Prevent Strange Sociopolitical Combinations

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Prevent Strange Sociopolitical Combinations

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Prevent Strange Sociopolitical Combinations

tOFfGI posted 03-19-99 04:45 AM ET
Here's a suggestion: Put in something to prevent improbable or impossible Social Engineering Combinations. Democracy/Thought Control? Free Market/Eudaimonia? These can't be compatible!
StargazerBC posted 03-19-99 09:07 AM ET
Heh. I love my Democracy/Green/Power/Thought Control. It might not seem to make sense, but every government has it's own ways of implementing the "bread and circus" clause. Anyway, I need the units Thought Control Supports
swampy posted 03-19-99 12:48 PM ET
If there is any feature of SMAC I don't like (and there's really only one), it's the way one is forced to use strange sociopolitical combinations. A player-defined set of values, similar in nature to MOO2, would have been a great feature. Then you could customise your faction and invent a suitable explanation.
SnowFire posted 03-19-99 03:29 PM ET
"Free Market/Eudaimonia? These can't be compatible!"
Hehe... I think it could be done, but why would you want to? You will have already gotten your +1 Energy/square.
I agree that some of the combos are weird, but I don't think they should be outlawed. Me, I have Democracy/Free Market/Knowledge/Thought Control when I haven't discovered another form of government. If you have the Living Refinery, you can really get some awesome results out of that. And again, the designer's aren't stupid- Democracy & Thought Control would send your support to an incredible 2 resources/unit, something pretty hard to sustain without almost every unit being clean.
TBox posted 03-19-99 06:23 PM ET
Democracy/Thought Control: Everyone has an opinion, but for some reason (Prozac rocks), feels no real need to press it. Just go to the elections, vote, accept the outcome. Or maybe they only thought control PART of the populace. "Democracy is rule by the citizen body." White males with property for the longest time. . .maybe you've gotta pass some sorta psych exam b4 they give you a vote and the neurotrigger vaccine.
Free Market/Eudaimonia: Why AREN'T these compatible??? *confused*
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 03-19-99 09:14 PM ET
How about this. Certain government types can't be compatible with future societies.
Hows this sound:
Democracy is averted from Thought Control: For obvious reasons. Would the people really vote to have their minds controlled?
Police State is averted from Eudoamiana(could never spell it right): Eudo gets people to think freely, achieve happiness, and work for the better good. With all these dangerous thoughts in peoples heads, there's a potential for rebellion.
Fundamentalists are averted from Cybernetic: The God fearers would see the robots ruling the society as false Gods. Idols.
That sound ok?
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
SnowFire posted 03-19-99 11:45 PM ET
Sounds acceptable to me.
TBox: tOFfGI is a communist. That explain why he would think they are incompatible?
TBox posted 03-20-99 11:42 AM ET
Communist, eh? Yeah, that does explain it.
I still think you people need Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. There's a section that explains how Greece, the first democracy, had slaves. I reiterate:
Democracy means, literally, rule by the citizen body, which in Greek times meant only the male members of certain exclusive tribes. The rest? Slavery! Or metics. . .So much for history.
So why can't the future be similar? Only the talents get votes, and the drones get neurochemical triggers in their Budweiser.
I'm still trying to find rationalizations for Police Control/Eudaimonia and Cybernetic/Fundamentalist that aren't just variations on the theme, but then again, what's wrong with variation on a theme?
tOFfGI posted 03-20-99 02:19 PM ET
Free market society making only what's necessary and taking the best of everyones ability? Give me a break... I think YYYH's suggetion is good...
MrFlood posted 03-20-99 04:56 PM ET
I disagree with Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey. People in a democracy often vote to have their thoughts controlled. Remember, Hitler was elected by the German people, and look at the resurgent power of the extreme right.
1212 posted 03-20-99 05:25 PM ET
WHats wrong with the strangeness. If the shoe fits wear it, Right?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 03-20-99 06:02 PM ET
MrFlood,
Hitler was a rare instance. Germany was in the gutter, and needed someone strong to pull them out. A democratic government couldn't do this, so they voted Hitler, because he could bring a change. He also brainwashed them pretty damn well.
I think, for the most part, educated people in democracies would not vote to have their thoughts controlled.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
MOCKBa posted 03-20-99 07:57 PM ET
MrFlood,
Adolf Hitler was elected the proper way, and even though the germans should have seen it coming, he did not do his crimes until he was actually elected by the public. Then he started playing dirty with coups, limination of SA-leader and such. But that was not exactly lined out in his campaign for the election. So the Republic of Weimar went from a democracy to a dictatorship. It was never both.
--
MOCKBa
Victor Galis posted 03-20-99 08:42 PM ET
A more appropriate example of a democracy voting against itself is the election of Napoleon III, after which the French voted yes, to disband the parliament, but that's not quite thought control.
As for me, give me my Green Power Cybernetic Police State,
Cop: Are you litering?
Person: Uhh... yes.
Cop: So you think our government make laws for you to break them, eh?
Person: No...
Cop: You're under arrest for high treason against our government, report to the Military Court for your sentencing to death.
mindlace23 posted 03-20-99 08:55 PM ET
Rationale for Fundamentalist/Cybernetic:
I always assumed that fundamentalist just meant extreme support of a certain viewpoint.
Like a Gaian Green/Fundamentalist was a society where being ecological is an absolute imperative.
So Fundamentalist/Cybernetic: The Church of the Industrial God. Machines are greater than mere flesh. The creation of artifacts is man's closest expression of the transcendant. In order to become closer to our final destiny we must become closer to Deux Ex Machina.
Free market fundamentalism also cracks me up.
Shining1 posted 03-20-99 09:43 PM ET
Most of the political combinations are quite likely - especially the useful Freemarket Police state/Knowledge. Just think of a robber baron empire going through a renaisance. Brutal suppression of the populace so that the fat cats can get rich, with an increasing interest in the science of planet. It's these unlikely combinations that make social engineering so interesting - one more of the agonizing either/or choices done so well in the Sid Meier games.
Or a Green police state. If you've ever met some real environmentalists, you'll know all about this one.
The only choices that don't make sense are those that cancel out the benefits of each choice. Like a Knowledge driven fundamentalist society. Okay if you want the meagre +1 efficency +1 morale boost (actually, this could be quite useful for the UoP - Zakarhov has joined a cult).
StargazerBC posted 03-21-99 02:36 PM ET
I doubt there's such a thing as a definite, absolute government form. History, past and present, has shown that government is extremely flexible. It is flexible not because of the government, but the person or people behind the government (the inverse of that is also true). The only thing I really want to complain about is the *lack* of choices in the Social Engineering section. Four (not including beginning) types for each would be cool. And, I would be awestruck if there were five
Btw--There's still no such thing as a Democracy. Practically all "Democratic" countries are actually more like Republics--governed by representatives. Representative Democracy? Parliament Democracy? hum bug. . .Republics.
Shining1 posted 03-21-99 07:43 PM ET
Any suggestions for the other engineering choices?
Politics: Feudalist
Police -3, Support +2, Morale +1
Each city exists more or less as its own entity, favouring self management over the centralised forms of control. Cities tend to rely upon their own citizens for protection from outside forces, and will support a greater military buildup than normally. Conversely, higher ups are reluctant to lend their own soliders to outside endeavours, nor do they tolerate excessive state control over their citizens.

Economy: ??

Values: 'Size'
Growth +2, Effic +2, Econ -1
Etc.
SnowFire posted 03-21-99 11:17 PM ET
Shining1: Actually I wrote up a social engineering set for a French Revolutionary times scenario, that included fuedalism. I think it's pretty accurate. Check it out:
Frontier
Monarchy, ++POLICE, ++SUPPORT, --EFFIC --MORALE
Democratic, ++EFFIC, ++GROWTH, --SUPPORT
Fundamentalist, Brain, +MORALE, ++PROBE, --RESEARCH
Economy
Simple,
Free Market, +++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, ----SUPPORT, ---POLICE
Planned, ++GROWTH, ++INDUSTRY, --POLICE, --PLANET
Feudalistic, +SUPPORT, --ECONOMY, --PROBE, --EFFIC
Values
Survival,
Power, MilAlg, +++MORALE, ++SUPPORT, --INDUSTRY
Control, +PROBE, +POLICE, +INDUSTRY, ---RESEARCH
Wealth, ++INDUSTRY, +ECONOMY, --PROBE
Your Social Engineering would be locked in pre-game. The factions I came up with were:
French- Democracy, Planned, Power SA: Democracy PK�s
British- Monarchy, Free Market, Wealth SA: Monarchy? Morgans
Ottomans- Fundamentalism, Feudalistic, Control SA: Feudalistic Believers
Austrians- Monarchy, None, Control SA: Control Hive
Prussians- Monarchy, Feudalistic, Power SA: Monarchy Spartans
Russians- Monarchy, Feudalistic, None SA: Monarchy University
Sweden/Neutral- Monarchy, None, Wealth SA: Wealth Gaians
Shining1 posted 03-21-99 11:43 PM ET
Snowfire: Feudalist - Ouch! I take it those factions are supposed to be at a serious disadvantage?
Pretty accurate, though indeed. The ---Support for free market especially. The british populace really had no interest in sustain an army during that time period - the "nation of shop keepers", as napolean called them.
tOFfGI posted 03-22-99 08:11 AM ET
I thought of replacing a whole series of, say, "Future Society", with Military service values (It was in an early design feature, and I liked it). Here are the Ideas:
Militia: None
Conscripted: -2 Morale, +2 Industry, +1 Support
Elite: +3 Morale, -2 Industry
Pacifist: -4 Morale, -5 Police, +3 Industry, +3 Economy, +2 Efficiency, +2 Planet
What do you think?
Are you making a revolution scenario? Darn. So am I. Well, at least mine isn't a french one, but a futuristic one ...
agoraphobe posted 03-22-99 09:58 AM ET
In game terms, there really is no contradiction between Fundamentalism and Cybernetic. Recall Miriam's quote: "..the streets were never evil". Believers have nothing against intelligent _machines_, only intelligent humans. Of course, if you're playing the Believers correctly, you or anyone else will never get near the tech required for Cybernetic, anyway. )
A correction on Hitler: The Nazis were never elected to supreme power, nor did they ever garner a majority of votes in any election. Instead, Hitler was manuvered into the Chancellorship by a backroom cabal of conservative politicians (Von Papen et al), who wheighed in on the doddering President, Hindenburg, to _appoint_ Hitler to high office. Thus, unlike most chancellors, Hitler didn't even have to secure a majority of the Reichstag. The reason behind this manuver was the fact that the Nazis had already peaked in terms of their popular votes at the same time that the German Social Democratic party (the same one that runs Germany today) was in almost complete collapse, with the German Communist party picking up a lot of electoral steam as a result. These conservative politicians, ideologically not dissimiliar to the right wing of the American Republican party, were in a panic to head off the "threat of Bolshevism", i.e., of the leftward lurch of a significant part of the working class electorate in Germany in 1932, before the Nazis became just another passing right-wing populist fad. Their mistake was to underestimate "the corporal", whom they thought they could "control" while aiding and abetting the Nazis' brutal suppression of socialists, communists (the Nazis, like all rightwingers, think all 'pinkos' are the same) and independent trade unions, who, as any visitor to the first concentration camp a Dachau can verify, were all rounded up, imprisoned and/or executed well before the Nazis turned to the "final solution" to the Jewish question.
In any case, this is all well documented in numerous historical studies, the most accessable of which is probably William Shirers' classic account, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
Finally, fascist regimes such as the Nazis are hardly an anomalic result of the modern republican form of government. They're really a product of a flaw in republicanism, not "democracy", which does not exist anywhere, anyhow.
DerekM posted 03-22-99 11:19 AM ET
I don't think that any of the combinations is unreasonable. For an example of something similar to a Fundamentalist/Cybernetic type of society, take a look at the Catholic church in Dan Simmons' Hyperion series (at least the last two books).
Today's Malaysia looks to me like a democratic police state. The government supresses dissent, but it is still technically possible for another party to win an election.
Democracy and thought control would be a truly insideous combination. If the people vote for what they want, how could say it wasn't a democracy? The voters would certainly percieve it that way. However, if rulers controlled what their followers wanted, then they could have control without being "undemocratic." Politicians today manipulate perceptions using the media. At what point does persuasion become thought control?
For a lot of Americans, having a Green party that would have a police state seems bizarre, but the European Green parties are a lot more powerful and even militant than anything in the US of A. I could see eco-fascists.
Free market eudaimonia? How about the puppeteers from Larry Niven's Known Space novels? They had more then enough to provide for every member of their species -- but they were definitely free marketeers with the rest of the galaxy. Even their deepest secrets were for sale, albeit for prices that nobody could afford to pay. I could see a block that trades heavily with OTHER groups, but treats its own members (at least the elites) as equal members of their own private utopia.
SnowFire posted 03-22-99 01:52 PM ET
Agoraphobe: You're absolutely right, they brought Hitler in themselves because they were afraid of the commies and underestimated him. As everyone always seemed to do to Hitler.
tOFfGI: I think that you might want to change "Conscripted" to -2 Morale +2 Support +1 Industry instead. That might be a bit less desireable, but a tad more realistic...
Shining1 posted 03-22-99 05:50 PM ET
toFfGI: I like the Future Society, thanks. And I think your pacifists -4 morale makes it a very unrealistic choice for a proper game of SMAC.
I did like Stargazers idea of extending the social choices, however. Easy to do, as well, since you can just change the current four button 'must select one' array to four choices, which can be clicked on or off.
Anyone got any more ideas for future societies? I was kinda thinking that Anarchy might be a good one:
Anarchy
-2 Police -2 Industry +2 Morale +3 Probe
Your society has failed to survive the stresses and strains of future existance, and now exists more or less in a state of continual anarchy. Industry and control of your populace both suffer under this climate of general disorder, but your tough citizens and constantly changing political scene make your society almost immune to outside influence.
Sort of like a Blade runner/Dark City type setting. And as a social engineering choice!
Borodino posted 03-22-99 06:51 PM ET
StargazerBC
>Btw--There's still no such thing as a >Democracy. Practically all "Democratic" >countries are actually more like Republics-->governed by representatives. Representative >Democracy? Parliament Democracy? hum bug. . >.Republics.
I respectfully submit that your terminology is mixed up.
1) A republic is a nation-state whose head-of-state is not a hereditary posistion. A dictatorship can be a republic [a la the former USSR]. A monarchy cannot.
2) A democracy is a form of government in which the people, directly or indirectly, are the ultimate source of political power.

3) A representative democracy is one in which the people elect representives as proxies of political power; as opposed to a direct democracy, where the people, well, directly vote on issues and control the government.
4) A parlaimentary system is one without seperation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches; as opposed to a presidential system, where seperation of powers exists. Another major difference between these two systems is that in a parlaimentary the head-of-state and head-of-govt are often different persons, while in a presidential system, they are often the same.
ViVicdi posted 03-23-99 01:22 AM ET
"Democracy / Thought Control" sure gives "Spin Doctor" a whole new meaning ...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Prevent Strange Sociopolitical Combinations
tOFfGI	posted 03-19-99 04:45 AM ET Here's a suggestion: Put in something to prevent improbable or impossible Social Engineering Combinations. Democracy/Thought Control? Free Market/Eudaimonia? These can't be compatible!
StargazerBC	posted 03-19-99 09:07 AM ET Heh. I love my Democracy/Green/Power/Thought Control. It might not seem to make sense, but every government has it's own ways of implementing the "bread and circus" clause. Anyway, I need the units Thought Control Supports
swampy	posted 03-19-99 12:48 PM ET If there is any feature of SMAC I don't like (and there's really only one), it's the way one is forced to use strange sociopolitical combinations. A player-defined set of values, similar in nature to MOO2, would have been a great feature. Then you could customise your faction and invent a suitable explanation.
SnowFire	posted 03-19-99 03:29 PM ET "Free Market/Eudaimonia? These can't be compatible!" Hehe... I think it could be done, but why would you want to? You will have already gotten your +1 Energy/square. I agree that some of the combos are weird, but I don't think they should be outlawed. Me, I have Democracy/Free Market/Knowledge/Thought Control when I haven't discovered another form of government. If you have the Living Refinery, you can really get some awesome results out of that. And again, the designer's aren't stupid- Democracy & Thought Control would send your support to an incredible 2 resources/unit, something pretty hard to sustain without almost every unit being clean.
TBox	posted 03-19-99 06:23 PM ET Democracy/Thought Control: Everyone has an opinion, but for some reason (Prozac rocks), feels no real need to press it. Just go to the elections, vote, accept the outcome. Or maybe they only thought control PART of the populace. "Democracy is rule by the citizen body." White males with property for the longest time. . .maybe you've gotta pass some sorta psych exam b4 they give you a vote and the neurotrigger vaccine. Free Market/Eudaimonia: Why AREN'T these compatible??? confused
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 03-19-99 09:14 PM ET How about this. Certain government types can't be compatible with future societies. Hows this sound: Democracy is averted from Thought Control: For obvious reasons. Would the people really vote to have their minds controlled? Police State is averted from Eudoamiana(could never spell it right): Eudo gets people to think freely, achieve happiness, and work for the better good. With all these dangerous thoughts in peoples heads, there's a potential for rebellion. Fundamentalists are averted from Cybernetic: The God fearers would see the robots ruling the society as false Gods. Idols. That sound ok? Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
SnowFire	posted 03-19-99 11:45 PM ET Sounds acceptable to me. TBox: tOFfGI is a communist. That explain why he would think they are incompatible?
TBox	posted 03-20-99 11:42 AM ET Communist, eh? Yeah, that does explain it. I still think you people need Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. There's a section that explains how Greece, the first democracy, had slaves. I reiterate: Democracy means, literally, rule by the citizen body, which in Greek times meant only the male members of certain exclusive tribes. The rest? Slavery! Or metics. . .So much for history. So why can't the future be similar? Only the talents get votes, and the drones get neurochemical triggers in their Budweiser. I'm still trying to find rationalizations for Police Control/Eudaimonia and Cybernetic/Fundamentalist that aren't just variations on the theme, but then again, what's wrong with variation on a theme?
tOFfGI	posted 03-20-99 02:19 PM ET Free market society making only what's necessary and taking the best of everyones ability? Give me a break... I think YYYH's suggetion is good...
MrFlood	posted 03-20-99 04:56 PM ET I disagree with Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey. People in a democracy often vote to have their thoughts controlled. Remember, Hitler was elected by the German people, and look at the resurgent power of the extreme right.
1212	posted 03-20-99 05:25 PM ET WHats wrong with the strangeness. If the shoe fits wear it, Right?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 03-20-99 06:02 PM ET MrFlood, Hitler was a rare instance. Germany was in the gutter, and needed someone strong to pull them out. A democratic government couldn't do this, so they voted Hitler, because he could bring a change. He also brainwashed them pretty damn well. I think, for the most part, educated people in democracies would not vote to have their thoughts controlled. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
MOCKBa	posted 03-20-99 07:57 PM ET MrFlood, Adolf Hitler was elected the proper way, and even though the germans should have seen it coming, he did not do his crimes until he was actually elected by the public. Then he started playing dirty with coups, limination of SA-leader and such. But that was not exactly lined out in his campaign for the election. So the Republic of Weimar went from a democracy to a dictatorship. It was never both. -- MOCKBa
Victor Galis	posted 03-20-99 08:42 PM ET A more appropriate example of a democracy voting against itself is the election of Napoleon III, after which the French voted yes, to disband the parliament, but that's not quite thought control. As for me, give me my Green Power Cybernetic Police State, Cop: Are you litering? Person: Uhh... yes. Cop: So you think our government make laws for you to break them, eh? Person: No... Cop: You're under arrest for high treason against our government, report to the Military Court for your sentencing to death.
mindlace23	posted 03-20-99 08:55 PM ET Rationale for Fundamentalist/Cybernetic: I always assumed that fundamentalist just meant extreme support of a certain viewpoint. Like a Gaian Green/Fundamentalist was a society where being ecological is an absolute imperative. So Fundamentalist/Cybernetic: The Church of the Industrial God. Machines are greater than mere flesh. The creation of artifacts is man's closest expression of the transcendant. In order to become closer to our final destiny we must become closer to Deux Ex Machina. Free market fundamentalism also cracks me up.
Shining1	posted 03-20-99 09:43 PM ET Most of the political combinations are quite likely - especially the useful Freemarket Police state/Knowledge. Just think of a robber baron empire going through a renaisance. Brutal suppression of the populace so that the fat cats can get rich, with an increasing interest in the science of planet. It's these unlikely combinations that make social engineering so interesting - one more of the agonizing either/or choices done so well in the Sid Meier games. Or a Green police state. If you've ever met some real environmentalists, you'll know all about this one. The only choices that don't make sense are those that cancel out the benefits of each choice. Like a Knowledge driven fundamentalist society. Okay if you want the meagre +1 efficency +1 morale boost (actually, this could be quite useful for the UoP - Zakarhov has joined a cult).
StargazerBC	posted 03-21-99 02:36 PM ET I doubt there's such a thing as a definite, absolute government form. History, past and present, has shown that government is extremely flexible. It is flexible not because of the government, but the person or people behind the government (the inverse of that is also true). The only thing I really want to complain about is the lack of choices in the Social Engineering section. Four (not including beginning) types for each would be cool. And, I would be awestruck if there were five Btw--There's still no such thing as a Democracy. Practically all "Democratic" countries are actually more like Republics--governed by representatives. Representative Democracy? Parliament Democracy? hum bug. . .Republics.
Shining1	posted 03-21-99 07:43 PM ET Any suggestions for the other engineering choices? Politics: Feudalist Police -3, Support +2, Morale +1 Each city exists more or less as its own entity, favouring self management over the centralised forms of control. Cities tend to rely upon their own citizens for protection from outside forces, and will support a greater military buildup than normally. Conversely, higher ups are reluctant to lend their own soliders to outside endeavours, nor do they tolerate excessive state control over their citizens. Economy: ?? Values: 'Size' Growth +2, Effic +2, Econ -1 Etc.
SnowFire	posted 03-21-99 11:17 PM ET Shining1: Actually I wrote up a social engineering set for a French Revolutionary times scenario, that included fuedalism. I think it's pretty accurate. Check it out: Frontier Monarchy, ++POLICE, ++SUPPORT, --EFFIC --MORALE Democratic, ++EFFIC, ++GROWTH, --SUPPORT Fundamentalist, Brain, +MORALE, ++PROBE, --RESEARCH Economy Simple, Free Market, +++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, ----SUPPORT, ---POLICE Planned, ++GROWTH, ++INDUSTRY, --POLICE, --PLANET Feudalistic, +SUPPORT, --ECONOMY, --PROBE, --EFFIC Values Survival, Power, MilAlg, +++MORALE, ++SUPPORT, --INDUSTRY Control, +PROBE, +POLICE, +INDUSTRY, ---RESEARCH Wealth, ++INDUSTRY, +ECONOMY, --PROBE Your Social Engineering would be locked in pre-game. The factions I came up with were: French- Democracy, Planned, Power SA: Democracy PK�s British- Monarchy, Free Market, Wealth SA: Monarchy? Morgans Ottomans- Fundamentalism, Feudalistic, Control SA: Feudalistic Believers Austrians- Monarchy, None, Control SA: Control Hive Prussians- Monarchy, Feudalistic, Power SA: Monarchy Spartans Russians- Monarchy, Feudalistic, None SA: Monarchy University Sweden/Neutral- Monarchy, None, Wealth SA: Wealth Gaians
Shining1	posted 03-21-99 11:43 PM ET Snowfire: Feudalist - Ouch! I take it those factions are supposed to be at a serious disadvantage? Pretty accurate, though indeed. The ---Support for free market especially. The british populace really had no interest in sustain an army during that time period - the "nation of shop keepers", as napolean called them.
tOFfGI	posted 03-22-99 08:11 AM ET I thought of replacing a whole series of, say, "Future Society", with Military service values (It was in an early design feature, and I liked it). Here are the Ideas: Militia: None Conscripted: -2 Morale, +2 Industry, +1 Support Elite: +3 Morale, -2 Industry Pacifist: -4 Morale, -5 Police, +3 Industry, +3 Economy, +2 Efficiency, +2 Planet What do you think? Are you making a revolution scenario? Darn. So am I. Well, at least mine isn't a french one, but a futuristic one ...
agoraphobe	posted 03-22-99 09:58 AM ET In game terms, there really is no contradiction between Fundamentalism and Cybernetic. Recall Miriam's quote: "..the streets were never evil". Believers have nothing against intelligent _machines_, only intelligent humans. Of course, if you're playing the Believers correctly, you or anyone else will never get near the tech required for Cybernetic, anyway. ) A correction on Hitler: The Nazis were never elected to supreme power, nor did they ever garner a majority of votes in any election. Instead, Hitler was manuvered into the Chancellorship by a backroom cabal of conservative politicians (Von Papen et al), who wheighed in on the doddering President, Hindenburg, to _appoint_ Hitler to high office. Thus, unlike most chancellors, Hitler didn't even have to secure a majority of the Reichstag. The reason behind this manuver was the fact that the Nazis had already peaked in terms of their popular votes at the same time that the German Social Democratic party (the same one that runs Germany today) was in almost complete collapse, with the German Communist party picking up a lot of electoral steam as a result. These conservative politicians, ideologically not dissimiliar to the right wing of the American Republican party, were in a panic to head off the "threat of Bolshevism", i.e., of the leftward lurch of a significant part of the working class electorate in Germany in 1932, before the Nazis became just another passing right-wing populist fad. Their mistake was to underestimate "the corporal", whom they thought they could "control" while aiding and abetting the Nazis' brutal suppression of socialists, communists (the Nazis, like all rightwingers, think all 'pinkos' are the same) and independent trade unions, who, as any visitor to the first concentration camp a Dachau can verify, were all rounded up, imprisoned and/or executed well before the Nazis turned to the "final solution" to the Jewish question. In any case, this is all well documented in numerous historical studies, the most accessable of which is probably William Shirers' classic account, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Finally, fascist regimes such as the Nazis are hardly an anomalic result of the modern republican form of government. They're really a product of a flaw in republicanism, not "democracy", which does not exist anywhere, anyhow.
DerekM	posted 03-22-99 11:19 AM ET I don't think that any of the combinations is unreasonable. For an example of something similar to a Fundamentalist/Cybernetic type of society, take a look at the Catholic church in Dan Simmons' Hyperion series (at least the last two books). Today's Malaysia looks to me like a democratic police state. The government supresses dissent, but it is still technically possible for another party to win an election. Democracy and thought control would be a truly insideous combination. If the people vote for what they want, how could say it wasn't a democracy? The voters would certainly percieve it that way. However, if rulers controlled what their followers wanted, then they could have control without being "undemocratic." Politicians today manipulate perceptions using the media. At what point does persuasion become thought control? For a lot of Americans, having a Green party that would have a police state seems bizarre, but the European Green parties are a lot more powerful and even militant than anything in the US of A. I could see eco-fascists. Free market eudaimonia? How about the puppeteers from Larry Niven's Known Space novels? They had more then enough to provide for every member of their species -- but they were definitely free marketeers with the rest of the galaxy. Even their deepest secrets were for sale, albeit for prices that nobody could afford to pay. I could see a block that trades heavily with OTHER groups, but treats its own members (at least the elites) as equal members of their own private utopia.
SnowFire	posted 03-22-99 01:52 PM ET Agoraphobe: You're absolutely right, they brought Hitler in themselves because they were afraid of the commies and underestimated him. As everyone always seemed to do to Hitler. tOFfGI: I think that you might want to change "Conscripted" to -2 Morale +2 Support +1 Industry instead. That might be a bit less desireable, but a tad more realistic...
Shining1	posted 03-22-99 05:50 PM ET toFfGI: I like the Future Society, thanks. And I think your pacifists -4 morale makes it a very unrealistic choice for a proper game of SMAC. I did like Stargazers idea of extending the social choices, however. Easy to do, as well, since you can just change the current four button 'must select one' array to four choices, which can be clicked on or off. Anyone got any more ideas for future societies? I was kinda thinking that Anarchy might be a good one: Anarchy -2 Police -2 Industry +2 Morale +3 Probe Your society has failed to survive the stresses and strains of future existance, and now exists more or less in a state of continual anarchy. Industry and control of your populace both suffer under this climate of general disorder, but your tough citizens and constantly changing political scene make your society almost immune to outside influence. Sort of like a Blade runner/Dark City type setting. And as a social engineering choice!
Borodino	posted 03-22-99 06:51 PM ET StargazerBC >Btw--There's still no such thing as a >Democracy. Practically all "Democratic" >countries are actually more like Republics-->governed by representatives. Representative >Democracy? Parliament Democracy? hum bug. . >.Republics. I respectfully submit that your terminology is mixed up. 1) A republic is a nation-state whose head-of-state is not a hereditary posistion. A dictatorship can be a republic [a la the former USSR]. A monarchy cannot. 2) A democracy is a form of government in which the people, directly or indirectly, are the ultimate source of political power. 3) A representative democracy is one in which the people elect representives as proxies of political power; as opposed to a direct democracy, where the people, well, directly vote on issues and control the government. 4) A parlaimentary system is one without seperation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches; as opposed to a presidential system, where seperation of powers exists. Another major difference between these two systems is that in a parlaimentary the head-of-state and head-of-govt are often different persons, while in a presidential system, they are often the same.
ViVicdi	posted 03-23-99 01:22 AM ET "Democracy / Thought Control" sure gives "Spin Doctor" a whole new meaning ...