SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver1.1): Hosted by Bell

[Koyaanisqatsi]

CormacMacArt writes:
May I suggest that we agree to disagree?

Never said otherwise. I'm putting everything in the summary, that was just my personal opinion on what makes a game good and what takes away from it, which means no more than anyone else's. Firaxis will make all the final decisions.

My suggestion may not be a good idea, but why not? What problems do you see?

I wasn't speaking to you in particular, but to Diodorus Sicilus about the suggestion that the game auto-builds structures for you. That seems to be taking a very critical game function and decision out of the player's hands, which I think takes some fun out of the game. Your suggestion I'm not sure about, since I didn't really get the gist of what you suggested.


[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Stefu]

Army models:

1. Mercenary army. Costs lot of gold, but units tend to be better. Mercenaries have got bad habit of switching sides.

2. Volunteer army. It takes 2x production to build armies, but they don't have the happiness penalty of democracies.

3. Draft army. The normal model.

[NotLikeTea]

I was surprised to find out that a lot of european countyries, considered to be left leaning, employ draft armies.

The reason is that it is assumed that a volonteer army will atract the kind of people who enjoy fighting, and shooting things. However, a draft army will be composed of people from all groups equally, and would be less likely to commit atrocities if ordered to do so by a general. Less perfect discipline, but more likely to do what the people like.

How to implement? Perhaps would generate more unhappiness in peacetime, but more happiness in wartime? I don't know...

[Isle]

Hmm. I surprised to see, that the proposed social engineering model still cant model north european countries. Although it might since I have no idea what you mean by Open or IngSoc.

If we look at f.x. scandinavian countries the society would be something like this:

Government type: Democracy(Multi parti unlike the common two parti systems)

Society Type: Wellfare(Free education, free medical care and economic support for the less fortunate)
Advantages: Better research/verylow crime and corruption
Disadvantages: More military unhappiness/less gold income and less benefit from trade (High taxes make it less attractive to start own company)

Economic Structure: Labor Market(Labor unions vs. corporate)

Values: Humanitarism/Ethics
Advantages: Even lower crime and corruption
Disadvantages: Any attrocity by the government will result in anarchy, automatic declaration of war on nations that commit attrocities.

Shouldnt be that hard to implement.

[This message has been edited by Isle (edited May 26, 1999).]

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Just to clarify, then to comment...

NLT was closer to what I meant than, apparently, I was. I never intended that the gamer lose all control over City Improvements, builds, army, etc. I simply would like to see the amount of direct control related to the type of government and society. You as the government always have the option of building or encouraging the building of certain infrastructure or improvements: the trick is to include the realistic (historical) trade-offs.
A Totalitarian government type gives the gamer total control over everything built or done, but he also has to pay for everything (government is the only source of laboer, material, controls all wealth) and has to deal with lousy Growth factors (stifles initiative).
An economic system of Capitalism gives the possibility of other agenices than the government (Corporations, City Fathers, etc) doing and building things that the central government (you, da gamer) doesn't have to pay for. BUT if you really, really want a Harbor or Airport in a given city, you can provide the funds and have it built - and maybe convince the locals to pay for some of it (levies, bonds, etc)
A Fuedal society will have most of your military 'paid for' by the Barons or other 'local' government: you have less direct control, but also less cost, and no cost for upkeep until you "call them up" - at which point you discover that you haven't kept the Barons' Happiness level high enough and some of them don't come, or revolt. The social and political structure simply doesn't allow you the kind of direct control other government forms would.

BUT I thoroughly agree, that to make a playable and enjoyable game, the gamer always has to have a 'back door' - a way he can control or influence game events rather than being a helpless spectator. I just want to see more options as to how he does that, and more historical problems presented to the Gamer As Central Government.

In reference to the previous post, let's be careful not to define everything in modern terms - they don't always apply to earlier periods.
For instance, the Imperial Roman Army was neither precisely Draft nor Mercenary: they were long-term professionals who volunteered and then made a lifetime out of soldiering. The most common historical forms have been either the Military Obligation, in which part of the population 'owes' military service, or the Military Businessman, in which someone fights for pay. If he's a native of the country, he's a Professional Soldier (Roman legions, British 17-20th century army, etc) if he's a foreigner, he's a mercenary.
If the part of the population owing Mil Ob is large, then it's the modern Draft (conscript) Army, but that form also includes primitive nomadic societies in which, essentially, every man and boy defended the tribal grounds when necessary. If the percentage owing Military Service is defined small enough, you have the classic Fuedal military system, because them with the weapons will eventually become them giving the orders to everyone: a military dictatorship or, in earlier times, a military aristocracy.

[Galen]

Okay, here are my ideas:

There ought to be ALOT of SE choices! One thing I think was bad with SMAC was the limited SE choices. Let there be like 5*5 or 6*6, 46656 possibilities!
And perhpas, where if you are one type of thing you may not be another in a different economy, like a free market economy could not be a despotic government, nor a democratic feudalistic, or a fanatic want knowledge.
Degrees, such as if you want a socailistic soceity, but not too much. You would choose along a sliding scale or from WEAK, NORMAL or STRONG levels.
Becuase if you just want to be kind of Knowledge focused, becuase you want to use a religion other than agnostism, atheism, deism or secularism? Or want an emphasis on Knowledge AND Wealth, or a Monotheistic soceity that allows Secular interests?
So you could be a Democratic/Socialistic/Atheist,Secular/Kowledge,Wealth soceity?
And a suggestion for a Government: Republican Aristocracy, where only the smartest CAN rule, but the normal people pick, so you get extra economy and knowledge, but less happiness.

Galen

[NotLikeTea]

<NLT begins his same chant>

Nothing should be impossible! La la la! Nothing should be impossible! La la la!



Point being, combinations should be impractical, or very difficult, but never force limits on the player. Why not have a despotic freemarket? You're the despot... you can make your society the way you like it! (Forcing someone to be a free marketeer is stupid, but not impossible)

[CormacMacArt]

Does that mean that here (in the U.S.) we live under a Republic Plutocrasy?

[Ecce Homo]

Weren't fascist Italy and Germany despotic free markets? They did very well economically until they came at war against the rest of the world.

[CormacMacArt]

My apologies to Bell; bad day yesterday.

I agree with the model that Diodorus Sicilus presents. My suggestion was simply adding complexity to it. In the modern era, democracies/republics usually do not directly manufacture tanks, fighter aircraft and the like. They are purchased from defence contrators. So, why not have CORPORATIONS in the game that would each have their own agenda, leaders, and compete with eachother.

[Harel]

I started posting the idea of an army section, and people come up with good ideas i didn't think off in the start.
So let me summerize everything, with numbers and details.

Volunteer army

The army is based loosely upon free members of society deciding to join the army. This is a full pay job, so it's costly. The quality however, isnt very good cause there is no selection, and people ( don't take the wrong way, I am serving in the army ) who choose to go to the army are mostly people how are un-fitting for any other work.
Require: Democracy.
Cost: 150% of normal unit.
Support: 150% of normal unit.
Quality: -10% to morale.
Advantages: Cause no penalty in democracy, twice is effective in reducing unrest.

Requirtment army

Not the same as a full fledge drafting, this army praise upon signing the best people into active duty to the state ( see Israel and Switz as roll models ). This army is based upon service in honor and willingly for the state, but requires good support and treatment to the soldiers.
Require: The republic.
Cost: 100% of normal cost.
Support: 125% of normal cost.
Quality: +25% to morale.
Advantge: Cause half the democratic penalty.

The peoples army

A massive drafting army, with forced labor and even kids joining in. This army is supported only by tyrants and kings, but it's easy to eracte a huge army this way.
Requires: Dictatorship.
Cost: 75% of normal cost.
Support: 50% of normal cost.
Quality: -25% to morale.
Disatvantage: cause massive unrest.

Reserve army

Based only for emergencies, the reserve army
is extreamly easy to maintian. The troops morale is always high, as they fight for their home-land.
Requires: The right to bear arms.
Cost: 200% of normal cost.
Support: 10% of normal cost:
Quality: +10% of morale.
Special: units may only leave home city in case of war, else they are always fortfied.

Mercenry army

The mercenry army is based upon hired thugs and trained units to battle it out with the enemy.
Requires: Trade.
Cost: May only "rush-bay", not make any units. Cost 75% of normal "rush-bay".
Support: 200% of normal cost.
Quality: +50% to morlae.
Advantage: Units are always in veteran status.

Thats all for now. Hope I covered it all. If I forgot something, NoLikeTee, stefu, let me know.

[Harel]

Hmm... ah... hm...
a week?
oh well... I'll do it, have no fear Yin

-=B U M P=-

yey. I bumped.

[Spartan187]

There should also be a draftee army for democracy. You should only be able to call up the army only in wartime. Probaly greater support than the People's Army but also greater morale.

[Harel]

Read my post Spartan... Reserve army. The cost of production is great, but support is very low ( probaly took it too-far with 10%, maybe 25% is better ), cause you don't need to upkeep the forces all the time.
May only attack at war.

[Flavor Dave]

"You will have several options:

Volunteers ( High-pay, high-quality army, and very small. Good happines. Allows democracy to send more units away from home.)

Selective drafts (low-pay, good-quality, medium army. Can cause revolts ).

Mass army ( a poor army, both in cost and in quality, but huge in size. Cause lots of unrest)"

Umm, the happiness is already taken care of in democracy. I conceive of riflemen sitting in a city as being reserve/National Guard units, fighting only when attacked. You can have a Swiss-style army, large relative to the population, but home based--and no unhappiness. If you want to have a large army in a democracy, but not home-based, then you have happiness issues.

I like the idea of volunteer vs. draft armies, with the former being more expensive in some way, but causing less unhappiness when outside of a city or fortress. Whether they should cost more shields or $$ upkeep--well, it's got to be one or the other. More $$ is more realistic. Volunteer units can only be certain, non-specialist units--cavalry and armor and riflemen, but not alpines or paratroopers.

How would volunteer units cause less unhappiness? The obvious is to have them cause one less redface. Another would be that anytime they're in a fortress, or on a transport, they don't cause any unhappiness--no matter how far away. This would be realistic. Think foreign bases. It would also be strategic--do you leave the volunteers in their fortress in the enemy territory, absorbing assaults, or is it time to try to take that city?