Social Economic Political models and strategy games

[Edan]

Although it's fairly old, Hidden Agenda did a very nice simulation of a Latin American country. It allowed you to move the country in left or right directions, and allowed you to meet with various representatives of the country (farmers, teachers, military, etc) as well as diplomats from other countries, making decisions to try to solve problems (or at least stay in power and alive long enough). It kept the numbers hidden, so it wasn't very spread sheet-like.

As for recent games, Supreme Ruler 2010 does an impressive job of allowing you to control a lot an economic and social perspective (not really politically, though), though it could use some tweaking.

[:) Smiley]

Problem with AC's social system is that it's too direct - you just push around sliders and press buttons and presto, new society.

Rather, I'd like to see social traits arising from other decisions. For example constantly going to war would make your people more warlike, building temples would make them religious, high urbanization would lead to left-leaning politics, etc.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What matters in the SMAC socio-economic engine as compared to the Civ engine is the number of possible choices. You can have a dmeocratic statist regime, or an authoritarian capitalist regime, all in all, you have a total of at least 27 different socio-economic models as compared to 7 in Civ3 or 6 in Civ2.

Green is an idiotic economics choice, and the entire values idea is stupid. I'm going to completely ignore future society, so that gives six different economics choices that have any relevence to actual social, political, and economic models.

Actually the values part is very apt and would work in a historic game very well-some societies were simply war societies, others monastic. What is the difference between the US and Europe today but one of values, as oposed to a market economy and liberal dmeocracy, which both groups have in common. In Civ3 for example, there would be 0 difference in the two societies (both are Democracies). IN SMAC terms you could simulate a difference.

And again, you complaints are about window dressings, not HOW the system works. In any new game you could use the social engineering screen and add more choices, change names, whatever.

Plus you are wrong, since the game had 3 political choices (authoritarian, democratic, theocratic), 3 economic ones (green, free market, Controlled), then 3 values (wealth, power, knowledge), so you could have a grand total of 27 possible combinations, a democratic green knowledge state, or a theocratic free market power state, and so forth.

The future society line was mostly adding extra benefits to those previous choices.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Smiley
Problem with AC's social system is that it's too direct - you just push around sliders and press buttons and presto, new society.

Well, that's a problem in all games, no? MOst gamers want direct control. In Civ all you do is hit a revolution button any time you want and then pick the next one after waiting a few turns.

[Kuciwalker]

Which is a bit more realistic, no? You don't get a new government presto, you get it after some anarchy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually the values part is very apt and would work in a historic game very well-some societies were simply war societies, others monastic. What is the difference between the US and Europe today but one of values, as oposed to a market economy and liberal dmeocracy, which both groups have in common. In Civ3 for example, there would be 0 difference in the two societies (both are Democracies). IN SMAC terms you could simulate a difference.

The Values part is one that isn't even conceivably under any sort of central control.

And again, you complaints are about window dressings, not HOW the system works. In any new game you could use the social engineering screen and add more choices, change names, whatever.

So you're saying that, as it is, SMAC isn't a good model of politics, society, and the economy, but it's possible to change the game in order to make it so?

By that logic, cIV will be the best model EVER, since we're able to almost completely reprogram the game.

Plus you are wrong, since the game had 3 political choices (authoritarian, democratic, theocratic), 3 economic ones (green, free market, Controlled), then 3 values (wealth, power, knowledge), so you could have a grand total of 27 possible combinations, a democratic green knowledge state, or a theocratic free market power state, and so forth.

Except I said the Green was idiotic (so I discount it) and that the Values shouldn't exist from the standpoint of realism, therefore SMAC has 6 realistic governments.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which is a bit more realistic, no? You don't get a new government presto, you get it after some anarchy.

1 aspect being more realisitc (except if you are a religious civ in Civ3 or had the Statue of Liberty in Civ2) does not mean the whole is actually better.

That I think is the one mayor problem with the SMAC system and one I hope the folks making Civ4 have changed, to make it more costly to switch in an of itself, regardless of the new circumstance which the change creates.

EU of course handles this with instability and stopping how fast you can change, but I don't know if a EU system of sliders on a scale of 1-10 would work for a tile based as opposed to province based map.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Values part is one that isn't even conceivably under any sort of central control.

And Che already pointed out that most game economic models give the player far too much control. Of course, the very notion fo one single leader living 6000 years itself is laughable, but hey, we allow it in Civ/

So you're saying that, as it is, SMAC isn't a good model of politics, society, and the economy, but it's possible to change the game in order to make it so?

By that logic, cIV will be the best model EVER, since we're able to almost completely reprogram the game.

No, "genius", I am saying the way in which the SMAC engine works is superior to the Civ engine, as it allows more choices.

Except I said the Green was idiotic (so I discount it) and that the Values shouldn't exist from the standpoint of realism, therefore SMAC has 6 realistic governments.

Wait, so your whim is the basis for judging how many option a gamer had?

Having all those bathrooms does not make you ruler of the universe, you know

[Kuciwalker]

aspect being more realisitc (except if you are a religious civ in Civ3 or had the Statue of Liberty in Civ2) does not mean the whole is actually better.

We're not arguing "better", were arguing "what has the most realistic model".

And Che already pointed out that most game economic models give the player far too much control. Of course, the very notion fo one single leader living 6000 years itself is laughable, but hey, we allow it in Civ/

Yes. SMAC happens to give the player even more unjustified control than others, even other civ games.

No, "genius", I am saying the way in which the SMAC engine works is superior to the Civ engine, as it allows more choices.

More choices doesn't make it a more accurate model, and in fact in SMAC's case makes it a less accurate model.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We're not arguing "better", were arguing "what has the most realistic model".

NO gaming system is ever able to cope with the complxities of the world. Obviously you have a bias towards historical games as opposed to futuristic games, since maybe you lack the imagination. That notwhistanding, the urealism of Civ comes from linking eocnomic to political models, period. Republic is not an economic choice, never was. SMAC's system is more realisitc because it divorces aspects that work together but are not fixed to each other, like having a command economy and chosing between say a one party dictatorship or a theocratic regime, or not linking free makret economies to democracy.

Yes. SMAC happens to give the player even more unjustified control than others, even other civ games.

Actually, NO, it does not. All you pointed out is that the cost of changing is low in SMAC. Making the cost low does not actually change how much control you have. If anything, SMAC gave you less control because the choice of civ limited the options you could use in the screen.

More choices doesn't make it a more accurate model, and in fact in SMAC's case makes it a less accurate model.

Accuarte does not mean historical, nor does it mean whether you have the imagination or not to concieve of it.

Accurate modeling means that you are better able to simultae the fuctionings of a human society. IN Civ3 we are told there are only 8 choices of society (including anarchy). That is patently absurd, and it is patently absurd because it illogically links economic model to political model.

IN a Civ2 world, the Monarchy of Charlemagne was the same society as the Monarchy of Louis XIV. That is patently absurd on its face. IN Civ3 they made it a bit better by saying that the Feudal system that Charlemagne ran was different from the Absolute Monarchy run by Louis XIV.

But then, what do you do with the difference between say the Absolute Imperial monarchy of Byzantium and that of Rome? (a great example of howe "values" matter, as you compare the universalistic Monotheistic policies of Constantinple vs. the more parochial pagan policy of pre-Christian Rome).?

A social engineering screen like in SMAC makes the differentiation more possible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap is right. Even though SMAC is based in the future. It's governmental model is FAR more realistic than any other Civ game.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, that's a problem in all games, no? MOst gamers want direct control. In Civ all you do is hit a revolution button any time you want and then pick the next one after waiting a few turns.

Good gaming is a fine art, not button mashing. Long range planning and effects are especially important with a turn based strategy game such as Civ.

[Kidlicious]

Games are suppose to be fun to play, not be accurate. Accurate would be boring as hell. SMAC is fun to play.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which is a bit more realistic, no?

Very few governments have ever chosen to have a revolution.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but you aren't the government. You're a limited Deity.