Column #96; WHY SE DOES NOT BELONG IN CIV3

[MarkG]

a quite interesting article by Raingoon

comments?
http://apolyton.net/misc/column/96_seciv3.shtml

[connorkimbro]

An excellent article. .
He expresses a sentiment which i had often felt, yet, been unable to adequately articulate. I agree.

[LordStone1]

MarkG, you mentioned that you tried a new layout. A 2-column layout. That is a

NO-NO!

It's a common fact of web publishing that multi-column layout simply does not work. It may work on paper, but the intrinsic format of a web page makes this VERY impractical. This really is one of the worst things you can do when publishing literature.

You see, once you read down one column, what happens? You scroll back up to reach the top of the next column. This goes against the natural style of reading web pages. Down, down, and down is the way people read on the internet. There are millions of articles out there that tell us exactly why your style does not work.

One article: http://www.builder.com/Graphics/CTips2/ss08f.html Look at the second paragraph.

-LS1
[This message has been edited by LordStone1 (edited January 30, 2000).]

[tanis]

Raingoon,
I read your article but I must say that it isn't quite clear what you mean...
Why is SE lazy ? What 'actions' should substitute SE ? And since you state that SE is one of the reasons SMAC isn't as succesful as civ2, what does SE in SMAC replace as compared in civ2 ?

I mean, the way I understand it now, you don't disapprove of SE at all, you just want to see a single click on the SE screen replaced by a lot of 'actions' which would show that you try to build a certain kind of socio-political society. However, these kind of 'actions' were not available in civ2...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Give me SE! As has been discussed to death in the forums, a democratic state can have a capitalist or socialist system of economics! This must be in the game! If I want a Democratic Capitalist society or a Totalitarian Socialist or a Democratic Socialist, or a Totalitarian Capitalist state, I should do it! It'd be interesting to see what governments could work, and what couldn't.

[Patriqvium]

Imran, I join your call for SE. Et punctum.

[Theben]

On the one hand, I can see where raingoon is coming from. Society, like government-like most things- evolves over time. It's not one sweeping proclamation that changes changes the hearts and minds of your people (the click of an SE button), but a gradual change in policy dependant on previous actions. In fact my original SE proposal was close to this: that the SE factors moved independently of the player's choices, based on the will of the people and previous actions of the player. Then the player could attempt to "nudge" the SE's in his/her own desired direction, but any major changes would likely cause social upheaval. I could see this. But raingoon is asking for a complete removal of SE from the game, for which I must disagree.

The main reason I feel this way is that Social Engineering does not, or at least should not, stand alone. Technology, SE, and city improvements are all factors which could/should affect the primary stats: what I call Civilization Effects. Civilization Effects (or CEs) are just another name for SMAC's Social Effects. But where as in SMAC the term "Economy" had 2 different meanings- one for SEs and one for the % bonuses cities received from Improvements- my vision for civ3 has all 3 of these categories working in tandem. A "+1" POLICE rating from SEs would have the same effect as a +1 from technology, or from a "police station", or possibly from a wonder. The fact is these settings were in civ2 w/o a title, although they came almost entirely from City Improvements.
The 2nd reason is the one that all game designers have to walk on a fine line to develop: game play/fun vs. realism. Sure it may be more realistic for the empire to evolve on it's own, but I'm the RULER. I WANT to make proclamations that create sweeping change across my nation. I don't want to be a passive observer to my empire's greatness: I want to feel as though I CREATED that greatness. SE can be an integral part of this creation. In MHO, of course.

------------------
Theben
Co-Moderator of the Civ3 Forums

[Biddles]

On the contrary, drastic SE changes can be made in the space of a few turns. Take Russia as an example. They have changed from a planned economy to a free market in a matter of a few years. While it hasn't been easy (ie. a few turns of anarchy) it has happened.

Since most of the SE options represent policy, the SE screen is a realistic way of representing this. A green economy stance can be changed to a free market economy with enough willpower and mass marketing.

While Raingoon's idea does have some merit, I disagree with trashing SE. Modifying SE would be a good way to incorporate both ideas.

For example: If you wanted a highly scientific society you would have to make some policy changes (SE changes to : compulsory tertiary education, government research co-ordination .... etc.), increase your science budget to over x% and build y research labs.

Another example: For a conservationist (green) minded society - policy changes (environmental controls, EPA, clean industry research .... etc.), increase your EPA (environmental Protection Agency) budget to over x% and build y recycling centres.

The policy changes would still have modifiers like in SMAC, but they wouldn't be as high ( .X modifiers) and there would be many more choices.

Once you have achieved "scientific society" status you would get something like a +2 research modifier (compared to the .x modifiers it is a hell of a lot) and maybe penalties.

Just some thoughts on reconciling both sides, as it would be a mistake to go back to Civ2 "SE".


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited January 30, 2000).]

[connorkimbro]

Biddles: Sure, russia is (in name) democratic and somewhat capitalist now. . but it is NOT working very well. The peoples mindset. . their "political culture" is NOT democratic or capitalist. .

[NoviceCEO]

I agree completely with Raingoon and I disagree totally with him.

I disagree with him because he's talking SE is a lazy feature and should be forgotten. Should we then, continue to be able to change from Democracy to Moanrchy in a turn (I'm based on Civilization, not on Civ2, ok?)

But I really do agree with him. SE SHOULD NOT be in the game! The firaxis programmers should take a close look to the SE mechanics, its qualities and negative points and NOT put SE in Civ3. They should design a new and totally unique new system, that we'll make us think: "How the hell haven't someone thought about this before" or "Man! SMAC SE was really trash!".

Raingoon knows better than me that you guys don't want an Evolution, you want a Revolution in the TBS genre and that can't be done simply giving minor improvements to the game.

[Biddles]

connorkimbro: Hey, I never claimed russia was democratic, I only said that they had a free market, and that's pretty much true (even if the russian mafia does own all the shares).


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[SnowFire]

I totally agree with Imran. I want my SE!

If I can draw an analogy, raingoon is criticizing the fact that in RPG's you have to choose a direct character class or combination thereof. He want a system where everybody starts out equal, and then depending on what you "build up," it affects your stats (work on fighting a lot and become a fighter, cast magic a lot and become a magician, etc.). The only problem with this is that usually everybody grows up to be jack-of-all trades clones of each other, with no distinctiveness. When you have only so many SE settings, you force differences and choosing of priorities. Plus it sounds like it would have a terrible inertia-it would be difficult to make fast changes. This isn't entirely accurate, as already pointed out.

And how exactly would you nudge your society around, anyway?

[XZealot]

Lets see what your arguement is?
Social Engineering is lazy because you have to take into account 12 diffent variables that are adjustable on 4 diffent tables and each table has 4 choices. I believe there are a possible 24 different combinations. Versus one table with lets say 6 choices as there is in Civ II.

I think that you are quite backwards rangoon. It is you who are lazy for not trying to understand the range of possibilities while sitting in the cheap seats throwing pop shots at something you do not understand nor have you tried to understand.

"Better to have people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them correct"

[Biddles]

XZealot: I support your argument completely. Two things though:
1. There are four choices per line (the default ones are still choices.
2. There is a lot more combinations than 24. (I get well over a hundred)


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Matthevv]

I would just like to add my voice to the anti-SE lobby. I didn't think it added any interest to SMAC. There are just too many options. The Civ2 government types were at least simple, and added some gameplay diversity. I don't think more is better.

I also don't see the relevance of "social engineering" to ancient civilizations. It might be an appropriate concept for a futuristic game, but I can't empathise with the idea of the emperor of an ancient empire, or even one prior to the 20th century, being involved in "social engineering". The feel of the game is vital for me (and Civ2 did this excellently), so the way that the ruling of your empire is done must be appropriate to the era.

I say down with the social engineers! Off with their heads! (We ancient emperors know how to deal with these types of subversive elements!)