Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
SMAC, war and peace?
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
SMAC, war and peace?
|
| Author | Topic: SMAC, war and peace? |
| Greyhawk |
posted 03-08-99 08:36 PM ET  
Judging by the opening move and dialogue as well as the sociological exerpts from the tech screens we are supposedly dealing with a game that deals with colonists who are trying to 'escape the ravages of Earth' and not repeat the same mistakes yet the game's dominant theme is unbridled warfare. Its all smiles for a bit then war, almost as inevitable as the sun rising, is constant between factions for decades until the end of the game. Diplomacy is sidelined in favour of war, economy is sidelined in favour of war. I'll bet its completely impossible to win this game without going to war at least once. This is either a statement of absolute pessimism from Firaxis - even a new world, a new civilization from a United Nations vessel will kill each other with gusto as easily as we do now (these guys may even have been friends on the Unity) or its a lack of thought at what they were setting out to produce. At times the game is thought provoking whilst at others it is a blunt statement that nothing can be achieved without war, destruction and suffering on a global scale. Comments? |
| Brother Greg |
posted 03-08-99 08:45 PM ET
I think it is more a comment on humanity. To quote: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_ |
| Khan Singh |
posted 03-08-99 08:48 PM ET
I agree that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you could complete a game without a war. And more likely you face a number of long and bitter wars. But, given the actual history of Earth, and the polarized nature of the factions, is that so unrealistic? |
| FD |
posted 03-08-99 09:40 PM ET
You wrote: "This is either a statement of absolute pessimism from Firaxis or its a lack of thought at what they were setting out to produce." Actually, it's neither. The fact is, without warfare, the game would not be nearly as much FUN. And the goal, after all, is to entertain. |
| Cat |
posted 03-08-99 09:48 PM ET
Do you REALLY believe that if this scenario did unfold that everyone would kiss and make up for the betterment of mankind's survival. Yeah, right.  |
| yin26 |
posted 03-08-99 10:07 PM ET
It would be very fun if a game like this were devised such that a player could win without ever having produced a war unit or having to fight. Such a design, of course, takes a lot more thought and programming time than essentially asking the computer to figure unit strengths. Did Firaxis fail for not having given us an intelligent, no-violent way to play the whole game? Considering most fans expected war and no other game (?) offers such an option, they produced a standard product. In that respect, I believe they did fail because they had enough time and fan support to give us something much better. |
| Brother Greg |
posted 03-08-99 11:30 PM ET
Well, I'd like to see if it was possible. If you gave in to enemy demands for tech/money/whatever, I tend to imagine that it might be possible, though of course, rather hard to swallow your pride enough to do so (heh, I NEVER give in to their demands). Without ever building a single military unit, even defensive, might be a little bit harder though. With defensive units in place, it would be much easier. Still, I haven't tried it, so maybe it can't be done... Anyone out there tried it? |
| Khan Singh |
posted 03-08-99 11:44 PM ET
Also the opening movie is not the whole story. You might want to download and read the story chapters from the AC home page. Not all the faction leaders are warmongers. CEO Morgan always wants peace, if, perhaps, only so he can conquer market share.Zhakarov just wants to get on with his research. Of course, you are free to run your faction any way you want to. But in SMAC, as in real life, the mere fact that you want peace does not ensure that you'll get it. The British and the French did not want war in 1939. But Hitler had other plans. Frequently, as Morgan or Zhakarov, I find that Chairman Yang has other plans for me. Is this pessimism by Firaxis? Or realism? France and England had really no ideological differences in the Middle Ages, yet they went to war repeatedly. Can we really expect from seven factions with vastly different visions of humanity's future that they will "all just get along"? |
| megaloB |
posted 03-09-99 01:19 AM ET
War is inevitable, making that game just that much more realistic. Especially when you have people with idealogies so drastically different. The Believers have always had a reason to hate the University (what with their unethical experiments and all), and other factions just seem to cancel each other out, meaning the only way for them to resolve differences is to blow the crap out of each other. War is necessary to increase territory and to get more power. The more bases you have, the more votes you get, the better your chance of governor, etc. And I think it's fun relentlessly killing a faction (it's not fun when you're getting the same kind of treatment). Plus, wouldn't you try to kill those you hate on a far-flung alien planet if you were second only to God? I know I would. Another thing is that you always fight with planet. Because Planet attacks without judgement. It doesn't hate or like you. It just wants your brain. |
| PawtheUnstuk |
posted 03-09-99 01:46 AM ET
Err...it is quite possible to win without ever going on the offensive. You will, of course, occasionally need to defend yourself. The other factions will almost inevitably push war on you at some point. But it is quite possible to win without war. It is called the Ascent to Transcendance, and it is upsurdly easy to get. Indeed, I personally find it much easier to get than a conquest victory. LamprosWC PS Some of you need to work on your prose a little bit. I'm not saying mine is all that great, just that you need to work on yours. |
| megaloB |
posted 03-09-99 01:52 AM ET
my english bad. me smash. I don't think Prose really has anything to do with the validity of concerns on the forum. At least me hope it do not. Ascent to Transcendence doesn't require you be on the offensive, but Planet does go upside your head and moolah could be made if you try to take out the hordes of worms that attack. I think transcendence is so easy to get because it's non-violent, and humans are kinda not killing each other like they could be now, so human evolution could very well be to transcend consiousness. But killing all other factions still has it's merits. |
| Zoetrope |
posted 03-09-99 03:04 AM ET
I have a great idea. Non-violent chess, checkers (draughts), and Othello. No bloodshed, so taking pieces isn't allowed. Also a sanitised minesweeper in which mines never explode. And a version of MOO1/2 in which such abominations as mind control, invasions, boarding, and weapons are banned. Hmm, none of these sounds like fun. Why? |
| Oleg Leschoff |
posted 03-09-99 04:16 AM ET
megaloB: I'm sorry for ooftopic but can't keep silence on that. You wrong if you think that it's inpossible to get Transcendance or anything else without fighting with mind-worms. It's very easy. Jusk keep ecodamage at zero and nobody from planet will harm you. When ecodamage not zero, after a while (depends on ecodamage level) you'll get next story part and N well-competent mindworms attacking that base (where N is size of this base, sometimes even more) and some locusts... Funny, but once I've captured them all (without a last patch, though). BTW, I hope, too, that my poor english doesn't covers too much the ideas of my posts, and that it still enables me to post to this forum  |
| anoona |
posted 03-09-99 05:31 AM ET
Very good observation Greyhawk the underlying moral of the gamestory is that nothing is achieved in civilization without going to war. Isn't that a very primitive outlook for our future? I think Brian Reynolds brand of philosophy in game designing isn't fit to emulate a scenario in a game that depicts a future for mankind. Matter-of-fact, he took some stereotypical characters for faction leaders then trivialized the entire process of "colonizing" a future world. And, what is the deal with "Colonizing", the word alone implies war, it's a perpetuation of our lame warmonging history. I hope to god humankinds future don't end up repeating itself,... like the buggy sound effects in SMAC. hehe I don't see how this game got such high rating there must be some really stupid jugdes out there. |
| Oleg Leschoff |
posted 03-09-99 07:24 AM ET
anoona-- Oh yeah. Everybody stupid but you. (it's about ratings). I don't see something so bad in SMAC that you so hate it for. All the human history based on the war. The human species are just an animals with somewhat advanced brain. They are very similar to animals -- they are still utilizes their instincts. These instincts maybe seems too far from being main things that affects human's actions, but in general they ARE the main ones, the advanced intellect of humans is only the servant of the INSTINCT. Of cause, instincts can change, but this will happen only if humanking will live in current conditions many thousands of years (in the evolution process). And one of these instincts drives every human specie to dominate others. So if we look on the time that game performs in, war-oriented siciety is not seems too inpossible. Just look. The humanity was in the war conditions at most of its history. Do you really believe that something has changed in its instincts now? If now things seems to be relatively peaceful, this doesn't mean that it will be on that situation that is on AC according to the storyline. Current situation evolved very long time, and even now it does not seems very stable. On AC, we have seven factions that starts from scratch, every one with its own idealogy. The leaders are mad, maybe even more mad than leaders in current time. And every of them wants expand. I don't think that it's realistic that they will then become friends in this situation. Besides, the beginning of the game does not have some nukes, so in the war there is no that vital statement like we have now; in the end of the game, anyone who uses nukes is becomes everybody's enemy. Every speech-and-mind-free society has destructive element in it. There always will be a part of it wich will want its crash (perhaps, they want rule themself, or they got some idealogy and so on.. In general, look, the crime level is the function of the stability of society). The thing that may deal with this problem is a good government; it's IMHO still possible under democracy, but in this case this is non-trivial task (perhaps in the given conditions)... So, about things we got in AC. If there is no seven factions (just a one), what do you think would happen, keeping in mind that this time would be hard to colonists, and there is no strong government in the first times, and when it's still democratic? Somewhat possible that this might be peaceful, but this is the matter of luck, I think. Anyway, the SMAC is designed based on that story, and, besides, it aims to be FUN. If you don't like this story, perhaps, there's many other games to play, SimCity, for example (I think it's more fun to play it than SMAC without enemies). |
| Oleg Leschoff |
posted 03-09-99 07:25 AM ET
anoona-- Oh yeah. Everybody stupid but you. (it's about ratings). I don't see something so bad in SMAC that you so hate it for. All the human history based on the war. The human species are just an animals with somewhat advanced brain. They are very similar to animals -- they are still utilizes their instincts. These instincts maybe seems too far from being main things that affects human's actions, but in general they ARE the main ones, the advanced intellect of humans is only the servant of the INSTINCT. Of cause, instincts can change, but this will happen only if humanking will live in current conditions many thousands of years (in the evolution process). And one of these instincts drives every human specie to dominate others. So if we look on the time that game performs in, war-oriented siciety is not seems too inpossible. Just look. The humanity was in the war conditions at most of its history. Do you really believe that something has changed in its instincts now? If now things seems to be relatively peaceful, this doesn't mean that it will be on that situation that is on AC according to the storyline. Current situation evolved very long time, and even now it does not seems very stable. On AC, we have seven factions that starts from scratch, every one with its own idealogy. The leaders are mad, maybe even more mad than leaders in current time. And every of them wants expand. I don't think that it's realistic that they will then become friends in this situation. Besides, the beginning of the game does not have some nukes, so in the war there is no that vital statement like we have now; in the end of the game, anyone who uses nukes is becomes everybody's enemy. Every speech-and-mind-free society has destructive element in it. There always will be a part of it wich will want its crash (perhaps, they want rule themself, or they got some idealogy and so on.. In general, look, the crime level is the function of the stability of society). The thing that may deal with this problem is a good government; it's IMHO still possible under democracy, but in this case this is non-trivial task (perhaps in the given conditions)... So, about things we got in AC. If there is no seven factions (just a one), what do you think would happen, keeping in mind that this time would be hard to colonists, and there is no strong government in the first times, and when it's still democratic? Somewhat possible that this might be peaceful, but this is the matter of luck, I think. Anyway, the SMAC is designed based on that story, and, besides, it aims to be FUN. If you don't like this story, perhaps, there's many other games to play, SimCity, for example (I think it's more fun to play it than SMAC without enemies). |
| quizara tafwid |
posted 03-09-99 09:09 AM ET
What it all really boils down to are the Laws of Thermodynamics. To overcome entropy, you have to apply force. It's all just a matter (pun intended ;-) of how it's applied. It can be done through research, economics, or brute strength. Any way it's done is just an application of force (vectored energy). (Hint: e=mc^2) |
| Librarian |
posted 03-09-99 09:18 AM ET
How about playing with "win by conquest" turned off? Then the AI might approach the game differently, minimizing the attack strategies and thereby minimizing your need to build military units other than garrisons. |
| Rigil_Kentaurus |
posted 03-09-99 11:44 AM ET
Yes, it would be more fun if you could complete the game without having to wage war, and you could complete it with only one war if the enemy AI wasn't so incredibly stubborn and refuses to make peace. |
| Greyhawk |
posted 03-09-99 01:54 PM ET
I agree as a game it wouldn't be much fun without the war element in it but why is it so damned central to the theme of the game? Winning without building any units is impossible as you'll lose to mindworms eventually but the AI simply looks at no other alternative - War, thats it. Diplomacy at the start of the game then the demands start and the fighting begins, predictable and so utterly BORING! Exactly the same scenario happened in Civ II, exploration, talking for a bit then out and out total war for the rest of the game. After 2300 you're nearly always at war with at least one faction. The only major difference is the far better way that pacts are handled, pacts actually MEAN something in SMAC whereas in Civ it was just a prelude to war with your allies enemies. If there is going to be a sequel to this game then PLEASE work on the diplomacy angle a bit Firaxis. Right now you know instantly what the outcome of a discussion with another faction will be from the opening dialogue - some factions are so mindlessly predictable that I wonder if any work has gone into their personalities at all Miriam, for instance, simply goes to war, constantly. If you're going to quote Plato, Kant and other towering intellectuals then make the AI so simple it kind of spoils the overall feel of the game. From the outset the goal, to me, seems to be to target the older, more traditional strategists than the C&C real timers yet when it comes to the game's design not much thought is put into how each element of the game fits with the overall scenario. Especially when you put your colonists on 'Eudaimonia', a supposed Utopian existence, and still have thousands killed on the battlefield every day - hardly a Utopian ideal is it. These conflicts occur all the time, the contrast between higher morals, readings from Plato and achieving 'transcendence' and the fact that those very same people are being slaughtered. |
| Rong |
posted 03-09-99 02:43 PM ET
The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, better to keep a division intact than to destroy it, better to keep a battalion intact than to destroy it, better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it. Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful -- those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all. - The Art of Ware, Sun Tsu |
| Rong |
posted 03-09-99 02:43 PM ET
Err, The Art of War. Damn these fingers. |
| GreasyPig |
posted 03-09-99 03:02 PM ET
You can't win without some kind of military. Hell, even if you never got into a war, the mind worms would eat you alive (whether or not you had 0 eco damage). If you want to be able to win with out wars or military the mind worms will need tweeked as well. GreasyPig |
| Beldar |
posted 03-09-99 03:36 PM ET
Greyhawk, I'm not quite following what your problem is. Is it that the AI personalities and goals are too warlike? Then just set up a scenario without Yang, Santiago, and Miriam, since warfare is simply a natural byproduct of their societies. (Only thing you'd have to worry about is a Morganite-Gaian war - maybe you should get rid of one or the other of them too). Or go all the way, and set up a scenario with only one faction on Planet - you know, the mission the UN intended to run. Or is it that the AIs cause wars which are inconsistent with their personalities? You might have a case with Lal, who really is a bit too aggressive for a peacekeeper. |
| CentCent |
posted 03-09-99 03:56 PM ET
Violence is not a means to an end, it is a tool. And humans are, above all, tool users. Politics is defined as the externalization of internal needs. The moment you are born, you have needs. As you grow, you learn how to conquer those needs. The id gives way to the ego, through it's constant war with the superego. 3000 some odd years of civilization will never replace 2 billion years of evolution. And all it takes is one person. If twenty people lay down their arms and preach peace, one person with a weapon can take it all. And if those people do not oppose him, though the violence that he himself uses, then they are lost. So yes. War is a fact of life as we know it. Humans will accumulate physical power. And when they have that power, they want to use it. One man is bigger than his neighbour. So the neighbour gets a sword, to compensate. The first gets a bigger sword. The second gets a horse, from which to swing his sword. Back and forth until both stand poised over the buttons that will cleanse the planet with thermonuclear fire. My dad can beat up your dad. My army can wipe out your army. My cause is more just than your cause. My society is more deserving of existance than your society. Survival is war. All you can do is try to be the one who chooses the battle ground. Samper Servus |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.