this argument. After all SE is all about choices. So you pick Green to cut down on pollution and we are at war. Well I pick the more Wealth Economy and Growth Policy and now my cities are growing faster and I am making more money to buy my military. Soon you nonpolluting cities, are my polluting cities. None of this has any baring on whether or not SE is a good choice for including it in Civ.

The pros of SE are simple. More realistic. Governments are always made up of different attributes that while they might not always go together much of the time, are possible to fit together. Changes are made over time. There are less diametric switches between attributes.

Meanwhile, the problems are that they are more complex and it can be argued less fun. Personally I think that is not true but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion about fun factor. Although I think it would be worth it to sacrifice a little for the added depth and complexity that SE adds. Any ways, now that I have gotten in this argument, let the fireworks fly.

[korn469]

don't get me wrong...I HATE SE
it's just that i hate the civ government system worse

what i want is something fairly simple, (well in my case not too complex) that is fun, and most of all involves the player

SE has a number of huge flaws...Free Market economies being able to use punishment spheres is one huge flaw, the entire penalty ceases to exist (but even removing p-spheres wouldn't stop army laundering)

the choices the player makes should have an effect on the buildings in my opinion, some buildings should have stat changes

the senate was an excellent idea, and SMAC hurt from not having it i hope that Civ3 will expand on those things so that the player can have a number of interesting choices to make

we need something better, and you would think after 10 years we would get it...just imagine if firaxis decided to get rid of armies and all of the other military improvements and go back to the civ1 system of handling armed conflict, i think many people would be highly disappointed in the lack of progress