The Progenitors

[bvanevery]

Adolf Hitler, for example was elected. He may have not been overwhelmingly elected by the vast majority but he was voted strongly enough to claim power.

That didn't happen because of 'democracy'.  That happened because of the punitive economic attitude that the victors of WW I took towards Germany, and because of The Great Depression.  The Nazis did not have support until the serious economic crisis was happening.  I think it's fair to take the following lesson from this: a poor Democracy isn't worth anything.

I personally think that SMAC's representation of every single social policy in the game would likely vary according to the faction and leader implementing it. Gaian Fundamentalism is not going to look the same as Believer Fundamentalism. Worship of planet is not the same as worship of Abrahamic god and Christ.

True.  Might be interesting to design Belief Systems, much as one designs units.  If you impose a Belief System, you're stuck with it for awhile.

Actually I really like that idea.  I'll have to pen and paper it up some.  I think I'm trying to write a game like SMAC.  I have tried before, unfortunately it led to bankruptcy.  Oh well.  That was then, this is now?

[ComradeCrimson]

Adolf Hitler, for example was elected. He may have not been overwhelmingly elected by the vast majority but he was voted strongly enough to claim power.

That didn't happen because of 'democracy'.  That happened because of the punitive economic attitude that the victors of WW I took towards Germany, and because of The Great Depression.  The Nazis did not have support until the serious economic crisis was happening.  I think it's fair to take the following lesson from this: a poor Democracy isn't worth anything.

I personally think that SMAC's representation of every single social policy in the game would likely vary according to the faction and leader implementing it. Gaian Fundamentalism is not going to look the same as Believer Fundamentalism. Worship of planet is not the same as worship of Abrahamic god and Christ.

True.  Might be interesting to design Belief Systems, much as one designs units.  If you impose a Belief System, you're stuck with it for awhile.

Actually I really like that idea.  I'll have to pen and paper it up some.  I think I'm trying to write a game like SMAC.  I have tried before, unfortunately it led to bankruptcy.  Oh well.  That was then, this is now?

Of course, I wasn't meaning to cherry pick with the facts and stuff there. But still, the Nazi's still took power via election; Germany's economic condition was deplorable due to the reparation payments it was stuck from the Versailles agreement and the general beating it took from the first world war. But my point still stands. The apathy of people who didn't act, and the people who did act based on their emotions at the time- the desperation to heal a wounded Germany without reviewing the candidates- led to Adolf Hitler being elected. Now I'm not saying this as to put stupid amounts of blame on a beleaguered people, but rather just to illustrate that democracy as a system is vulnerable to that. But then again, one could argue that a poor economy in any society will lead to social collapse and demagogues to arise; regardless if its a poor democracy or a poor dictatorship.

[Sleezebag] scares me. He's going to stall science a lot and I see him exhibiting demagogue like traits. Hopefully he doesn't last long in office and is impeached.

That aside however, I do think that having the social system thing would be nifty- and its certainly doable with today's technology. Civilization has already attempted stuff like this and social model stuff isn't really too far fetched in games now a days. I think that culture in general, both in real life and potentially in a game, have in the case in real life and in the case of a video game should have a long lasting effect on how things run and how people act; and in gameplay terms, how your society functions and operates.

The first thing someone would have to do is ascribe a system of morals. And not to deviate too much from the original subject matter, that would first be identifying the basic starting morality of the faction you're playing- in the case of the Caretakers and Usurpers its Conservationism at its most extreme versus Power and exploitation at its most extreme. So morality wise sacrifice- would be embraced by the Caretakers, but abhorred by the Usurpers.

Another game that sort of has a system where there is a slider for specific moral concepts is Dwarf Fortress. It has different values and a person can be anywhere on a slide from strongly opposed to strongly aligned to a certain moral concept, such as the value of family, tradition, decorum, martial might, craftsmanship, etc.

[Buster's Uncle]

Somebody please go look that up about Hitler being elected - I don't think so.  He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, illegally IIRC.

[ComradeCrimson]

Somebody please go look that up about Hitler being elected - I don't think so.  He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, illegally IIRC.

I stand corrected. I knew Hitler solidified his power with the Reichstag Fire Decree after he became Chancellor, and I thought his party had gained a good enough majority to become elected prior that- but I was wrong.

My apologies.

[bvanevery]

The apathyfear of people who didn't act,

The Nazi SA Brownshirts were famous for their street violence, against the Communists and anyone else who opposed them.  Ergo I Fixed That For You.

But then again, one could argue that a poor economy in any society will lead to social collapse and demagogues to arise; regardless if its a poor democracy or a poor dictatorship.

Not really.  North Korea is still holding together.  That said, I did see an article in the paper about Kim Jong Un losing his grip on power, according to a defector.  Didn't actually read the article.  Saddam Hussein did fine with UN sanctions and denial of food aid.  He just withheld food from the people he didn't like, the Shiites.  Sucks for post-war Iraq, but Saddam would have held on forever absent armed intervention.

Hopefully he doesn't last long in office and is impeached.

I think that's wishful thinking.  It's definitely not a game plan for dealing with him.

The first thing someone would have to do is ascribe a system of morals.

I've actually been thinking more in terms of choice points in the game.  This can include even what units you build.  If you build a lot of military stuff, for instance, you are going to empower people who are militant.  If you allow beatings in the streets on civil rights issues, you are going to slide into a Police State.  And if you want out of that, it's going to be too late.  At least for awhile.  I've wondered about the player running the government "being assassinated", and then what role does the player get to take next?  I don't think "game over" would be a good mechanic, but I haven't resolved what kind of continuity the player has in the game.  For instance if some other country militarily defeats you, do you get to take over the victor and keep going?  That would render "winning the game" somewhat meaningless.

[ComradeCrimson]

The apathyfear of people who didn't act,

The Nazi SA Brownshirts were famous for their street violence, against the Communists and anyone else who opposed them.  Ergo I Fixed That For You.

But then again, one could argue that a poor economy in any society will lead to social collapse and demagogues to arise; regardless if its a poor democracy or a poor dictatorship.

Not really.  North Korea is still holding together.  That said, I did see an article in the paper about Kim Jong Un losing his grip on power, according to a defector.  Didn't actually read the article.  Saddam Hussein did fine with UN sanctions and denial of food aid.  He just withheld food from the people he didn't like, the Shiites.  Sucks for post-war Iraq, but Saddam would have held on forever absent armed intervention.

Hopefully he doesn't last long in office and is impeached.

I think that's wishful thinking.  It's definitely not a game plan for dealing with him.

The first thing someone would have to do is ascribe a system of morals.

I've actually been thinking more in terms of choice points in the game.  This can include even what units you build.  If you build a lot of military stuff, for instance, you are going to empower people who are militant.  If you allow beatings in the streets on civil rights issues, you are going to slide into a Police State.  And if you want out of that, it's going to be too late.  At least for awhile.  I've wondered about the player running the government "being assassinated", and then what role does the player get to take next?  I don't think "game over" would be a good mechanic, but I haven't resolved what kind of continuity the player has in the game.  For instance if some other country militarily defeats you, do you get to take over the victor and keep going?  That would render "winning the game" somewhat meaningless.

Maybe if you had a named successor? Like a paradox grand strategy game?


Also on the note of the Nazi takeover, I was aware of their street violence. Often busting open Jewish shops and brutalising people. Even within their own party with the night of long knives.

But my point was that apathy; and in more extreme cases, fear, can lead to tyrants and demagogues taking power. Of course its not as simple as that but as a citizen of any democratic government, it should be a person's responsibility to at least vote- and at that, be an informed voter in my opinion.

As for a gameplan on dealing with [Sleezebag]... pressure and exposure of incompetency is the safest route; because rioting violently isn't going to work, neither are protests. Its going to need something to expose him for a wrongdoing that'll get him out of office.


Changing subject back to the social system you speak of- so you'd have a certain amount of allocatable points when designing a society?

[bvanevery]

Changing subject back to the social system you speak of- so you'd have a certain amount of allocatable points when designing a society?

No I meant "point at which you make a choice in the game".  Could have said, "time at which you make a choice in the game."  Any time you decide what a city is going to build, for instance, you are choosing to push your society incrementally in some directions and not others.  I would also eliminate the city-by-city choices, somehow.  As civilizations get larger, it's not interesting.