The Strategist custom faction project

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

The mystery of the real Salameh N*matt got to me--

I finally found- on the site for Americans for Informed Democracy, to which he is an advisor -some hard-core think-tank cred:
"For a brief period in 1999, he served as Head of the Strategy Unit at Jordan's Royal Court, an advisory post for the king. He resigned two months after taking the job due to policy differences with the government over democratic reforms . Returned shortly afterwards to Al-Hayat."

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

With crenelated towers, I think of the faction leader as having a serious affectation (that gives him personality). Why not make him obsessed with chess to the point that his base looks like a rook?

A black chess knight would be great. (Or any chess piece).

Third thread? So much different from scient's practice of threadjacking a thread that had been inactive for 3 months, expanding the scope beyond the original title and then doing most of his posts there.

Not quite sure I follow that last. The grammar-nazi would like you to make a second draft.

I like a man literate enough to use crenelated -correctly- in a sentence, BTW. Bright crowd who write in credible English here at 'poly, and I'm sure not a few of them medivalists, but I wonder how many of even them know what that means...

[Ironwood]

Sorry to bust in like this, but I can't help but wonder how a "strategist" faction fits in with others. Logically speaking, ALL factions would have a "strategist" at their head, since strategy is a means, not an end. And most the official factions seem to me to be defined by an obsession with ends (a global society that looks like what they want to see), not means, the only exception I can see being the Nautilus Pirates, who seem more concerned with the venue than the shape of society.

Can you explain the nature of strategy as an end? Which SE setting would they promote? Which would they be denied?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

First, did you ever have a look at the compromise de-uglified Miriam I did for you and Illuminatus? Did it address your concerns at all? Took me hours longer than the original attempt, so I think asking you for your comments there is entirely fair.
***
Fair enough question, I guess. You did read the original proposal and everything, right?

I invite you to consider the common consensus that the original seven kinda mined out the most obvious, powerful archetypes. We have to go with something more subtle or not make a faction for your use at all.

Really, the difference is a matter of perspective, or focus. This guy is a super, MASTER strategist. He came from a background as a games-theory guy in strategic think-tanks- and strategists love them some games theory. He’s as, as I keep saying, a sharp, careful maneuverer.

He’s down with chess, hardcore, a gimmick vyeh and I are still talking about how explicit we want to be about. Some of what you ask is up in the air- we’re kicking it around.

Suggestions from others than vyeh, Hydro and I are very welcome; else we wouldn’t be collaborating in public.

[vyeh]

Sorry to bust in like this,

You're more than welcome to participate!

but I can't help but wonder how a "strategist" faction fits in with others.

In my mind, "strategist" is a working title. I was intrigued by the chess metaphor. The original quote was "It's always a game of chess with them." I'm interested in creating a faction that has "personality."

Logically speaking, ALL factions would have a "strategist" at their head, since strategy is a means, not an end.

Some factions don't need a strategist since there is only one obvious path that takes advantage of their strengths and avoids their weaknesses.

And most the official factions seem to me to be defined by an obsession with ends (a global society that looks like what they want to see), not means, the only exception I can see being the Nautilus Pirates, who seem more concerned with the venue than the shape of society.

Then that might be a reason for this faction. You can look at democracy as a means to collective decisions. Yet there are people who are more concerned with the "means" (e.g. are there elections?) rather than the "ends" (e.g., are people well fed?)

Can you explain the nature of strategy as an end?

I suppose a society that is caught up more in the process than the results. Actually a focus on ideology is a focus on the means as opposed to realpolitik.

Which SE setting would they promote? Which would they be denied?

The purpose of this project is to figure out SE settings.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

most the official factions seem to me to be defined by an obsession with ends

Oh- and as to the ends? There is one toward which the faction and its leader aspires, and in regard to which, is flexible about the means- in fact, doesn't care as long as SOMEthing works. I thought it was obvious from the proposal and the discussion in this thread, and so didn't think to make it explicit in my last reply. It's simple.

He wants to win.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

[vyeh]

Let's start with this:

What is N*matt's ideology? "It always a game of chess with them." So does this make him an ultra rationalist? Which society model appeals to him?

I think for a guy where it is always a game of chess, planned economics would be the social agenda.

And I think he would be averse to free market.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Yes.

By his nature, I reckon he'd be all about ordering the world where he can, even imposing his will on others when he eventually wins- would Police State and Thought Control blur things and make them too militaristic? I never play those, myself.

Fundamentalism could be made to fit, too, to the extent the faction believes in anything beyond order and winning the game of nations. Perhaps a fascist streak? I personally find that not-so-appealing, but nothing we've discussed contradicts it, and fascists make great bad guys, and often fascinating personalities...

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

What is N*matt's

Let's give him his own name, BTW. Names have power, and can say things about an individual. They add personality.

I'm open to suggestion on designated ethnicity, which would allow name research. The original is presumably Arab, but his looks fit lots of places. India and Lebanon have been claimed already. Still from Jordan would be fine, too.

Also, I can tweak his looks, ethnically, if needed, though I'd tend to oppose making him paler.

[vyeh]

Planned social agenda/free market aversion would make him the opposite of Morgan. Can we play with the idea that he is the opposite of Morgan?

Police state seems too brute force to me and does not have the finesse I would associate with chess.

Thought control is a future society and not something to use for a social agenda unless we want to give him an advanced tech.

Maybe you and Hydro would have suggestions about names, ethnic background.

[Ironwood]

1: No, I didn't read the original proposal. That was why I apologized for "busting in." I didn't have the background. If you want people to read a previous thread or message before posting in a new one, a link to the previous in the first post of the new one helps. Then again, I suppose I could have lurked more before posting... but then, I'm not exactly a newbie. :-\

The idea I'm starting to get is that, to this faction, there are two or three levels of civilization:

1. The head strategist, who envisions means and ends.
2. The People, who must submit to the strategist's vision to the point of being "pieces" which can be manipulated according to the strategist's ideal.
3. Everybody else. This level is optional, because we could regard the world as having multiple head strategists who are important, though opponents, and "pieces" in the form of everybody else.

As to social engineering choices, I'm still not sure what they should advocate, but to me, the aversion is clear: Democracy. (Note because this myth seems to continue: "Aversion" does not mean this faction doesn't like that SE choice. It means they are denied it, but neutral on the question of other factions choosing it.) Though they MAY consider another faction leader's permitting their "pieces" participation in the planning process to be their business, but clearly, they could not adopt it, themselves.

I'm leaning more and more toward Thought Control, though this makes it more of a SMAX faction than a SMAC faction. It keeps them strategically flexible as to how to conduct diplomacy (though, being denied Democracy, both Lal and Roze will never cozy up to them) up until the late game, when the goal of reducing the individual to the level of a game piece becomes realistically possible. At that point, Eudaimonea looks like a threat, because it considers the happiness of the individual to be the primary goal of society, while Cybernetics gives the individual too much communicative power with his peers... the liberation of ideas presented by The Internet, times twenty-thousand!

Proposed Bonuses:
Efficiency: Faith in the design of the Chief Strategist reduces corruption
Morale: Their troops fight with fanatic zeal, confident that even their deaths will advance the strategy.

Proposed Penalties:
Economics: Lack of individual initiative stifles economic growth.
Probe: A tendency to assume others are part of an unknown part of the strategy.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Ironwood, THAT is some fine thinking, and very helpful. I pretty much completely agree. You get where we've coming from.

(I do think vyeh was admirably thorough in linking all the relevant info in the first post, though. Perhaps pasting would have been better, but I doubt making the post as long as that would have would have been good at all.)

I echo your thinking about future society SEs- my reasoning was that Cyberethics can be viewed as an anarchist-friendly, and Eudomaina is nothing to do with arranging the “pieces” to win.


My only problem with "opposite of Morgan" is that I see them burying opponents with money when a viable strategy/tactic.

[Ironwood]

And Free Market thinking isn't about allowing collective contribution to top level strategy, it's about allowing individual initiative for low level, "economic tactics." Its about regarding the capital structure as a living thing, providing it with liberal access to sunlight and water while not trying to stunt it, so the Strategist can harvest the fruit.

Okay, so its a stretch. So is getting to +2 economics: start them off with a -1, and Free Market isn't enough. You'd need both Free Market AND Wealth to get there, but unlike the other two factions with this problem (The Hive and The Cult), it should be allowed for this faction.

I'm thinking erratic diplomacy: not especially predisposed to either war or peace.

[vyeh]

Thought control may not be a bad thing. IIRC, Maniac said AI factions tend to be unfriendly to you if you don't choose their SE choice or the default SE choice. Since future society choices require advanced technology, that would keep the faction favorably inclined toward everybody until the techs for future society choices are researched.

I like efficiency and morale bonuses.

I was also thinking about a support penalty so they use less units.