Why did social engienering gone?

[RedWhiteArcher]

I know this is not news but I wondered why didn't they put social engeniering from SMAC. This was absolutly great idea that also removed the myth as Socialism, Comunism is a government and not ecomics style.
Anyone else thinks that this should have stayed?

[Pembleton]

I didn't play SMAC since I don't like sci-fi games in general...what did social engineering do?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by RedWhiteArcher
I know this is not news but I wondered why didn't they put social engeniering from SMAC.

I think SE worked in SMAC because the game simulated ideologically cleansed test-tube societys/ factions on a strange far away planet.

This was absolutly great idea that also removed the myth as Socialism, Comunism is a government and not ecomics style.

Well, I think you unwittingly pinpoint the problems of having SMAC-style SE in Civ-3 also.

[tniem]

One of those downgrades from SMAC. Others are no MP support and flat terrain.

[Asesino_Virtual]

I think its fine that the SE feature were not included. The game is based in certain aspects in reality, so, goverments are based in real stuff, and cannot be modified in any of its aspects (but with the editor probably yes). This is not a game about future, but dealing with differents stuff of the history of mankind, and goverments were and are, very important in our civ.

[Ironwood]

Actually, I think it's there, but in a juvinile state. First, you have the various governmental forms (which can be edited and changed and added and stuff). Another thing I noticed is this whole concept of "mobilize for war" once you've discovered nationalism. Then there's the civilization defining factors (or whatever they're called, like militaristic, scientist, religeous, etc.), and in this game, rather than disallowing certain types of civilizations, they give each civ a relatively unchangable nature.

It just looks like they're experimenting a bit. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of MOO2 style population management in that the various nationalities, even after being "assimilated", retain certain unique traits.

One of those downgrades from SMAC. Others are no MP support and flat terrain.

Exactly.
As for SE not corresponding to reality - I saw no possible combination in SE (with the possible exception of "green" economy - but perhaps green economics could be discovered with recycling) that was not possible in real life.

I'll probably be using the gov editor to recreate some of the CTP govenrments - like technocracy, ecotopia, and pure democracy while adding older forms like theocracy. Hopefully AI will be able to use new government forms.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by tniem
One of those downgrades from SMAC. Others are no MP support and flat terrain.

The terrain may look flat but as far as it affects on the game it isn't. Since units can see farther away from higher locations, then terrain elevations do have an effect.

And MP will be available eventually. SP is the heart of the game. Oh no I shouldn't say that. Don't want to start that up again

[Trifna]

Maybe because civilisations in history were not changing so much things, they all had some few general paterns. Future paterns are now more diversified, even if some paterns are almost unused these days, such as "green economy" and such.

In history, did you ever saw something getting out of the general paterns of socio-economic systems? Very very little... They all oriented in some way after having the rest beeing a certain way. Socialism with communism, a certain specific economy with monarchy, etc.

There are variations of course, but generally...


It is my opinion and I'll be happy to see some criticism :-)

[fanatic civver]

One thing is that using governments keeps in the spirit of the civilization series. The old debate for when to change governments will occur all over again.

Maybe you could use a mix of the two eg you can choose one social trait to go along with your government that gives you a small bonus. That wouldn't unbalance or overcomplicate things too much.

I think the main problems with social engineering in SMAC is that your choice of faction chose your basic strategy for that game. Any deviation from that strategy would be sub-optimal.

Also, one thing I disliked about SMAC is that you could only maintain relations with those factions that you shared the same traits with. As soon as you changed then the faction you were previously allies with suddenly became your enemy.

Obviously you could change the system to get rid of these disadvantages....I wouldnt really mind what system they used.

[tniem]

Ironwood -
Any proof of that?

Mr. Pleasant -
I never liked all of the govs in CtP because I never found that the AI could handle them. Nor did I like switching every couple turns. But the SE system with modest changes is something I did enjoy.

Loriazel -

The terrain may look flat but as far as it affects on the game it isn't. Since units can see farther away from higher locations, then terrain elevations do have an effect.

So what that means we have mountains looking farther? I mean that is the only elevation there is on the map correct?

Trifina-

In history, did you ever saw something getting out of the general paterns of socio-economic systems? Very very little... They all oriented in some way after having the rest beeing a certain way. Socialism with communism, a certain specific economy with monarchy, etc.

I think there have been quite a few versions of representative democracies even today. There is the more parlimentary versions and the more federal systems. Everything has some modifications depending on certain policies. I think very easily it could have been included for this game and should have. As I said, a downgrade.

[Cyclotron]

I would like to ask exactly wat are the benefits of this "non flat terrain." What does it do that so called "flat" terrain does not?

[Asesino_Virtual]

Oh well, i tried to say it in the diplomatic way, but, **** all. The truth is that SE is useless and sucks!. And the so called "3d" terrain sucks too!. I think its a cool idea, but if the firaxis guys really wanted to implement that, powerful 3d acceletator cards would be required. Because in SMAC there was only ONE kind of terrain, without textures (except the fungus and the forests). If u wanna do a 3d terrain for EARTH, which contains a lot of textures (desserts, mountains, hills, beaches, etc) u gotta need 1) a lotta time for developing, and 2) a powerful 3d card to display the graphics correctly.

A_V has spoken.

[dainbramaged13]

i hated that elevated terrain crap anywsay

[Moral Hazard]

Elevated terrain and SE are both examples of added complexity which don't add very much to the game. SE is better than elevation; and I personally prefer it, but I think that's why they were cut.

[Hoek]

I think that the reason they scrapped it is because if the ideological factors, and that certain factions couldn't choose certain options. That wouldn't really work for civilization, but some variation of it could. Perhaps if you picked "fundamentalism", you wouldn't be able to choose "knowledge"

[Sarxis]

I always felt that Social Engineering worked well for SMAC, but wouldn't fit right with a more classic CIV game. I mean, the term itself sounds futuristic.

[Urban Ranger]

Elevated terrain doesn't add that much complexity, though it adds literally a new dimension.

As for Social Engineering, I reckon it is the absence of those futuristic choices that leads to its exclusion. Though I think SE used as a generic indication of overall policies can work. For example, choosing the "Green" policy causes a reduction in production andpollution, but an increase in happiness and trade (increased tourism).

[Dimorier Maximus]

Yeah, SE sounds pretty cool. I think it should have somehow been implemented in Civ3. Oh well. I think Civ3 is going to be great anyways.

[Dimorier Maximus]

As for the raised terrain in SMAC. It is one of the primary reasons why I never bought the game.

[Blake]

The SE in SMAC was really good.
But I dont think it would fit in Civ3, altough it looks like you'll have two fields to choose from: Goverment, Military Readiness. Something like a mini SE.

CTP1/2 had a sorta-realistic sorta-SE for Earth, but it sucked
Stick with goverments

[Cyclotron]

Still no response on exactly what it is that elevated terrain does... so far, it sounds like a waste of memory. One word: Why?

[korn469]

well if i had to make a guess, I would assume that they made the changes for the following reasons

*considered governments to fell more like "civ"
*thought it was better for gameplay

now what i wonder is if Brian hadn't of quit, would civ3 had of used the government system from civ1 or the SE system from SMAC? i assume that it would have used something like it

instead we get the exact same system that civ1 had

is that innovation or what?

too bad they didn't have the money or the time to come up with something better

[korn469]

cyclotron7

elevated terrian in SMAC did a couple of things

*determined rainfall (and rainfall determined food output), it rained much more on the western side of a mountain
*elevation determined energy output, the higher the elevation the more energy
*it allowed players more control of terraforming (you could raise or lower terrain)
*it created a more "realistic" map
*it's in 3D!

[Cyclotron]

If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have. The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire. Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim. If you want to keep pollution down, you should have to deal with it on the city level (sell factories, replace power plants with hydro, build recycling centers, etc.) and not just use presets to solve all your problems.

[tniem]

Thanks korn for answering all of that. I wasn't up for the task tonight to try and reanswer these old arguments.

[Blake]

SMAC's SE was wonderfull from a gameplay point of view, but wasn't really echoed by the actual play style.... there was absolutely no reason why a Green economy couldn't smother the planet with polluting boreholes and enviromentally damaging Condensors (weather control devices). Ironically the Free Market economy benefited most from a 'green' play style, using mostly 'clean' forests.

The goverments model will dictate your play style a lot more, it represents the 'people' a lot better, and what they will stand for. So while the freedom granted by Social Engineering is great in a sandbox sort of way, it really doesn't model real civilisations very well.
(The best argument for SE is on a gameplay vs realism basis, but I think goverments will make the game more challenging, and that is also important for gameplay)

[korn469]

If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have.

yeap it'd be a real shame if we had a few more ways of getting into the game, i for one would hate that

The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire. Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim.

God forbid that ever makes its way into civ! I mean I would hate if there was one thing i would switch to when I was at peace (democracy), that would ruin the game! I can't even imagine switching to another system to fight a war (communism)...that would destroy game play...i mean just imagine if you were forced to choose the same options game after game depending on if you wanted to fight or research! god that would suck, thankfully civ is nothing like that

and just imagine if you could switch from a war government to a peace government without any penalty (religious)! *shudder* i'm so glad that civ3 won't have anything close to that! i mean that would ruin the game wouldn't it

not just use presets to solve all your problems

like i said cyclotron7 lets be thankful civ3 has nothing like that

[tniem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
If you want to make governemental policies, use the tax/science/luxury slider, military readiness slider, city improvements, and all the other options you already have.

Oh yeah and that does a ton to actually imitating how real empires and civs work.

In actual civs there are issues that a government decides on such as how people are going to be represented or what kind of freedoms there are going to be. None of these have anything to do with the sliders you are giving us. None of these are going to be answered by simple city improvements. Government policies are not figured or can even be computed by the few things that you have pointed out.

The last thing I would want is some load of SE templates dictating how I can run my empire.

I don't think you understand the idea of SE. I think you are getting it confused with the attributes that each faction was given in SMAC.

SE gives certain bonuses and minuses to certain things such as building costs, governmental control, or science based on the governmental choices you make. Want to have total control of your populace, then thought and science are harmed. Want to make tons of money and have high growth, then you will harm the environment. SE is all about picking your government's representational and social choices and having those choices effect what happens to your civ.

Meanwhile, faction attributes do dictate to a degree how you play the game. They can force you into a more research or militaristic mode. That is another debate, if you want to get into it on either side I would be willing to get involved in it in another thread.

Who needs SE, just keep the sliders and improvements

As I already stated that does little to achieve the differences found in a one man/woman dictatorship or a true direct democracy. Neither of which are possible in the government system of Civilization (democracy is really representational Republic, but that is another debate).

and let us make policy the way it really is: with time and labor, not some wierd options to mutate into a diametrically opposed government on a whim.

Last I checked that is not how government policy is necessarily formed. And how is switching from Communism to a Democracy overnight last of a diametrical switch than say Totalitarianism to Direct Elect?

They aren't. See the biggest and best thing about SE is that they are gradual shifts in one policy. Meanwhile going with the status quo is a shift of the entire governments policy from representation to the economic model. That is not something that changes easily. Such switches should trigger decades if not century long times of upheavel. Meanwhile making smaller changes can happen slowly over time without rebellion. That is what SE is trying to imitate.

If you want to keep pollution down, you should have to deal with it on the city level (sell factories, replace power plants with hydro, build recycling centers, etc.) and not just use presets to solve all your problems.

Who said anything about pollution? Are you talking about the Green Economy? That has nothing to do with this argument. After all SE is all about choices. So you pick Green to cut down on pollution and we are at war. Well I pick the more Wealth Economy and Growth Policy and now my cities are growing faster and I am making more money to buy my military. Soon you nonpolluting cities, are my polluting cities. None of this has any baring on whether or not SE is a good choice for including it in Civ.

The pros of SE are simple. More realistic. Governments are always made up of different attributes that while they might not always go together much of the time, are possible to fit together. Changes are made over time. There are less diametric switches between attributes.

Meanwhile, the problems are that they are more complex and it can be argued less fun. Personally I think that is not true but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion about fun factor. Although I think it would be worth it to sacrifice a little for the added depth and complexity that SE adds. Any ways, now that I have gotten in this argument, let the fireworks fly.

[korn469]

don't get me wrong...I HATE SE
it's just that i hate the civ government system worse

what i want is something fairly simple, (well in my case not too complex) that is fun, and most of all involves the player

SE has a number of huge flaws...Free Market economies being able to use punishment spheres is one huge flaw, the entire penalty ceases to exist (but even removing p-spheres wouldn't stop army laundering)

the choices the player makes should have an effect on the buildings in my opinion, some buildings should have stat changes

the senate was an excellent idea, and SMAC hurt from not having it i hope that Civ3 will expand on those things so that the player can have a number of interesting choices to make

we need something better, and you would think after 10 years we would get it...just imagine if firaxis decided to get rid of armies and all of the other military improvements and go back to the civ1 system of handling armed conflict, i think many people would be highly disappointed in the lack of progress