Ideological Conflicts - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Ideological Conflicts

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Ideological Conflicts

tstanton posted 03-16-99 10:56 AM ET
Has anyone else seen a problem with some of the more... inconsistant strategies submitted to this forum? An example: in Free/Market & Democratic government, build Punishment Domes in a few cities and use them for building your armies.
????
Doesn't it seem _a little_ inconsistant to submit nonconforming citizens to "punishment dome treatment" in a free, democratic society?
This is just an example, but there seems to be a lot of this going on out there. Morganites using Fundamentalism, Gaians using anything other than Green, etc.
Perhaps more improvements and social engineering options ought to have effects that vary depending on faction or (in the case of improvements) social engineering options. Also, does it make sense to be able to have a Free Market Police State? How about a Free Market Fundementalist state with Knowledge values?
kjchen posted 03-16-99 01:53 PM ET
Well, Free Market Fundamentalists are televangelists.
Yeah, some of the constructs in the game don't fit well with the social engineering models provided in the game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's an easy way to rectify this. Limiting a faction's ability to produce certain base improvements under a social engineering model doesn't work, since it would be possible to shift to another "non-conflicting" ideology, create the base improvement, then change back to the original. Does the improvement get sold automatically? Does it not work? Does it cause additional drones? I suspect this ultimately boils down to a playability vs. realism issue. It'd be more realistic if some of these improvements weren't usable by particular social engineering types, but that would generate a huge matrix of "can build this now/build it before but can't use it now" limitations that would just make the whole social engineering concept unwieldy.
Of course, it may that those base improvements were intended to be used in precisely the manner that they're being used now, to counter the drawbacks of particular social engineering choices, even if their use seems to go against the grain of the intent of the ideology.
I lean toward the current implementation, which allows the player some greater flexibility in his social engineering choices. Not allowing a faction to overcome its inherent limitations forces that faction to be played in a similar fashion over and over, which limits gameplay. Although perhaps not in line with their perceived belief structure, Green Morganites are fun to play, and beware the Knowledge Spartans!
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: Ideological Conflicts
tstanton	posted 03-16-99 10:56 AM ET Has anyone else seen a problem with some of the more... inconsistant strategies submitted to this forum? An example: in Free/Market & Democratic government, build Punishment Domes in a few cities and use them for building your armies. ???? Doesn't it seem _a little_ inconsistant to submit nonconforming citizens to "punishment dome treatment" in a free, democratic society? This is just an example, but there seems to be a lot of this going on out there. Morganites using Fundamentalism, Gaians using anything other than Green, etc. Perhaps more improvements and social engineering options ought to have effects that vary depending on faction or (in the case of improvements) social engineering options. Also, does it make sense to be able to have a Free Market Police State? How about a Free Market Fundementalist state with Knowledge values?
kjchen	posted 03-16-99 01:53 PM ET Well, Free Market Fundamentalists are televangelists. Yeah, some of the constructs in the game don't fit well with the social engineering models provided in the game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's an easy way to rectify this. Limiting a faction's ability to produce certain base improvements under a social engineering model doesn't work, since it would be possible to shift to another "non-conflicting" ideology, create the base improvement, then change back to the original. Does the improvement get sold automatically? Does it not work? Does it cause additional drones? I suspect this ultimately boils down to a playability vs. realism issue. It'd be more realistic if some of these improvements weren't usable by particular social engineering types, but that would generate a huge matrix of "can build this now/build it before but can't use it now" limitations that would just make the whole social engineering concept unwieldy. Of course, it may that those base improvements were intended to be used in precisely the manner that they're being used now, to counter the drawbacks of particular social engineering choices, even if their use seems to go against the grain of the intent of the ideology. I lean toward the current implementation, which allows the player some greater flexibility in his social engineering choices. Not allowing a faction to overcome its inherent limitations forces that faction to be played in a similar fashion over and over, which limits gameplay. Although perhaps not in line with their perceived belief structure, Green Morganites are fun to play, and beware the Knowledge Spartans!