 |
|  |
 |
|
Edan
|
|
Although it's fairly old, Hidden Agenda did a very nice simulation of a Latin American country. It allowed you to move the country in left or right directions, and allowed you to meet with various representatives of the country (farmers, teachers, military, etc) as well as diplomats from other countries, making decisions to try to solve problems (or at least stay in power and alive long enough). It kept the numbers hidden, so it wasn't very spread sheet-like.
As for recent games, Supreme Ruler 2010 does an impressive job of allowing you to control a lot an economic and social perspective (not really politically, though), though it could use some tweaking.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote: What matters in the SMAC socio-economic engine as compared to the Civ engine is the number of possible choices. You can have a dmeocratic statist regime, or an authoritarian capitalist regime, all in all, you have a total of at least 27 different socio-economic models as compared to 7 in Civ3 or 6 in Civ2. |
Green is an idiotic economics choice, and the entire values idea is stupid. I'm going to completely ignore future society, so that gives six different economics choices that have any relevence to actual social, political, and economic models. |
Actually the values part is very apt and would work in a historic game very well-some societies were simply war societies, others monastic. What is the difference between the US and Europe today but one of values, as oposed to a market economy and liberal dmeocracy, which both groups have in common. In Civ3 for example, there would be 0 difference in the two societies (both are Democracies). IN SMAC terms you could simulate a difference.
And again, you complaints are about window dressings, not HOW the system works. In any new game you could use the social engineering screen and add more choices, change names, whatever.
Plus you are wrong, since the game had 3 political choices (authoritarian, democratic, theocratic), 3 economic ones (green, free market, Controlled), then 3 values (wealth, power, knowledge), so you could have a grand total of 27 possible combinations, a democratic green knowledge state, or a theocratic free market power state, and so forth.
The future society line was mostly adding extra benefits to those previous choices.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Actually the values part is very apt and would work in a historic game very well-some societies were simply war societies, others monastic. What is the difference between the US and Europe today but one of values, as oposed to a market economy and liberal dmeocracy, which both groups have in common. In Civ3 for example, there would be 0 difference in the two societies (both are Democracies). IN SMAC terms you could simulate a difference. |
The Values part is one that isn't even conceivably under any sort of central control.
quote: And again, you complaints are about window dressings, not HOW the system works. In any new game you could use the social engineering screen and add more choices, change names, whatever. |
So you're saying that, as it is, SMAC isn't a good model of politics, society, and the economy, but it's possible to change the game in order to make it so?
By that logic, cIV will be the best model EVER, since we're able to almost completely reprogram the game.
quote: Plus you are wrong, since the game had 3 political choices (authoritarian, democratic, theocratic), 3 economic ones (green, free market, Controlled), then 3 values (wealth, power, knowledge), so you could have a grand total of 27 possible combinations, a democratic green knowledge state, or a theocratic free market power state, and so forth. |
Except I said the Green was idiotic (so I discount it) and that the Values shouldn't exist from the standpoint of realism, therefore SMAC has 6 realistic governments.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Values part is one that isn't even conceivably under any sort of central control. |
And Che already pointed out that most game economic models give the player far too much control. Of course, the very notion fo one single leader living 6000 years itself is laughable, but hey, we allow it in Civ/
quote:
So you're saying that, as it is, SMAC isn't a good model of politics, society, and the economy, but it's possible to change the game in order to make it so?
By that logic, cIV will be the best model EVER, since we're able to almost completely reprogram the game. |
No, "genius", I am saying the way in which the SMAC engine works is superior to the Civ engine, as it allows more choices.
quote:
Except I said the Green was idiotic (so I discount it) and that the Values shouldn't exist from the standpoint of realism, therefore SMAC has 6 realistic governments. |
Wait, so your whim is the basis for judging how many option a gamer had?
Having all those bathrooms does not make you ruler of the universe, you know
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We're not arguing "better", were arguing "what has the most realistic model". |
NO gaming system is ever able to cope with the complxities of the world. Obviously you have a bias towards historical games as opposed to futuristic games, since maybe you lack the imagination. That notwhistanding, the urealism of Civ comes from linking eocnomic to political models, period. Republic is not an economic choice, never was. SMAC's system is more realisitc because it divorces aspects that work together but are not fixed to each other, like having a command economy and chosing between say a one party dictatorship or a theocratic regime, or not linking free makret economies to democracy.
quote:
Yes. SMAC happens to give the player even more unjustified control than others, even other civ games. |
Actually, NO, it does not. All you pointed out is that the cost of changing is low in SMAC. Making the cost low does not actually change how much control you have. If anything, SMAC gave you less control because the choice of civ limited the options you could use in the screen.
quote:
More choices doesn't make it a more accurate model, and in fact in SMAC's case makes it a less accurate model. |
Accuarte does not mean historical, nor does it mean whether you have the imagination or not to concieve of it.
Accurate modeling means that you are better able to simultae the fuctionings of a human society. IN Civ3 we are told there are only 8 choices of society (including anarchy). That is patently absurd, and it is patently absurd because it illogically links economic model to political model.
IN a Civ2 world, the Monarchy of Charlemagne was the same society as the Monarchy of Louis XIV. That is patently absurd on its face. IN Civ3 they made it a bit better by saying that the Feudal system that Charlemagne ran was different from the Absolute Monarchy run by Louis XIV.
But then, what do you do with the difference between say the Absolute Imperial monarchy of Byzantium and that of Rome? (a great example of howe "values" matter, as you compare the universalistic Monotheistic policies of Constantinple vs. the more parochial pagan policy of pre-Christian Rome).?
A social engineering screen like in SMAC makes the differentiation more possible.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|