An actual SMAC thread! (idea, too late, but...)

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  An actual SMAC thread! (idea, too late, but...)

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   An actual SMAC thread! (idea, too late, but...)

CClark posted 12-10-98 04:06 PM ET
I just had an idea which will no doubt be too late for SMAC, but with any luck could make it into SMAC II in a half-decade.
This idea actually ties in some of the off-topic threads (they were the inspiration).
At random points throughout the game, a moral question would popup with a couple of choices that would have an influence on gameplay.
For instance: You are playing Santiago so a box pops up saying: One of your most trusted captains, a decorated and well-loved war hero, is caught sending non-vital yet still classified information to Morgon. Do you:
(a) Quietly give him a reprimand and demote him?
(b) Banish him?
(c) Publicly execute him?
I read somewhere that you will be able to modify your faction's ideology over time. Events like this would fit into something like this. If you choose option (c) for instance, it might nudge you a little towards being a police state. If you choose option (a) it might nudge you in the opposite direction.
The game implications would also depend on the faction you are playing. The PK's going with a public execution would have a different affect than the Hive opting for execution.
I wouldn't picture a lot of these events happening. Maybe three or four per game, per player. I think it would be in keeping with Sid&Brian's design philosophy of challenging the player and making them think.
Feel free to use this thread to post your opinions of the idea, or moral dilemas that could be used in the game.
CClark posted 12-10-98 04:10 PM ET
- Cultists
Your internal intelligence has discovered an organized cult that is worshipping Chiron as a god. They have forsaken all Earth religions and now practice Planet worship akin to the ancient Wikkan/Druidic religions.
(a) let them continue
(b) meet with their leader to work things out
(c) hunt them down and imprison all for heresay, trying to convert them back to Christianity
(d) hunt them down and kill them before their poison spreads
[This dilema inspired by the various off-topic religion threads. The original dilema was inspired by the various Capital Punishment threads.]
Hothram Upravda posted 12-10-98 05:57 PM ET
This is a really good idea. Would make the shaping of the culture much more interesting. Would also give more depth to the people of your nation.
Hothram Upravda
TB
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-10-98 06:46 PM ET
That's an excellent idea! I wish it could be in SMAC, it would certainly make gameplay more interesting, & allow more randomness to occur in the game. Good thinking CClark!
I personally would pick option A for the Spartan one.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
DHE_X2 posted 12-10-98 06:55 PM ET
It probably wouldn't take alot of programming to add, either. At the very best we could expect to see this as a patch, since the games is, for all intents and purposes, done.
A meteor has just landed in the nursery.
What do you do?
a. Let the children die, keep colonists safe by not risking lives.
b. Send in rescue team to save the children.
c. Lead a rescue team to save the children.
A new technology has been developed that would allow the recycling of organic material.
What do you do?
a Euthanise the old and disabled.
b Eliminate all convicted criminals
c Use instead of traditional burial
d Use only for nonhuman organic material
CClark posted 12-10-98 11:19 PM ET
Two good possibilities DHE, although the meteor one would have to be a really small meteor. Just seems a little statistically slim. But I really like the second one! "Euthanise the old and disabled." There's a good dilemma if ever there was one!
SnowFire posted 12-10-98 11:32 PM ET
A group has arisen in your faction demanding for your borders to be opened with faction ______, who you used to be at war with. This includes traders who want to make more money. They dislike the current "borders closed except to diplomats" stance. What do you do?
A. Silently order your secret service to censor publications like these <move toward a police state>
B. Let the protesters whine all they want, but you keep the borders closed <slightly increased civil unrest in towns near border>
C. Hold a referendum on the topic <you now have no say in it, and take the bonuses/penalities if approved, and you move toward democracy>
D. Grant the request <Increased trade, more moeny, but easier infiltration, unhappiness in event of war with said power>
Shining1 posted 12-10-98 11:40 PM ET
Certainly an interesting idea, and I think with more than a potential for inclusion.
I like the idea of dealing with high ranking staff in this manner - it gets you personally involved in the game. Assassination could become a minor worry if you kept executing your cabinet for minor failings.
CClark posted 12-11-98 01:44 AM ET
Shining1, that gives me an idea for a dilemma...
There is an opportunity presented by a mysterious third party to assassinate a top-ranking researcher/military figure/businessman (as appropriate) from faction X. There is a 50% chance that you will get away with it. There is a 25% chance that you will get away with it, but your population will find out and a 25% chance that the whole thing will blow up in your face. Do you:
- order the execution and live with the results
- expose the person who offered you the chance assassinate the individual
- pretend nothing ever happened
Old_Guy posted 12-11-98 02:37 AM ET
This thread reminds me of the RPG called Arena. Before you created a character you answered a bunch of multiple choice moral dilemma questions and would recommend a character class after you answered all the questions.
While this is more basic than what's being thrown around in this thread, I think it would be kind of cool if the game could at least recommend a faction to use based on questions you answer at the beginning of the game.
Gord McLeod posted 12-11-98 05:43 AM ET
Sounds a lot like the Avatar games in the Ultima series where your representative character's class was assigned based on your answers to a series of moral questions. Each class had a representative virtue, so whichever virtue you expressed the most often during the question phase determined the class you would play in the game.
MikeH II posted 12-11-98 09:43 AM ET
Sounds like a great idea. If SMAC has events similar to CivII in later add-ons and the game is as customiseable as we've heard then an event which triggers a dialogue box with the results effecting diplomatic relations and political ideology might not be too hard to implement. You could even prevent people from choosing certain policies if they keep acting against them with every decision.
CClark posted 12-11-98 12:26 PM ET
Another dilemma occured to me. Eugenics (I think that's the right term...)
It is discovered after several generations that a member of your faction was carrying a genetic flaw that makes children "normal" until age 10 to 13 and then they quickly get sick and die. Do you:
- allow this to spread, taking no action?
- steralize everyone that is a carrier so that it can't be passed on?
- ask people who are carriers to voluntarily refrain from having children?
- ask people who are carriers to allow for examination of the fetus to see if they have the defective gene, and if they do, abort the fetus?
Not exactly sure what effects this would have on gameplay, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
On the flip side, here's one that's Hive-specific:
A child prodigy is born and at age 5 he's intellecutally equivalent to a 30 year old. Do you:
- honour the system that everyone is equal and give the child no special treatment?
- make an exception and treat this child as special?
- kill the child as s/he may prove to be too much of a free-thinker and be a disruption to society?
Octopus posted 12-11-98 12:39 PM ET
"everyone is equal"
There are several different points of view about what the Hive stands for. My view is that the Hive values specialization, so the child, as long as he was devoted to the principles of the Hive, would be accepted. I think the option in my understanding of the Hive would be "Honor the system, and give the child as much training as he could handle to make him as productive as possible". Besides, the Hive doesn't KILL free-thinkers, we have other ways...
I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but I think that these sorts of issues might be too low-level for a grand strategic game like SMAC. I think they might be disruptive to gameplay. Also, unless there were a LOT of them, they'd probably get repetitive. Buy, that's just my opinion...
BoomBoom posted 12-11-98 02:17 PM ET
about the eugenics dilemma, you could also use gene therapy to cure the genetic disease in the foetus. It is already possible, and it will be IMHO common place in about twenty years.
Jason Beaudoin posted 12-11-98 02:34 PM ET
This is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a long time! I like it!
The Thomas A Stobie posted 12-11-98 04:17 PM ET
Ok, here is one for you then
Your legislative body has become like the American Congress in the 1990s.
Do you
(1) Reform your constitution to address the abuses
(2) Give your congress to another faction to help them (This is will be counted as commting an atrocity).
(3) Bribe them into submission.
(4) Have your covert agents take care of it in a not so subtle manner (assassinations, etc.)
(5) Broadcast their debates on factionwide television as comedy.
(6) Use a firm hand (backed up with power) on the media to influence public behavior to get congress to do what you want.
(7) Load up all your good people onto the next colonization mission and escape the situation.
(8) Secretly organize a coup of the government who will to the surprise of many restore your old position to you after wiping out the congress.
CClark posted 12-12-98 12:55 AM ET
Similar to my initial dilemma:
You discover that one of your researchers is a spy and has been sending sensitive information to the other factions:
- execute him as an example
- imprison him for life
- mve them to another project (which is fake) and allow them to continue unmolested sending false information out
MikeH II posted 12-13-98 07:12 AM ET
The general concept of playing with factions within you own government could add a lot to any game. I hope something like this can be implemented in a future release.
SnowFire posted 12-13-98 05:00 PM ET
Better yet CClark: Do the give fake information option, but the person knows its fake. Because some SS goons came to their house and explained to them in the most polite terms possible that the jig was up and he was going to work for us now, or die. They arrange a transfer, the scientist is watched everywhere he goes, and he sends lots of false data back home.
TAS: Don't get caught up thinking that things used to be better. The War of 1812 was approved over the objections of Congessmen by making the fillbuster/vote last for 3 days and eventually pouring liquor down the anti-war congressmen's throats, in some cases. We aren't quite at that level.
"Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, except for all the others." -Winston Churchill
CClark posted 12-18-98 11:43 PM ET
This is completely, entirely selfish, but, um... just wondering if anyone of the revered Firaxians read this thread and if they did, what did you think? (I figured it was worth asking now since they are almost done with the game and demo now.)
Feel free to enjoy your weekend first though! You deserve it.
Terran18 posted 12-19-98 04:18 PM ET
They dont have to be out of the blue and unrelated to the current game.
(ie: One of the Factions has just taken over a neutral City on your southern border, some citizens have escaped and are asking for asylum in one of your cities.
Do you:
a) Send them away
b) Capture them and return to the attacking faction to increase relations with them
c) Hold as bargining tools to get new technologies from their government
d) Allow them to enter and treat as guest until their government can come to reclaim them
CClark posted 12-20-98 02:07 AM ET
Good point Terran18. I like the example too!
Centaurion posted 12-20-98 08:02 AM ET
I think that was one of the best so far!
DJ RRebel posted 12-20-98 09:01 AM ET
I think I'm the only one who doesn't like this idea !!!
Mind you, it sounds awsome for what Old_Guy said .. if it was at the begining of the game, to help you find what faction suits your personality, but I see it really getting in the way of game play !!!
What kind of changes were you talking about ??? Making a faction go from 100% UoP into 75% UoP & 25% Hive ???
That just doesn't make sense, the difference between the factions is in how they are set up in stances (politics, economics etc etc) ... each stance has 4 options, to change any option will change the faction outright .. you would get the same effect simply from changing your settings !!!
The concequenses of your answers to these questions are a little too simple for the game. I mean .. who cares about one political decision, the way you deal with it is already defined by you faction settings !!!
I think it's a neat idea, but I also see it causing more confusion and complexity than anything else !!! It's a great idea, but not for SMAC !!!
I mean, it's a global conquest strategy game, not a choose your own advanture dimplomatic simulator !!!
Yet, if it was done Old-Guy's way, at the start of the game, I think that would be really cool !!!
You would get points in certain catagories depending on how you answered the questions .. then the game would convert your points into your faction !!!
It would be like a personality test to create a faction for you !!!
I recommend you check out the Keirsey personality test ... I have a link to it on my web site (the commercial links section), it basically breaks people down into one of 16 catagories, all strong in some things but weak in others, all of them are good in their own ways !!!
For SMAC 2, it would be cool if Firaxis put in a similar test at the begining of the game to put you into one of 16 factions !!! I still think putting it in the middle of the game would be kinda pointless though .. in theory, your personality shouldn't change during the game .. and even if it did, you could just change your settings and get precisely what you want !!!
I can't remember the address for the site of hand, but go to the "Commercial Links" section of my web site !!!
my site: HTTP://listen.to/rebel
CClark posted 12-20-98 01:07 PM ET
DJ - the reason that I suggested it is that I was under the impression taht you will be able to change your faction's views during the game. Depending on what Secret Projects and technology you build/research, I think you can actually shift your faction around. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works.
The kind of events I'm talking about are also the highly public ones. I mean, the whole Clinton thing has had to have had SOME kind of effect on the general American psyche, no? I wasn't talking about HUGE shifts in a faction. But at the same time, I was talking about setting faction policy through actions, so changes could be brought about that way.
Originally your 8th faction was for Canucks. But at some point you made a decision to all non-Canucks in. That changed your faction. You also decided to start assimiliating people (Roland) and that also set a policy for your faction and changed it from what it was. That's the kind of thing I was talking about.
WCT posted 12-29-98 05:18 PM ET
Well...looking at the Factions page, they *are* saying something about putting up an interactive questionnaire to determine what faction is best for you. Maybe they could ship this questionnaire (perhaps as-is for use with the customer's browser, perhaps recoded into the game itself, perhaps on paper - either as part of the game manual or a separate document) with the product?
ObQuestion:
One of your scientists (title as appropriate for the faction) has come up with an idea for (X - see below), and wishes to transfer to working on it full time instead of (fill in tech you're currently researching). Your other scientists find the chance of sucess remote, and refuse to work on the project. Do you:
A. Publically denounce and/or execute the scientist.
B. Allow the research to proceed.
C. Order the scientist to work on (current research project) and forget this idea.
This can be used for any game-unbalancing, or just plain unimplemented, technology. Just fill in, say, "Telepathy" or "Quantum Tunneling Propulsion" for X.
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: An actual SMAC thread! (idea, too late, but...)
CClark	posted 12-10-98 04:06 PM ET I just had an idea which will no doubt be too late for SMAC, but with any luck could make it into SMAC II in a half-decade. This idea actually ties in some of the off-topic threads (they were the inspiration). At random points throughout the game, a moral question would popup with a couple of choices that would have an influence on gameplay. For instance: You are playing Santiago so a box pops up saying: One of your most trusted captains, a decorated and well-loved war hero, is caught sending non-vital yet still classified information to Morgon. Do you: (a) Quietly give him a reprimand and demote him? (b) Banish him? (c) Publicly execute him? I read somewhere that you will be able to modify your faction's ideology over time. Events like this would fit into something like this. If you choose option (c) for instance, it might nudge you a little towards being a police state. If you choose option (a) it might nudge you in the opposite direction. The game implications would also depend on the faction you are playing. The PK's going with a public execution would have a different affect than the Hive opting for execution. I wouldn't picture a lot of these events happening. Maybe three or four per game, per player. I think it would be in keeping with Sid&Brian's design philosophy of challenging the player and making them think. Feel free to use this thread to post your opinions of the idea, or moral dilemas that could be used in the game.
CClark	posted 12-10-98 04:10 PM ET - Cultists Your internal intelligence has discovered an organized cult that is worshipping Chiron as a god. They have forsaken all Earth religions and now practice Planet worship akin to the ancient Wikkan/Druidic religions. (a) let them continue (b) meet with their leader to work things out (c) hunt them down and imprison all for heresay, trying to convert them back to Christianity (d) hunt them down and kill them before their poison spreads [This dilema inspired by the various off-topic religion threads. The original dilema was inspired by the various Capital Punishment threads.]
Hothram Upravda	posted 12-10-98 05:57 PM ET This is a really good idea. Would make the shaping of the culture much more interesting. Would also give more depth to the people of your nation. Hothram Upravda TB
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-10-98 06:46 PM ET That's an excellent idea! I wish it could be in SMAC, it would certainly make gameplay more interesting, & allow more randomness to occur in the game. Good thinking CClark! I personally would pick option A for the Spartan one. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
DHE_X2	posted 12-10-98 06:55 PM ET It probably wouldn't take alot of programming to add, either. At the very best we could expect to see this as a patch, since the games is, for all intents and purposes, done. A meteor has just landed in the nursery. What do you do? a. Let the children die, keep colonists safe by not risking lives. b. Send in rescue team to save the children. c. Lead a rescue team to save the children. A new technology has been developed that would allow the recycling of organic material. What do you do? a Euthanise the old and disabled. b Eliminate all convicted criminals c Use instead of traditional burial d Use only for nonhuman organic material
CClark	posted 12-10-98 11:19 PM ET Two good possibilities DHE, although the meteor one would have to be a really small meteor. Just seems a little statistically slim. But I really like the second one! "Euthanise the old and disabled." There's a good dilemma if ever there was one!
SnowFire	posted 12-10-98 11:32 PM ET A group has arisen in your faction demanding for your borders to be opened with faction ______, who you used to be at war with. This includes traders who want to make more money. They dislike the current "borders closed except to diplomats" stance. What do you do? A. Silently order your secret service to censor publications like these <move toward a police state> B. Let the protesters whine all they want, but you keep the borders closed <slightly increased civil unrest in towns near border> C. Hold a referendum on the topic <you now have no say in it, and take the bonuses/penalities if approved, and you move toward democracy> D. Grant the request <Increased trade, more moeny, but easier infiltration, unhappiness in event of war with said power>
Shining1	posted 12-10-98 11:40 PM ET Certainly an interesting idea, and I think with more than a potential for inclusion. I like the idea of dealing with high ranking staff in this manner - it gets you personally involved in the game. Assassination could become a minor worry if you kept executing your cabinet for minor failings.
CClark	posted 12-11-98 01:44 AM ET Shining1, that gives me an idea for a dilemma... There is an opportunity presented by a mysterious third party to assassinate a top-ranking researcher/military figure/businessman (as appropriate) from faction X. There is a 50% chance that you will get away with it. There is a 25% chance that you will get away with it, but your population will find out and a 25% chance that the whole thing will blow up in your face. Do you: - order the execution and live with the results - expose the person who offered you the chance assassinate the individual - pretend nothing ever happened
Old_Guy	posted 12-11-98 02:37 AM ET This thread reminds me of the RPG called Arena. Before you created a character you answered a bunch of multiple choice moral dilemma questions and would recommend a character class after you answered all the questions. While this is more basic than what's being thrown around in this thread, I think it would be kind of cool if the game could at least recommend a faction to use based on questions you answer at the beginning of the game.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-11-98 05:43 AM ET Sounds a lot like the Avatar games in the Ultima series where your representative character's class was assigned based on your answers to a series of moral questions. Each class had a representative virtue, so whichever virtue you expressed the most often during the question phase determined the class you would play in the game.
MikeH II	posted 12-11-98 09:43 AM ET Sounds like a great idea. If SMAC has events similar to CivII in later add-ons and the game is as customiseable as we've heard then an event which triggers a dialogue box with the results effecting diplomatic relations and political ideology might not be too hard to implement. You could even prevent people from choosing certain policies if they keep acting against them with every decision.
CClark	posted 12-11-98 12:26 PM ET Another dilemma occured to me. Eugenics (I think that's the right term...) It is discovered after several generations that a member of your faction was carrying a genetic flaw that makes children "normal" until age 10 to 13 and then they quickly get sick and die. Do you: - allow this to spread, taking no action? - steralize everyone that is a carrier so that it can't be passed on? - ask people who are carriers to voluntarily refrain from having children? - ask people who are carriers to allow for examination of the fetus to see if they have the defective gene, and if they do, abort the fetus? Not exactly sure what effects this would have on gameplay, but I'm sure something could be worked out. On the flip side, here's one that's Hive-specific: A child prodigy is born and at age 5 he's intellecutally equivalent to a 30 year old. Do you: - honour the system that everyone is equal and give the child no special treatment? - make an exception and treat this child as special? - kill the child as s/he may prove to be too much of a free-thinker and be a disruption to society?
Octopus	posted 12-11-98 12:39 PM ET "everyone is equal" There are several different points of view about what the Hive stands for. My view is that the Hive values specialization, so the child, as long as he was devoted to the principles of the Hive, would be accepted. I think the option in my understanding of the Hive would be "Honor the system, and give the child as much training as he could handle to make him as productive as possible". Besides, the Hive doesn't KILL free-thinkers, we have other ways... I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but I think that these sorts of issues might be too low-level for a grand strategic game like SMAC. I think they might be disruptive to gameplay. Also, unless there were a LOT of them, they'd probably get repetitive. Buy, that's just my opinion...
BoomBoom	posted 12-11-98 02:17 PM ET about the eugenics dilemma, you could also use gene therapy to cure the genetic disease in the foetus. It is already possible, and it will be IMHO common place in about twenty years.
Jason Beaudoin	posted 12-11-98 02:34 PM ET This is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a long time! I like it!
The Thomas A Stobie	posted 12-11-98 04:17 PM ET Ok, here is one for you then Your legislative body has become like the American Congress in the 1990s. Do you (1) Reform your constitution to address the abuses (2) Give your congress to another faction to help them (This is will be counted as commting an atrocity). (3) Bribe them into submission. (4) Have your covert agents take care of it in a not so subtle manner (assassinations, etc.) (5) Broadcast their debates on factionwide television as comedy. (6) Use a firm hand (backed up with power) on the media to influence public behavior to get congress to do what you want. (7) Load up all your good people onto the next colonization mission and escape the situation. (8) Secretly organize a coup of the government who will to the surprise of many restore your old position to you after wiping out the congress.
CClark	posted 12-12-98 12:55 AM ET Similar to my initial dilemma: You discover that one of your researchers is a spy and has been sending sensitive information to the other factions: - execute him as an example - imprison him for life - mve them to another project (which is fake) and allow them to continue unmolested sending false information out
MikeH II	posted 12-13-98 07:12 AM ET The general concept of playing with factions within you own government could add a lot to any game. I hope something like this can be implemented in a future release.
SnowFire	posted 12-13-98 05:00 PM ET Better yet CClark: Do the give fake information option, but the person knows its fake. Because some SS goons came to their house and explained to them in the most polite terms possible that the jig was up and he was going to work for us now, or die. They arrange a transfer, the scientist is watched everywhere he goes, and he sends lots of false data back home. TAS: Don't get caught up thinking that things used to be better. The War of 1812 was approved over the objections of Congessmen by making the fillbuster/vote last for 3 days and eventually pouring liquor down the anti-war congressmen's throats, in some cases. We aren't quite at that level. "Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, except for all the others." -Winston Churchill
CClark	posted 12-18-98 11:43 PM ET This is completely, entirely selfish, but, um... just wondering if anyone of the revered Firaxians read this thread and if they did, what did you think? (I figured it was worth asking now since they are almost done with the game and demo now.) Feel free to enjoy your weekend first though! You deserve it.
Terran18	posted 12-19-98 04:18 PM ET They dont have to be out of the blue and unrelated to the current game. (ie: One of the Factions has just taken over a neutral City on your southern border, some citizens have escaped and are asking for asylum in one of your cities. Do you: a) Send them away b) Capture them and return to the attacking faction to increase relations with them c) Hold as bargining tools to get new technologies from their government d) Allow them to enter and treat as guest until their government can come to reclaim them
CClark	posted 12-20-98 02:07 AM ET Good point Terran18. I like the example too!
Centaurion	posted 12-20-98 08:02 AM ET I think that was one of the best so far!
DJ RRebel	posted 12-20-98 09:01 AM ET I think I'm the only one who doesn't like this idea !!! Mind you, it sounds awsome for what Old_Guy said .. if it was at the begining of the game, to help you find what faction suits your personality, but I see it really getting in the way of game play !!! What kind of changes were you talking about ??? Making a faction go from 100% UoP into 75% UoP & 25% Hive ??? That just doesn't make sense, the difference between the factions is in how they are set up in stances (politics, economics etc etc) ... each stance has 4 options, to change any option will change the faction outright .. you would get the same effect simply from changing your settings !!! The concequenses of your answers to these questions are a little too simple for the game. I mean .. who cares about one political decision, the way you deal with it is already defined by you faction settings !!! I think it's a neat idea, but I also see it causing more confusion and complexity than anything else !!! It's a great idea, but not for SMAC !!! I mean, it's a global conquest strategy game, not a choose your own advanture dimplomatic simulator !!! Yet, if it was done Old-Guy's way, at the start of the game, I think that would be really cool !!! You would get points in certain catagories depending on how you answered the questions .. then the game would convert your points into your faction !!! It would be like a personality test to create a faction for you !!! I recommend you check out the Keirsey personality test ... I have a link to it on my web site (the commercial links section), it basically breaks people down into one of 16 catagories, all strong in some things but weak in others, all of them are good in their own ways !!! For SMAC 2, it would be cool if Firaxis put in a similar test at the begining of the game to put you into one of 16 factions !!! I still think putting it in the middle of the game would be kinda pointless though .. in theory, your personality shouldn't change during the game .. and even if it did, you could just change your settings and get precisely what you want !!! I can't remember the address for the site of hand, but go to the "Commercial Links" section of my web site !!! my site: HTTP://listen.to/rebel
CClark	posted 12-20-98 01:07 PM ET DJ - the reason that I suggested it is that I was under the impression taht you will be able to change your faction's views during the game. Depending on what Secret Projects and technology you build/research, I think you can actually shift your faction around. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works. The kind of events I'm talking about are also the highly public ones. I mean, the whole Clinton thing has had to have had SOME kind of effect on the general American psyche, no? I wasn't talking about HUGE shifts in a faction. But at the same time, I was talking about setting faction policy through actions, so changes could be brought about that way. Originally your 8th faction was for Canucks. But at some point you made a decision to all non-Canucks in. That changed your faction. You also decided to start assimiliating people (Roland) and that also set a policy for your faction and changed it from what it was. That's the kind of thing I was talking about.
WCT	posted 12-29-98 05:18 PM ET Well...looking at the Factions page, they are saying something about putting up an interactive questionnaire to determine what faction is best for you. Maybe they could ship this questionnaire (perhaps as-is for use with the customer's browser, perhaps recoded into the game itself, perhaps on paper - either as part of the game manual or a separate document) with the product? ObQuestion: One of your scientists (title as appropriate for the faction) has come up with an idea for (X - see below), and wishes to transfer to working on it full time instead of (fill in tech you're currently researching). Your other scientists find the chance of sucess remote, and refuse to work on the project. Do you: A. Publically denounce and/or execute the scientist. B. Allow the research to proceed. C. Order the scientist to work on (current research project) and forget this idea. This can be used for any game-unbalancing, or just plain unimplemented, technology. Just fill in, say, "Telepathy" or "Quantum Tunneling Propulsion" for X.