Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Modding => Topic started by: Dio on October 06, 2021, 07:57:01 PM

Title: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Dio on October 06, 2021, 07:57:01 PM
I know of some unimplemented game features and can comment on the potential original design and implementation of these features.

One of the biggest unimplemented game features remains the unused Citizen bit field in Alphax.txt. Effects for this unused bit field appear in the help.txt file.
 
The unused citizen effect bit field appears as a possible precursor to both the base facilities modifiers on morale and other components of base outputs and the social engineering effects on bases and units. This feature implies the base citizens would have had more effects on game play and probably produce numerical additive bonuses for a bases' features similar to the executable file's handling of current production bonuses from facilities and social effects like MORALE.

The biggest issue with implementing this feature arises from finding space within the memory registers since the developers replaced the executable space for this feature in the CITIZENS section of alphax with other game components. The other issue with implementing this feature remains the space for inclusion of those new values into the existing procedures for calculating efficiency, commerce, support, base psi defense, mineral output, and morale.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Dio on October 06, 2021, 08:13:02 PM
Another unimplemented feature remains a distinction between "Ruthless" and "Idealistic" social engineering choices. Many of the social engineering choices in the original release for the game in the politics, economics, and values choice categories produce social effects with almost reciprocal positive and negative effects like Power's +2 MORALE, +2 SUPPORT, -2 INDUSTRY compared to Wealth's +1 INDUSTRY, +1 ECONOMY, -2 MORALE. I suspect Brian Reynolds originally intended the faction social choices to possess a feature for swapping the positive and negative social effects of the social models depending on some faction characteristics. This position on "ruthless" or "idealistic" social choices would have allowed the player to make those decisions with separate social categories for the areas stated in the interview.

Circumstantial evidence for this appears in unused labels in the labels.txt file and position of those labels within the executable file. The unused labels for "ruthless" and "idealistic" appear above the "social engineering" label that appears in the header for the social engineering table's bottom panel in the final product. This circumstantial location alludes to a probable relationships to an earlier design of the social engineering table with eight categories of social categories and a ruthless or idealistic social choice per social category.


Brian Reynolds discusses these features in the August 11, 1998 interview at this link.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/an-interview-with-brian-reynolds/1100-2564268/p-4.html/

Cited quote from the interview:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on October 09, 2021, 06:58:17 PM
Interesting. Yea I imagine it was probably a binary system with more choices instead of the trinary one they went with.

I imagine Police State and Democracy would be opposed
Free/Fair Market(Planned)
Power/Wealth
Fundamentalist/Knowledge maybe?
I dunno where Green fits in or what would have opposed it, maybe a Survival mentality (fight Planet instead of going with it)

Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on October 10, 2021, 09:24:45 AM
The trinary system does ultimately have some problems.  In  my most recent AAR I've become very annoyed at the false choice between my Socialist (Planned) and Green.  Similarly, what's the difference between Police State and my Theocratic (Fundamentalist) ?  Did I miss a memo on how Iran or North Korea are run?  Or now, Afghanistan?

Free Market is the capitalist pigs destroying the environment.  Green opposes it.  Morgan vs. Deirdre.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on October 10, 2021, 12:46:47 PM
Fair, if you look in each tier PS/Demo oppose the most for SEs. FM/Green (on Planet, Effic is secondary), and Power/Wealth. That leaves Fundamentalist, Planned, Knowledge without opposition.

Then for Ruthless / Idealistic:
Police State / Democracy
Free Market / Green
Power / Wealth
Knowledge / Fundamentalist (Belief)

Planned, well you could have Centralized and Decentralized but I don't know. Collectivist / Individualist seems more like a faction trait than a choice.

Future SEs kinda bothered me similarly. Cybernetic and Thought Control are just different kinds of Dystopian.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on October 11, 2021, 01:14:38 AM
From an old post of mine.

Some lazy Saturday morning reading led me to a potential bug fix here:

https://github.com/b-casey/OpenSMACX/blob/defe36bdb1604c738f9cdf842ce1c8caabc456f1/src/faction.cpp#L222

Circumstantial evidence suggests that this Psi Gate prereq check in the climactic_battle function is legacy code left over from when Psi Gates apparently had some role in a Transcendence Victory. I wonder if it makes the AI unduly agitated too early at the arbitrary tech of Matter Transmission?

See this thread on reddit regarding the evidence: https://old.reddit.com/r/alphacentauri/comments/iua8v2/miriams_psiicide_put_in_another_light/
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on October 12, 2021, 12:53:56 AM
Cybernetic and Thought Control are just different kinds of Dystopian.

Yeah at some point in my modding I made the conceptual leap, that despite all the positive bennies the original game gave Cybernetic in the SE table, the idea is not good.  And that Miriam in the secret project videos had said all along that it's totally not good, that We Must Dissent.  This led me to having her be incapable of choosing Cybernetic rather than incapable of choosing Knowledge.  Which further led me to see Cybernetic as this anti-Planet machine consciousness dystopia, and Eudiamonic as the biologically friendly Planet friendly category.  This took quite awhile.  It proceeded in stages spread rather far apart from each other over the course of maybe 2 years.

Oh, and I can encode dystopias more directly because I have JUSTICE, not EFFIC.

Thought Control though, I do not give a JUSTICE penalty.  If your thoughts are controlled, you don't know if you're experiencing justice or not!  I said RESEARCH gets penalized because it would probably require some personal creative spark, some motivation and impetus, and you've been robbed of that.

Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on October 12, 2021, 01:07:38 AM
Police State / Democracy

Yang / Lal

Quote
Free Market / Green

Morgan / Deirdre

Quote
Knowledge / Fundamentalist (Belief)

Zhakarov / Miriam

These are the 3 major axes of conflict for the original game.  Whether they intended to do more conflicts as a matter of game design or mechanics, they clearly settled on the 6 major protagonists for the narratives of the game.  They weren't going to do art assets and voice acting for an infinite number of possibilities.

Quote
Power / Wealth

This is the odd one out, the tack-on.  Santiago.  Corresponds with her not being a credible military leader.  She never gives an order, never takes over anything, and never shoots a rifle.  Rather than be a brass tacks military leader, she is asked to philosophize in the same way that all the other philosophers do.  And, she's bad at it.  Frankly she's a diversity hire.

Pitting her against Academia is silly, the Power / Knowledge thing.  Nobody in the original game is actually a representative of Wealth, although you might expect Morgan to pursue it. 

Game mechanically, Santiago exists to make the factions be 7 instead of 6.  To have imbalance, so that the breaking of alliances is easier.  It is worth noting that the board game Diplomacy also had 7 Great Powers.  Free form alliance games based on the number 7, is a proven game mechanical model with known properties.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on October 12, 2021, 01:45:38 AM
Yea the Wealth SE is sort of an odd one. Does it mean money (ECON) or well-being (perhaps GROWTH or EFFIC)? INDUSTRY seems odd to me as a base benefit.

I guess since none of the factions were designed around the SE we'll never know.

It'd probably be some sort of pacifist faction, but set apart from Morgan and PKs. The Data Angels are kind of the closest thing but they were written to have Democratic agenda. Wealth might have fit them better, perhaps stealing energy for the benefit of all? Although I have Wealth as reducing PROBE due to greed/bribery... kind of goes against their strengths...



Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on October 12, 2021, 02:59:45 AM
I guess since none of the factions were designed around the SE we'll never know.

The Morganite quotes were designed to show a contrast between the creation of knowledge and wealth.  "But research grants are expensive, and you must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge, but concrete and profitable applications as well."   This was squarely aimed at the realities of academic vs. corporate research in the 1990s, and presumably they have not changed.  Microsoft Research in particular grabbed up CS researchers lest any of them invent The Next Big Thing and MS wouldn't be the ones to have their fingers in it.  Researchers are seen by corporations as strategic armaments, that they may not value, but they don't want other corporations to have access to.

Factions only get 1 Agenda, so for Morgan that's Free Market.  Wealth is sorta like repeat and amplify Free Market.  No other faction was designed to be a wealth grubber, not even in the expansion.

Cha Dawn eschews Wealth in the original game, can't pick it.  But, that's a pretty stunted one note storyline, not much of a developed theme.  The prophet isn't into wealth... ok, how about all the prophets and evangelicals who are very much into wealth?  I changed Cha Dawn's aversion in my mod to Democratic.  He's a cult leader, you're gonna follow him.  He espouses Eudaimonic which is pro-Planet, and he can be totally cynical about how he gets there.  I've seen him go Free Market!  Boy did that make my Deirdre mad in my last AAR.

I made my Pirates the wealth grubbers.  The industrializing dialogue doesn't fit, but being totally into wealth sure does.  Laying back and piling on the wealth also happens to be a good strategy for them, because they've got a minerals and energy rich moat all around 'em.  Why fight?  Just make money and get big.

Quote
The Data Angels are kind of the closest thing but they were written to have Democratic agenda.

Yeah, but, they don't have enough writing for me to be loyal to that idea.  Also they're not really written to be democratic, they're written to be anarchic.  For a long time I had Roze as my exemplar of Thought Control.  A darker interpretation where all that ++PROBE went to her head and she gets her kicks mind controlling everybody.  Eventually due to realities of play mechanics in my tech tree, I relented.  Now the Data Angels are my 1 faction in the game that has no Agenda at all.  I figure that's closer to being anarchist.  Conqueror Marr stepped up as the proponent of Thought Control, so that I don't have to have another Socialist or another Power faction.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on October 15, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
Planned / Cybernetic can oppose (centralized / devolution)
Eudaimonic / Thought Control as well (utopian / dystopian)

Those are my opposition pairings for now. Does make me wonder if there were 6 pairings originally for ruthless/idealistic

Wealth for Pirates makes sense. I don't know about them being pacifist... I think I have them at aggressive but might tone them down to erratic. My design was to have four of each (pacifist, erratic, aggressive).
Angels I'll keep TC to have someone fill that role, not a fan of the alien facs. Don't think it's a big stretch, wanting to be in control of all the information.
Rest would all be the same for agendas. Aversions become the oppositions.

Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on October 15, 2021, 06:36:13 PM
Planned / Cybernetic can oppose (centralized / devolution)

Uuuh, maybe I just know a little too much about the history of socialism and cybernetic economic management experiments, such as Chile's Project CyberSyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) from 1971 to 1973.  I can't see these ideas as opposed.  Why wouldn't rational cyborgs plan stuff out?  Why wouldn't planners use computers to plan stuff?  Did you fall for the line in the original game that Planned has to be "inefficient" ?  And that cyborgs are "efficient" ?  Efficient at what?  Nazis were efficient at running railroad cars and gas chambers....

Quote
Wealth for Pirates makes sense. I don't know about them being pacifist... I think I have them at aggressive but might tone them down to erratic.

It was more of a game mechanical decision.  Aggressive pirates are extremely obnoxious and annoying.  They're just this never ending spam wave that forces you to build artillery pieces to repel them.  It's not basically fun after awhile because the AI never gets tired of spamming you with BS units on your coast.  Whereas, the Pirates are very well situated to run a pacifist long term strategy.  Who can invade them, or even wants to?  Nobody else is getting +1 minerals in the water.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on October 18, 2021, 07:01:18 PM
Yea I didn't agree with CyCon being the EFFIC faction either. I have them currently with +2 POLICE (due to being more rational, less dissent).

It's a bit of a stretch but my interpretation of Cybernetic was many specialized AIs working together in a very large decentralized/distributed network. There wouldn't be a centralized 'hive-mind' like the later version of Star Trek Borg. More like original Borg. Many of these would be AIs integrated with people..

Planned I have at -ECON right now. The cost I suppose of distributing resources better (+GROWTH, +INDUSTRY)

Don't have anything at -EFFIC right now either, it's just too steep of a curve on the downside. Instead some choices are 'less corrupt'. Democracy and Knowledge for sure... but yea it's kind of a stretch for Cybernetic. Perhaps the 'all connected' is a similar kind of open share, but at the cost of privacy...
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 14, 2022, 01:13:42 AM
The trinary system does ultimately have some problems.  In  my most recent AAR I've become very annoyed at the false choice between my Socialist (Planned) and Green.  Similarly, what's the difference between Police State and my Theocratic (Fundamentalist) ?  Did I miss a memo on how Iran or North Korea are run?  Or now, Afghanistan?

Free Market is the capitalist pigs destroying the environment.  Green opposes it.  Morgan vs. Deirdre.

You may not have been asking this question, but it could be that the Planned Economics/Green dichotomy reflected the era in which Alpha Centauri was developed, when the Soviet Union was well-known for the ecological catastrophes caused by its industrial economy.

The same could be at the heart of why Police State was considered an option apart from Theocracy. States like Soviet Russia, Tito's Yugoslavia, and Ceaușescu's Romania were avowedly atheistic.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 14, 2022, 03:39:42 AM
As I learn about so-called EcoSocialism, I'm aware of some problematic differences from straight up Socialism.  Often, not enough emphasis on workers, and not enough wrapping one's head around the business environments that workers are currently stuck existing in.  So yes, it's possible for there to be differences.  I do object to the game portraying them as stark differences though, like things either camp would go to war over.

The game does play up there being some kind of difference between the operative methods of a religious vs. atheistic police state.  They call one Fundamentalist, and the other a Police State.  They're both actually police states, and use exactly the same methods to control the population, in real life.  Secret police, making you say certain things, do certain things, carry certain things, not carry other certain things, rat on your neighbors, publicly execute people, etc.  I was particularly 'impressed' by ISIS throwing gay people off the tops of minarets.  Now that's a very dramatic public statement.

I might like someone to explain to me, what the realistic game mechanical difference could possibly be, when there's no real world evidence for it.  It's really really apparent in the history of the North Korean dictators, where they have been regarded as religious figureheads.  You do worship the leader over there.  Those leaders do have special powers beyond those of ordinary human beings over there.  There's a really good Netflix documentary series lately, narrated by Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones / Tyrion fame, called How To Become A Tyrant (https://www.netflix.com/title/80989772).  Plenty of stuff on N.K.

I am wondering what game mechanical system would actually embody differences between atheism and religion.  It should probably be its own axis in a SE table.  Perhaps called "Beliefs" ?  It could get a little redundant, as everything could actually be a belief.  Anthropologists for instance talk about "belief systems", as a broader term than just religions.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on February 14, 2022, 03:21:36 PM
Faction ideologies are the religious analog, it's just that Miriam's ideology is Christian fanaticism. My conception is that most of the people on the Unity were secular-minded, even if they did maintain some traditional religious beliefs. Maybe there are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. spread around Planet, but they didn't turn to their religious beliefs and double-down on them in the big crisis. Zakharov's the most overtly atheistic leader, but he's opposed to Miriam just as he'd be opposed to Santiago for valuing power over knowledge. Their beliefs (whatever they may be) are wrong, his are right.

Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 14, 2022, 04:45:04 PM
Zhakarov isn't actually opposed to Miriam though!  He's opposed to people picking something other than Knowledge and he's incapable of Fundamentalist.  Miriam isn't actually opposed to Zhakarov.  She's opposed to people picking something other than Fundamentalist, and she's incapable of picking Knowledge.  In the original game, which is anti-religious and doesn't actually fit with her dialogue in the quotes and Secret Project videos.  I made Miriam opposed to Cybernetic, which she clearly is.

Compare Zhakarov to Santiago, which is straight up Knowledge vs. Power.

The 3-way opposition is actually Yang, Lal, Miriam.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on February 14, 2022, 05:47:40 PM
Very good point. Opposing Cybernetic makes a lot of sense, too. I take that future society to basically be dress rehearsal for Transcendence so it fits.

As for Miriam's commentary, while she makes a lot of points, I'm not sure I'd like to live under her alternative. ;)
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 14, 2022, 11:52:20 PM
What's wrong with walking into a Psi Gate?  After all, she's going first...
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 23, 2022, 01:08:07 AM
As I learn about so-called EcoSocialism, I'm aware of some problematic differences from straight up Socialism.  Often, not enough emphasis on workers, and not enough wrapping one's head around the business environments that workers are currently stuck existing in.  So yes, it's possible for there to be differences.  I do object to the game portraying them as stark differences though, like things either camp would go to war over.

The game does play up there being some kind of difference between the operative methods of a religious vs. atheistic police state.  They call one Fundamentalist, and the other a Police State.  They're both actually police states, and use exactly the same methods to control the population, in real life.  Secret police, making you say certain things, do certain things, carry certain things, not carry other certain things, rat on your neighbors, publicly execute people, etc.  I was particularly 'impressed' by ISIS throwing gay people off the tops of minarets.  Now that's a very dramatic public statement.

I might like someone to explain to me, what the realistic game mechanical difference could possibly be, when there's no real world evidence for it.  It's really really apparent in the history of the North Korean dictators, where they have been regarded as religious figureheads.  You do worship the leader over there.  Those leaders do have special powers beyond those of ordinary human beings over there.  There's a really good Netflix documentary series lately, narrated by Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones / Tyrion fame, called How To Become A Tyrant (https://www.netflix.com/title/80989772).  Plenty of stuff on N.K.

I am wondering what game mechanical system would actually embody differences between atheism and religion.  It should probably be its own axis in a SE table.  Perhaps called "Beliefs" ?  It could get a little redundant, as everything could actually be a belief.  Anthropologists for instance talk about "belief systems", as a broader term than just religions.

The fact that fundamentalist police states function mechanically in ways that make it difficult to distinguish them from atheistic police states is probably more reflective of fundamental attributes of human nature and social organization than anything else. At some point, when persuasion has failed, and you're trying to impose your will on somebody else, the content of your ideology is no longer very relevant to the interaction.

Some of Zakharov's quotations suggest that, although his avowedly atheistic society is structured along the lines of a university faculty, they, too, employ secret police. Genetic Inspectors, I think?

Zhakarov isn't actually opposed to Miriam though!  He's opposed to people picking something other than Knowledge and he's incapable of Fundamentalist.  Miriam isn't actually opposed to Zhakarov.  She's opposed to people picking something other than Fundamentalist, and she's incapable of picking Knowledge.  In the original game, which is anti-religious and doesn't actually fit with her dialogue in the quotes and Secret Project videos.  I made Miriam opposed to Cybernetic, which she clearly is.

Compare Zhakarov to Santiago, which is straight up Knowledge vs. Power.

The 3-way opposition is actually Yang, Lal, Miriam.


I think there's a limit to which we should expect the factions to adhere strictly to one-dimensional tropes. Alpha Centauri is, in some sense, about a dialogue between genius-level intellects, each capable of incisive commentary about a broad range of subject matter.

Obviously, because this is all the work of humans, it is imperfect, and some leaders (Santiago is the standout) get short shrift.

I think it adds a great deal of depth to the world Brian Reynolds built to hear Miriam comment on High Energy Chemistry or Santiago on Nanometallurgy. It lends a bit of realism since no real person is so single-minded that they only ever talk about the things most important to them.

As for the dyads, I always thought they went...

University - Believers
Gaians - Morganites
Spartans - Peacekeepers (reflecting the war-like and peace-like valences of each, respectively)
Peacekeepers - Hive (the open versus the closed society)

Obviously, in global history, we have also seen that faith and environmentalism can be practiced in opposition to materialism and war-mongering.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 23, 2022, 04:19:33 AM
Some of Zakharov's quotations suggest that, although his avowedly atheistic society is structured along the lines of a university faculty, they, too, employ secret police. Genetic Inspectors, I think?

No the University is trying to avoid the (Planetary) Council's Genetic Inspectors.  They're surely like our real world U.N. Weapons Inspectors.  "Vice Provost for University Affairs" is denying everything and saying they're not allowed to search this faction's private residences.

Quote
Spartans - Peacekeepers (reflecting the war-like and peace-like valences of each, respectively)

Lal's character may be peaceful / pusillanimous wimp,  but his faction AI is Erratic.  Which makes him a warmonger roughly half the time you interact with him.  I suppose one could chalk this up to ludonarrative dissonance.  Like when some "hero" utters lines in a cut scene about peace and humanity after the player has murdered thousands of people as that hero.

Anyways, the Spartans and Peacekeepers have no inherent conflict on the SE table.  In fact you should expect Lal to choose Power.  Now, maybe Santiago will choose Fundamentalist early in the game to get the +1 MORALE bonus, and that will bend Lal out of shape.  That's about it though.

Santiago doesn't spend any time talking about "U.N. / Planetary Council" stuff.  She's not into governance.  She only prattles on about how everyone's gonna stay permanently at war.

Lal does talk about "their own private army of demons".  Since "unscrupulous power brokers" was plural though, "violating the sanctity of unwilling human minds", there's no reason to think that Santiago was being called out specifically.  One can readily assume the Morganites and the Hive are also using such troops.

We know that Zhakarov doesn't think there's any sanctity to a human mind, although his amorality is from his faction sheet and penalties, rather than any quotes or lines of dialog.  We can't be sure that Zhakarov is anti-war so much as anti-Power, which the game represents specifically as military power.  We all know that knowledge is power... if we didn't, various characters will tell us when offering techs for sale!  So yes, Zhakarov could be a "power broker" using cyborg troops.  Add the professor to the list of suspects worthy of Lal's fretting.

Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Nexii on February 25, 2022, 09:34:12 PM
Based on the in-game lore, I always felt it should have been:
Aggressive: Believers, Spartans
Erratic: University, Hive, Gaians
Pacifist: Morgan, PKs

That's if you had to slot them 2/3/2 to make it balanced. I see the expansion factions being more aggressive so these shift a bit if you want to do 4/4/4 for 12 factions
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 25, 2022, 11:12:03 PM
Hmm what did I actually end up with in my mod?

Passive: Morganites, Peacekeepers, Pirates, University.

Erratic: Angels, Believers, Cult, Cyborgs, Drones,  Gaians, Hive.

Aggressive: Caretakers, Spartans, Usurpers.

Passive is for factions whose strategy is most favored by sitting back and not getting into wars.  Morganites = make money = Economic Victory, in principle.  In practice I need to revisit how E.V. is implemented in my mod.  Peacekeepers = make people = Diplomatic Victory.  University = make tech = Transcend Victory.  Pirates just have all these great resources in the ocean and no one in serious competition for them.

Aggressive is for factions who are clearly favored by attacking people.  Typically they have a MORALE bonus.

I'm a bit surprised that I don't have Miriam under there currently.  I did go through a period where she was more toned down and didn't even go Fundamentalist / Extremist.  But then finally I acknowledged that the diplomatic dialogue was about God and I wasn't going to change it.  I changed the category to Theocratic and put her back in the role.

Here's a note from when I was waffling about her aggression, in release 1.29 quite awhile ago:

Quote
- Believers: removed MORALE bonus.  Reinstated FANATIC attack bonus.  Changed personality to Erratic.  They have been underperforming, but I haven't found a solution for it.  I tried giving them a SUPPORT bonus but oddly, it didn't help.  These changes at least give them more flavor than a "generic fighting" faction.

I see now why I only have her as Erratic.  Theocratic became my GROWTH choice.  Believers also get a +1 GROWTH bonus.  "Be fruitful and multiply".  Their research foci are Build, Conquer.  So the idea is their role is to "get big and build stuff", not simply run around trying to be the biggest pain.  I think in practice, they tend to get large and pretty overwhelming with this strategy.  Another one of their quirks is although they don't have PROBE bonuses, they're immune to mind control.  So when AIs get in fights and the Believers win something, they tend to hold the ground.  Enemy probe teams don't reverse the situation.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on February 25, 2022, 11:21:08 PM
Erratic fits Lal and the Peacekeepers well because, as I conceive them, they are liberal interventionists. Lal typically heads the nominal planetary government and the Peacekeepers are there to enforce the Charter by any means necessary. If diplomacy fails to reverse the fragmentation of the mission, then force it is.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 26, 2022, 02:33:57 AM
the Peacekeepers are there to enforce the Charter by any means necessary.

That phrasing usually means you're willing to throw ethics to the wind.  Lal is quite a bit more principled than that.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on February 26, 2022, 02:53:54 AM
Well by any means but still stopping short of actual atrocities. I conceive of Lal as more like a Captain Sisko than a Captain Picard, if that analogy makes sense to you. Then again, Sisko did poison that Maquis planet's atmosphere...
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 26, 2022, 03:41:31 AM
Some of Zakharov's quotations suggest that, although his avowedly atheistic society is structured along the lines of a university faculty, they, too, employ secret police. Genetic Inspectors, I think?

No the University is trying to avoid the (Planetary) Council's Genetic Inspectors.  They're surely like our real world U.N. Weapons Inspectors.  "Vice Provost for University Affairs" is denying everything and saying they're not allowed to search this faction's private residences.

Quote
Spartans - Peacekeepers (reflecting the war-like and peace-like valences of each, respectively)

Lal's character may be peaceful / pusillanimous wimp,  but his faction AI is Erratic.  Which makes him a warmonger roughly half the time you interact with him.  I suppose one could chalk this up to ludonarrative dissonance.  Like when some "hero" utters lines in a cut scene about peace and humanity after the player has murdered thousands of people as that hero.

Anyways, the Spartans and Peacekeepers have no inherent conflict on the SE table.  In fact you should expect Lal to choose Power.  Now, maybe Santiago will choose Fundamentalist early in the game to get the +1 MORALE bonus, and that will bend Lal out of shape.  That's about it though.

Santiago doesn't spend any time talking about "U.N. / Planetary Council" stuff.  She's not into governance.  She only prattles on about how everyone's gonna stay permanently at war.

Lal does talk about "their own private army of demons".  Since "unscrupulous power brokers" was plural though, "violating the sanctity of unwilling human minds", there's no reason to think that Santiago was being called out specifically.  One can readily assume the Morganites and the Hive are also using such troops.

We know that Zhakarov doesn't think there's any sanctity to a human mind, although his amorality is from his faction sheet and penalties, rather than any quotes or lines of dialog.  We can't be sure that Zhakarov is anti-war so much as anti-Power, which the game represents specifically as military power.  We all know that knowledge is power... if we didn't, various characters will tell us when offering techs for sale!  So yes, Zhakarov could be a "power broker" using cyborg troops.  Add the professor to the list of suspects worthy of Lal's fretting.

The "Peacekeepers" are literally and figuratively a caricature of the late-1990s United Nations. fresh off the follies of the Yugoslav Wars of Succession and still struggling to find its feet in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Played straight, they're an obsessively legalistic faction of sanctimonious lawyers who have a tendency to enforce their own version of morality at gunpoint... but only in the rare places where they aren't militarily overmatched by the disputants themselves. Subverted, they are the kind of faction that would empanel a human rights committee with the likes of Sheng-ji Yang and Prokhor Zakharov out of a blind commitment to the principle of fair play, or choose a negative peace over justice, such as by enforcing an arms embargo that works to the advantage of the clear aggressor.

To the extent that the Peacekeepers could also represent humanists deeply committed to self-actualization through free choice, I'd expect them to have serious objections to Spartan society.

I think the Spartans are the least well-defined faction. The lore on the Firaxis website paid naked homage to Battletech and appeared to nod to the right-wing militia movements that were top-of-mind at the time the game was made. It was easy to think of Santiago as potentially analogous to General Bethlehem in Kevin Costner's The Postman. "Might makes right" as a flimsy philosophical window-dressing for self-aggrandizement. But it is also possible to conceive of the Spartans as something short of would-be fascists. Maybe just a warrior society that prized wits and physical prowess above all else.

The Peacekeepers would take issue with the first trope because, in that case, the Spartans would be plainly transgressing against other factions. But they would also take issue with the second trope because a society that praises the thief who doesn't get caught, or awards promotion for physical fitness, has an inherent brutality to it.

The Believers suffer terribly, I think, from a disconnect between their lore and the way that they act in most games. I think it was Michael Ely's fiction that did a good job of suggesting that the Believers stole from other factions to avoid starvation in their own. In my own fiction, I've stipulated that this is because they landed with the greatest number of mouths to feed--by virtue of having tried to evacuate anyone who was ambulatory, including those sick with advanced radiation poisoning. But in the computer game, when controlled by the AI, the Believers tend to resemble the Crusaders of 1097--a rampaging army of zealots whose piety may seem contrived to justify banditry.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 26, 2022, 09:56:25 AM
To the extent that the Peacekeepers could also represent humanists deeply committed to self-actualization through free choice, I'd expect them to have serious objections to Spartan society.

There's nothing terribly wrong with the survival nut side of Spartan culture.  They're a caricature of 1990s militia groups.  So they wanna run around exercising the 2nd Amendment and shooting dangerous mindworms.  What's the big deal?  Planet's a dangerous place, so shouldn't everybody be doing that?  I think only the Gaians would have issues with survival nuttery on Planet, seeing everything as a "species to protect".

Quote
But it is also possible to conceive of the Spartans as something short of would-be fascists.

It's not in the game's lore.  Fascism isn't really a subject that SMAC deals with.  Probably because Civ II didn't deal with it either.  It was in Civ I and for some reason they dumped it.

Quote
The Believers suffer terribly, I think, from a disconnect between their lore and the way that they act in most games. I think it was Michael Ely's fiction that did a good job of suggesting that the Believers stole from other factions to avoid starvation in their own. In my own fiction, I've stipulated that this is because they landed with the greatest number of mouths to feed--by virtue of having tried to evacuate anyone who was ambulatory, including those sick with advanced radiation poisoning. But in the computer game, when controlled by the AI, the Believers tend to resemble the Crusaders of 1097--a rampaging army of zealots

I think the religious far right coming after the music and game industries was in recent memory back then.  So they made a cartoon Church Chat Lady ala Saturday Night Live.  The cartoon version is dissonant from the developed character version.

Quote
whose piety may seem contrived to justify banditry.

Never got that vibe from the game.  Miriam is not in it for the wealth or resources.  She's a true holy roller.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 26, 2022, 03:58:45 PM
There's nothing terribly wrong with the survival nut side of Spartan culture.  They're a caricature of 1990s militia groups.  So they wanna run around exercising the 2nd Amendment and shooting dangerous mindworms.  What's the big deal?  Planet's a dangerous place, so shouldn't everybody be doing that?  I think only the Gaians would have issues with survival nuttery on Planet, seeing everything as a "species to protect".

It's possible to imagine Santiago creating a more or less hermetic society that doesn't engage in aggression toward neighbors and is strictly focused on self-defense. It would mean that Spartan society would probably have something of a "gymnasium" culture grafted to the "survival nut" core. Like, do you even lift, bro? Talents lift.

In practice, I assume the pursuit and glorification of the warrior ideal would predispose other factions to feel uncomfortable about Spartan choices. And obviously, if the Spartans go full-90s militia group, there are blatant threatening overtones for other factions to complain about. I can see the Peacekeepers hand-wringing about the former archetype even if, perhaps objectively speaking, it should concern nobody but the Spartans themselves. Imagining conflict where it might not otherwise exist, if you will.

In my fiction, I created a separate faction, the Hunters of Chiron, for the "Man against Self"/Man striving for self-reliance aspects of the original Spartan creed, and presented the Spartans as neo-fascists almost entirely, though with a core, perhaps including Santiago herself, who were aghast at what the Frankenstein's Monster they'd created.

I always felt like the kind of person Santiago would attract, operating from her place of deep pain in the out-of-game lore, would be unlikely to actually share her vision of what makes a person truly worthy.

It's not in the game's lore.  Fascism isn't really a subject that SMAC deals with.  Probably because Civ II didn't deal with it either.  It was in Civ I and for some reason they dumped it.

As a teenager playing the game, I always assumed I was supposed to be most-aggressive with the Spartans. It boiled down to their spoken philosophy and symbology in-game. Ironically, the out-of-game official fiction actually implies that Santiago is something more than a mere brute.


I think the religious far right coming after the music and game industries was in recent memory back then.  So they made a cartoon Church Chat Lady ala Saturday Night Live.  The cartoon version is dissonant from the developed character version.

I don't think the in-game lore did Miriam as dirty as you do. I think you hit the nail on the head when you called attention to the problem of ludo-narrative dissonance as a transcendent issue. The Believers' faction design prompts both AI and player to be extremely aggressive, which can seem contrary to certain Western depictions of Christianity (e.g., "everyone knows Jesus wouldn't approve of X, which is often claimed to be done in the name of God"). But I think a lot of Miriam's quotations are not necessarily sinister, whereas I take a lot of Zakharov's to be just that, for instance.

Never got that vibe from the game.  Miriam is not in it for the wealth or resources.  She's a true holy roller.

I always imagined that Miriam and her followers would look at the Unity survivors as the Elect, and Planet as their God-given portion. Kind of the way the Bible presents the Land of Israel to the Israelites. Such an outlook would provide a broader contextual justification for hegemonistic or exploitative behavior toward other factions.

I think, from the perspective of the victims of someone like a hegemonistic Miriam, it would seem very much that the Believers preached morality without actually living as moral people.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 26, 2022, 07:27:33 PM
I think the religious far right coming after the music and game industries was in recent memory back then.  So they made a cartoon Church Chat Lady ala Saturday Night Live.  The cartoon version is dissonant from the developed character version.

I don't think the in-game lore did Miriam as dirty as you do.
Quotes and videos make Miriam nuanced.  Faction abilities, one liners, and hard coded diplomatic dialogue, are all Church Chat Lady.  It's like 2 different authors, 2 different periods of authorship.  In general, the "short cookie cutter templates" of the faction.txt files, do not leave room for nuance.  You've got room for some good zingers, i.e. Santiago polishing her beloved artillery pieces.

Assuming I get my own 4X TBS effort off the ground, I will not be using the "short cookie cutter template" approach to factions.  I haven't exactly figured out what I'm going to do instead, but it's going to be a narrative about diplomacy, not a simulation of every detail of diplomacy.  I don't want players contacting each other every other turn and asking, "May I ask you a question?" and so forth.  That's just teeny tiny bits of machinery and not what a screenwriter would do.  I want a dramatization of the Yalta Conference.  Something that only happens once in awhile and is a big deal.

Quote
But I think a lot of Miriam's quotations are not necessarily sinister, whereas I take a lot of Zakharov's to be just that, for instance.

What's wrong with the small white rat?  The damage is not as great as they say.

And people are stupid about religion.  He got that one right.

Quote
I always imagined that Miriam and her followers would look at the Unity survivors as the Elect, and Planet as their God-given portion. Kind of the way the Bible presents the Land of Israel to the Israelites. Such an outlook would provide a broader contextual justification for hegemonistic or exploitative behavior toward other factions.

You can look at her that way, but there's very little game lore to support it.  She gets a -PLANET faction penalty and a claim she thinks it's the Garden of Eden.  You get the opening monologue about Cherubim, and a Sword that turns every which way.  The video for the Universal Translator certainly muddies the issue in an incredible / improbable way.  That's about it for Miriam and "God was here" though.

The dominant theme of the game's lore, is that Miriam will just keep pushing the burden of proof farther and farther back behind the next layer of science that is actually verified.  Compare "pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters actually cause everything".

And that she doesn't like cyborgs.

I ditched the -PLANET penalty and lore because it's a throwaway, unsupported by the rest of the game's lore.  It's that Church Chat Lady writing.  "Of course Christians are clueless and stupid about where they are and what's happening.  They must be Chosen."

Quote
I think, from the perspective of the victims of someone like a hegemonistic Miriam, it would seem very much that the Believers preached morality without actually living as moral people.

Biblical morality includes stoning people to death for various reasons.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 26, 2022, 10:06:21 PM
I laughed out loud at the "small white rat" line.

I think the Planet penalty arises from the same idiosyncrasies that today explain why so many religiously-motivated conservatives reject anthropogenic climate change.

While, for many, it is simply a way to signal partisan allegiance and axiomatically assert their belonging to the "correct" political team as it were, it nonetheless also fits a certain kind of purely materialistic interpretation of dominion. One that says, when something is given over into your control, it is without any strings attached.

It is not that different from Morgan's thinking about the Earth. "Consumption is the point." For Miriam's followers, it's more like, "Working our will on it is the point. It's ours. We can do whatever we like with it. No obligation."

I always felt that Miriam and her followers weren't really predisposed to understand why they had to defend their own commitment to faith. In my own personal experience, people of faith do grapple with doubt, but they may also feel that they see and feel manifest evidence of God's existence each and every day, even if it doesn't satisfy the expectations of others. Yes, evangelicals devote energy to thinking about how to persuade others, but it seems to be different from the kind of persuasion they use for themselves.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 27, 2022, 04:33:36 AM
I think the Planet penalty arises from the same idiosyncrasies that today explain why so many religiously-motivated conservatives reject anthropogenic climate change.

And that's pretty much the anti-Christian bigotry in a nutshell.  Like there are no Christians that are liberal, no Christian environmentalists...

Quote
it nonetheless also fits a certain kind of purely materialistic interpretation of dominion.

The Bible is a tome that can be cherry picked for almost anything one wants to say.  That's probably a big part of its cultural durability.  It's damn flexible.  Wanna kill homosexuals?  It's in there.  Wanna turn the other cheek?  It's in there.  Wanna commit genocide?  It's in there.  Down to the last goat.

And the history of the likely mistranslations is fun too.  A centuries old game of Telephone.

Quote
For Miriam's followers, it's more like, "Working our will on it is the point. It's ours. We can do whatever we like with it. No obligation."

You can paint them up like that, but it's a rather specific characterization on your part.

The game's lore, does not actually comment on what God wants done with Planet.  In fact, the entire intersectional question is completely avoided.  If the original authors had intended to deal with such matters, they would have had some Miriam vs. Deirdre dialogue.  These 2 characters completely ignore each other.  Deirdre does not have 1 line about God, and Miriam does not have 1 line about the environment.

Quote
I always felt that Miriam and her followers weren't really predisposed to understand why they had to defend their own commitment to faith.

The game actually has Miriam defending her faith left, right, and center.  God's always behind the last theorem.  Miriam's defense is she can move the goalpost forever.  She doesn't acknowledge that it's a bad defense, a pattern of self-serving argument.  She never makes the explicit comment that at the bottom of it all, the final axiom, is her faith in God.  Nothing else.  Zhakarov of course sees this as her stupidity, and humanity generally.  And as an atheist, I'm with him.

All of the original cast of 7 are arguing with someone.  Although, like radio evangelists, there's nobody actually arguing back, when they utter their great platitudes.  You can do it in your own mind, but you can't actually call in and say, "Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. Billy Graham..."  You get cut off.  On to the next caller, if there are ever any callers.  The usual format is one way sermonizing.

Or in SMAC parlance: here are my memoirs.  My Little Red Book for you to read.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on February 27, 2022, 07:23:58 PM
And that's pretty much the anti-Christian bigotry in a nutshell.  Like there are no Christians that are liberal, no Christian environmentalists...

I disagree. Miriam's comment on the modernity--"The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress"--is actually subversive to anti-Christian stereotypes. She recognizes that the problems lie in the hearts of the user, rather than with the content per se.

If I may say so, your point seems to be that the "Christianity" of the Lord's Believers is not necessarily authoritative in any sense, and can even be considered shallow. "Christian" is a subjective term that can mean one thing to the self-described practitioner and another to their audience.

To try to clarify my point in the previous post, I think that the popular criticisms of Dominionists don't always "land" the way critics imagine. I think the malus to Planet scores for the Believers is also a case where the anti-Christian sentiment is in the eye of the beholder. To use an extreme example, if in 1860, you described somebody as supporting the institution of slavery, an abolitionist might take offense but a secessionist might affirm it loudly.

Use a milder example. Planned or unplanned, an economy can be either friendly or antagonistic to the environment. I have conceived of the Planet malus for the Lord's Believers as a reflection of the fact that they are content to prioritize human interests over those of Planet because they believe they have divine sanction to do exactly that. Planet is an object to them. In practice, it would mean that the Believers have about the same attitude toward Planet as Morgan.

You can paint them up like that, but it's a rather specific characterization on your part.

I think one of the beauties of the fiction is that it allows for that kind of speculation, although I daresay I think the Dominionist connection is blatant. It could be I've just thought more about that issue over the course of my life, so it feels familiar to me.

The game actually has Miriam defending her faith left, right, and center.  God's always behind the last theorem.  Miriam's defense is she can move the goalpost forever.  She doesn't acknowledge that it's a bad defense, a pattern of self-serving argument.  She never makes the explicit comment that at the bottom of it all, the final axiom, is her faith in God.  Nothing else.  Zhakarov of course sees this as her stupidity, and humanity generally.  And as an atheist, I'm with him.

All of the original cast of 7 are arguing with someone.  Although, like radio evangelists, there's nobody actually arguing back, when they utter their great platitudes.  You can do it in your own mind, but you can't actually call in and say, "Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. Billy Graham..."  You get cut off.  On to the next caller, if there are ever any callers.  The usual format is one way sermonizing.

Or in SMAC parlance: here are my memoirs.  My Little Red Book for you to read.

I agree that the faction leaders dialogue with each other and engage in apologia generally. However, I want to be clear that I don't think this means Miriam is insecure about her faith. I also think the practice of apologia isn't always reflective of what explains the speaker's own faith.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on February 27, 2022, 10:05:58 PM
I disagree. Miriam's comment on the modernity--"The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress"--is actually subversive to anti-Christian stereotypes.

Again, Miriam is written in 2 different ways, possibly by 2 different authors, at 2 different points in the game's production, in 2 different sections of the game's content.  The cool nuanced way, and the anti-Christian bigoted way.  I'm in favor of all the material she was given in the quotes and videos.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: MysticWind on February 28, 2022, 08:36:15 AM
A lot of the faction.txt text is borderline parody material that leans hard on caricatures of all of the factions, not just the Believers. And a lot of it is ignored by fandom- who takes seriously diplo Deidre's threat of siccing her "Environmental Police" on her enemies? Stuff like "the Spartan Paramilitary Legion" is poorly-named and doesn't exist anywhere else in the lore.

I've wanted to make a thread either here or on the corresponding subreddit about "stuff in the game that everyone kind of ignores", and diplo text would be one aspect. The major one I had in mind is how AC just has really not-hard sci-fi events like transdimensional portals, units getting cloned, supply pods triggering earthquakes. All of which are fun and provide flavor in-game, but lore-wise they're pretty silly and so no one really talks about them, since they're just random events.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on February 28, 2022, 12:45:25 PM
Yeah that's the "ludonarrative dissonance" that had a hot minute a few years ago in game commentary. According to gameplay, Planet is divided between 7 more or less equal and independent factions. According to lore, though, everyone is nominally under the Council and they pay lip service to some of the original colonization plans. All of the factions' armies, except Lal's I suppose, are paramilitary forces with silly names like Environmental Police.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: MysticWind on February 28, 2022, 10:04:15 PM
I've seen the interpretation that the factions are nominally part of a mission that has continued and aren't separate sovereign political entities in fandom, but I actually don't think the game supports that interpretation very much. I think the lore and the gameplay both indicate that after contact has been reestablished between all seven factions, they decide to re-create the United Nations under the Planetary Council and have their own set of space international laws, where they pay lip service to the original mission as you say but they still retain fierce independence and autonomy within their factions, except in the case of human rights atrocities such as nerve stapling.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on March 01, 2022, 01:19:26 AM
The reason I err towards that interpretation is because factions (which is a word that implies a smaller group that's part of a larger whole) elect a "planetary governor" which sounds like what they were supposed to do, and that diplomatic language avoids words like alliance or war (though there is the "treaty" of friendship). Plus as I said factions have funny names for their militaries. It also behooves factions to pretend that the original plan is in effect when they can use it to collectively bully a faction when it gets a little too out of line (the dreaded Genetic Inspectors).

But I freely admit it's what I extrapolate for the game to make sense to me. I don't think there are many "wrong" interpretations.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on March 01, 2022, 04:01:30 AM
It's just a bunch of dissonance.  I refuse to utter the mouthful "vendetta" when I'm writing up After Action Reports.  I'm not writing about the Italian mob.  Factions declare war.

If I were writing a clean slate 4X TBS (which nominally I am; 1st worrying about graphics stuff) I don't think I'd call these groups of people "factions".  But, Firaxis had the right idea of not calling them Nations either.  Hmm, what the heck would I call them?

Most of them are pretty close to being political parties or regimes.  Many are movements, being concerned with ideology.  None of these are great names / terms though.

'Bloc' and 'sect' are terms with some applicability.  The Believers and the Cult of Planet are definitely sects, and possibly so is the Hive.  Maybe even the Cybernetic Consciousness.

Morgan runs a corporation.  Roze runs an underground.  The Data Angels have never made sense as a faction that builds cities and holds territory.  They should be embedded in all factions.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: MysticWind on March 01, 2022, 08:49:38 AM
They could be called "polities" or "sovereignties" but that's probably too dry and technical.

Funnily enough, "civilization" would be very apt, but of course the games are meant to be a departure from the original Civ series, so you can't just recycle that term in space. But "faction" also makes sense because unlike civilizations in Civ, they were descended from one common mission, that broke apart.

I think if you wanted to be specific and descriptive, something like "cause" or "movement" would go well with the ideological nature of the SMAC factions. But that doesn't sound very cool. At the very least, it's all better than the "sponsors" of Civ Beyond Earth, which are just so dull in both name and nature.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: bvanevery on March 01, 2022, 11:18:23 PM
I could call them "cultures", but that would beg questions as to why cultures are immutable and exclusionary.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on March 02, 2022, 02:27:58 AM
I don't think there are many "wrong" interpretations.

Agreed. One of the things that makes Alpha Centauri so great is how robustly it stands up to different avenues of dramatic and philosophical critique.

It's just a bunch of dissonance.  I refuse to utter the mouthful "vendetta" when I'm writing up After Action Reports.  I'm not writing about the Italian mob.  Factions declare war.

I assumed that "vendetta" was inspired by the kanly of Dune. Perhaps Reynolds felt it would seem more personal if the term for war implied a transcendence of the political to the personal.


If I were writing a clean slate 4X TBS (which nominally I am; 1st worrying about graphics stuff) I don't think I'd call these groups of people "factions".  But, Firaxis had the right idea of not calling them Nations either.  Hmm, what the heck would I call them?

One of the original players in my game coined the term "tribe" for his faction. The Human Tribe. They were a bunch of "anti-disassociationalists." In short, people who wanted to build societies that relied more on direct interaction between people in familial and geographic proximity, not commonalities of politics or other, more intangible interests.

Most of them are pretty close to being political parties or regimes.  Many are movements, being concerned with ideology.  None of these are great names / terms though.

Agreed. I think "movements" works to a point, but the factions don't scruple to contain dissenters. In the Hive, your reward for dissent is the nerve staple, not exile.

'Bloc' and 'sect' are terms with some applicability.  The Believers and the Cult of Planet are definitely sects, and possibly so is the Hive.  Maybe even the Cybernetic Consciousness.

I'm not sure the Hive is united by shared beliefs so much as shared misfortune. ;lol

The Hive is probably the hardest faction to subvert. Played straight, Yang is a monster. Slightly subverted, he's a potentially Platonic despot. But totally subverted, he's the kind of ruler who demands a strict accounting from his disciples--a kind of governing elite who are held to a higher standard in order to model proper behavior for everyone else, whom Yang genuinely supposes he is helping to survive the rigors of life on Planet.

This kind of thinking is why I like to ask, "Why does the leader think civilization on Earth failed?" Each one indisputable has a different story.

Miriam presumably thinks that we strayed from the path of righteousness, whatever that may mean. It could be a fairly pedestrian decline in church membership, a darker reference to frustrations about thwarted theocracy, or something else.

Yang, I guess, would say that humans failed to place the good of the many ahead of the good of a few. That, or we "allowed" ourselves to be ruled by unsuitable people.

Morgan thinks we did nothing wrong. We just ate our way to the bottom of the buffet salver.

Zakharov would perhaps feel that we did not sufficiently exploit all the literal and figurative tools in our intellectual arsenal to solve our problems, perhaps because we let pesky ethics get in the way. In my retelling, Zakharov blames liberal democracy for promoting tolerance of what he calls "folkways." In other words, we "freedom convoyed" our way to practical extinction.

Santiago must figure most people chose the path of least resistance and didn't fight for what mattered.

Lal's quotations indicate, ironically, that we fell prey to dictatorship after allowing ourselves to become the victims of censorship. That's quite a specific fate for a guy who is otherwise generically the "democracy" selection. Freedom of expression and obsession with bureaucratic forms aren't one and the same.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: MysticWind on March 02, 2022, 04:48:33 AM
Come to think of it, "society" would probably be a great replacement for factions. Especially in the early years, the colonists are refugees forming hardscrabble frontier societies. And societies imply values, which go hand-in-hand with the factions' ideologies.

The Hive is probably the hardest faction to subvert. Played straight, Yang is a monster. Slightly subverted, he's a potentially Platonic despot. But totally subverted, he's the kind of ruler who demands a strict accounting from his disciples--a kind of governing elite who are held to a higher standard in order to model proper behavior for everyone else, whom Yang genuinely supposes he is helping to survive the rigors of life on Planet.

I think there's more interpretations to be made there. Fanon considers him to be inspired by Legalism- well then, he could be a 21st century Planetary version of any of imperial China's emperors, from Qin Shi Huangdi on. None of those rulers, even as despotic as they could, did everything themselves. (Though as a twist, one could imagine a far-future tech Yang who entrusts the administration of the Hive to cybernetic A.I. copies of himself- or actual biological clones. Ironically, the SMAC spiritual successor and knock-off/clone Pandora: First Contact did that with their Hive xerox (https://pandora.fandom.com/wiki/Solar_Dynasty).)

Alternatively, the seminal AC fanfic novella "Joe" (https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/alpha-centauri/ac-stories/14156-joe) by Alinestra Covelia of the olde Apolyton forums depicts an authoritarian yet dynamic Hive, an economic powerhouse and internally sound. Eerily the story, which was written in the year 2000, in some ways portrays the Hive in ways not dissimilar from the modern day PRC, complete with state capitalism and use of soft power to woo other factions. Yang even pals around with Zakharov, playing chess and go remotely. In some ways, it's the most grounded approach of writing the Hive as a working society, in that the totalitarianism is mitigated by high standards of living and patriotism against external foes. So a Hive that loses its communal austerity over time, and where Yang is a political chessmaster who uses subtlety and intense espionage to stymie his foes. Even Michael Ely's novels, which are sort of reductive in its characterizations, does portray Yang as shrewd and not simply a cult leader megalomaniac.

Miriam presumably thinks that we strayed from the path of righteousness, whatever that may mean. It could be a fairly pedestrian decline in church membership, a darker reference to frustrations about thwarted theocracy, or something else.

I'm struck by how in Michael Ely's "Journey to Centauri" novella he had Miriam be the sole vote in favor of not dissolving the mission, besides Lal. Her faith doesn't view the U.N. as the antichrist's One World Nation, at least. My read of that novella is that Planetfall was particularly traumatizing for her, leading to an intense spiritual awakening and whatever fanaticism she gets into on Chiron has a lot to do with that. I think also her focus on the faith of her father and country is because everyone else, Lal aside, pretty much abandoned the mission when the going got tough.

Yang, I guess, would say that humans failed to place the good of the many ahead of the good of a few. That, or we "allowed" ourselves to be ruled by unsuitable people.

That sounds about right. My pet theory is based on the Firaxis website bio, Yang also wanted to bring back the imperial-era Confucian system and ways of looking at the world, as he personally served as the bodyguard of a modern day emperor.

Morgan thinks we did nothing wrong. We just ate our way to the bottom of the buffet salver.

Yeah, not much to add to that. He reduces all of life to economic interactions, and as he's such a big fan of economic games, human life must perpetuate so there may be an economy.

Zakharov would perhaps feel that we did not sufficiently exploit all the literal and figurative tools in our intellectual arsenal to solve our problems, perhaps because we let pesky ethics get in the way. In my retelling, Zakharov blames liberal democracy for promoting tolerance of what he calls "folkways." In other words, we "freedom convoyed" our way to practical extinction.

Ely does a particularly good job incorporating that characterization into the opening novella's story when he has Zakharov insist on restarting the reactor or whatever over Garland and the others' objections, even when it may threaten the integrity of the ship itself.

Santiago must figure most people chose the path of least resistance and didn't fight for what mattered.

She was basically a Social Darwinian and it sounded like the Spartans believed that they were the only ones apex predator enough to survive the challenges that laid before humanity. So the people who messed up earth, both the leaders and the masses, were weak sheep who should've been led, and possibly culled, by her wolves.

Lal's quotations indicate, ironically, that we fell prey to dictatorship after allowing ourselves to become the victims of censorship. That's quite a specific fate for a guy who is otherwise generically the "democracy" selection. Freedom of expression and obsession with bureaucratic forms aren't one and the same.

Probably a legacy of earlier iterations of the game when Brother Lal led the Keepers of Wisdom and had a more science-oriented faction. No idea how they were going to manage that, since Yang's Labyrinth also had a science bent, never mind Saratov's Archons.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: Trenacker on March 03, 2022, 02:28:04 AM
Come to think of it, "society" would probably be a great replacement for factions. Especially in the early years, the colonists are refugees forming hardscrabble frontier societies. And societies imply values, which go hand-in-hand with the factions' ideologies.

It's a good term. Societies are united not only by shared values, but common interests, and members of a society may compete amongst themselves for resources and influence.

I think there's more interpretations to be made there. Fanon considers him to be inspired by Legalism- well then, he could be a 21st century Planetary version of any of imperial China's emperors, from Qin Shi Huangdi on. None of those rulers, even as despotic as they could, did everything themselves. (Though as a twist, one could imagine a far-future tech Yang who entrusts the administration of the Hive to cybernetic A.I. copies of himself- or actual biological clones. Ironically, the SMAC spiritual successor and knock-off/clone Pandora: First Contact did that with their Hive xerox (https://pandora.fandom.com/wiki/Solar_Dynasty).)

I have read the theory that links Yang to Chinese Legalism. I've incorporated it into my own fiction. Here is some writing of mine (https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/racing-the-darkness-a-retelling-of-sid-meiers-alpha-centauri.49956/) from November 2018: "Yang propounds a philosophy emphasizing the Three Pillars: 法 (Fa), or law, meaning that the law is known, and obeyed because systematically enforced; 術 (Shu), or method, whereby the ruler holds himself apart from society and applies "special tactics and secrets" to obscure his motivations, reducing the opportunity for confidants to influence him inappropriately; and 勢 (Shi), or legitimacy, which focuses on drawing distinctions between the excellence of the ruler and the flaws of the man who rules.​"

It is just possible to see this Yang as possessing something that seems like humility. Trying to work out how to foster insight, talent, virtue, reserve, discernment... all the many ingredients a successful leader might need.

Such a description even creates a basis for Lal to engage with other factions that focus on exploration of the self. What could Colonel Corazon Santiago teach him about fortitude? What could Factor Roshann Cobb or Dr. Aleigha Cohen tell him about the true wellsprings of creativity?

The "Clone Yangs" idea certainly aligns with the presentation found in both the game and Yang's own Firaxis biography. In my fiction, Director Tamineh Pahlavi and her Human Ascendancy make off with Mission's genetic index and seed banks. After Planetfall, they turn their efforts to growing Neosapien in a test tube and establishing a geniocratic colony.

I'm struck by how in Michael Ely's "Journey to Centauri" novella he had Miriam be the sole vote in favor of not dissolving the mission, besides Lal. Her faith doesn't view the U.N. as the antichrist's One World Nation, at least. My read of that novella is that Planetfall was particularly traumatizing for her, leading to an intense spiritual awakening and whatever fanaticism she gets into on Chiron has a lot to do with that. I think also her focus on the faith of her father and country is because everyone else, Lal aside, pretty much abandoned the mission when the going got tough.

I imagine a high-minded Miriam, someone who fought back against the most regressive manifestations of religion in politics on Earth. During the Unity Crisis, I have tended to think of her as one of the few willing to take wounded aboard her Landing Pods. This merciful impulse means that her faction is among the most populous at Planetfall, but also in urgent need of medicines, food, and other supplies she simply does not have. Hence the tendency of her flock to raid. Miriam considers all Unity survivors to be among the Elect--a singular group of people who enjoy God's favor, and to whom she has been enjoined to minister.

That sounds about right. My pet theory is based on the Firaxis website bio, Yang also wanted to bring back the imperial-era Confucian system and ways of looking at the world, as he personally served as the bodyguard of a modern day emperor.

I can see Yang instituting a cycle of regular exams to identify potential Talents.

Yeah, not much to add to that. He reduces all of life to economic interactions, and as he's such a big fan of economic games, human life must perpetuate so there may be an economy.

I find Morgan fairly one-dimensional. In my lore, he was born a colonial subject and became an outlaw and sometime-collaborator before his material success allowed him to flout the color line. In his mind, wealth is an indispensable means of self-actualization.

Ely does a particularly good job incorporating that characterization into the opening novella's story when he has Zakharov insist on restarting the reactor or whatever over Garland and the others' objections, even when it may threaten the integrity of the ship itself.

Zakharov is most interesting to me as a villain. A careerist "thruster" with a history of getting subordinates killed to meet quotas. A narcissist who is unable to trust. A man terrified of his own mortality who insists that the reactors must be repaired so that he needn't sacrifice himself for those not yet awake. He later disobeys orders to abandon the compromised reactor compartments and retrieves engineers in preference to damage controllers. He is ultimately the person most responsible, after Santiago, for things going pear-shaped.

A cleaned-up excerpt from my megagame from the section titled, "Planetfall."

Quote
The patchwork crew proved unequal to their new task. Damage control operations began almost at once under the supervision of Unity's Executive Officer, General Francisco d'Almeida, clearing the way for Chief Engineer Prokhor Zakharov's technicians to assess the reactor spaces. They were disrupted by multiple groups of armed stowaways who proceeded to engage in a shooting war between not only themselves, but the mainline crew. One of the ringleaders, Colonel Corazón Santiago, read aloud a manifesto over the ship's internal address system, and was able to secure for herself a face-to-face meeting with Captain Garland. Thirty-six hours later, he was dead at the hand of an unknown assailant.

The surviving leaders fell into rounds of recrimination. Without extraordinary measures to correct drift, Unity would overshoot Chiron, be forced into a long elliptical orbit, and return only after a transit of eighty-four years. All the crew now-awakened would either need to re-enter cold sleep, a deadly-dangerous proposition, or attempt emergency landing on the world below with whatever diminished quantities of supplies they could reach in the chaos. Zakharov, whose advanced age greatly reduced the likelihood of survival in either contingency, insisted that it was still possible for his operators to save the ship and permit an ordinary landing with much of the cargo intact, but other division heads protested that their personnel were too disorganized, or else too few in number, to provide him with the necessary support.

In the end, every hand turned to sabotage. It wasn't enough that Santiago's brutes opened fire on the same people trying to seal rents in the hull. Nor that Jean-Baptiste Keller's followers used the cover of chaos to avenge themselves on Holnists and U.N. Marines alike. Zakharov, too, bitterly assailed his peers and refused them the benefit of his precious engineers. Deirdre Skye, the mission's head Xenobiologist, diverted first responders away from engineer tasks to reinforce the structural integrity of the ship's remaining greenhouses. Records show that Francisco d'Almeida awakened 400 more personnel than was ordered, none of them with the firefighting or heavy rescue billets relevant to the present danger, but all of them combat-trained. Aleigha Cohen oversaw the nerve-stapling of hundreds of newly-awakened prisoners in the ship's forward detention blocks. Leaving her post in an overcrowded surgery, Tamineh Pahlavi ventured into the heart of the ship and, with a few determined followers, made off with the genetic legacy of Earth--an index of every organism alive on Earth, and some already extinct at Mission Launch. Citing her authority under U.N. protocol, Miriam Godwinson, whom the ship's computer still flagged as deceased, refused to force crew members in her care to breach irradiated compartments to make crucial repairs. Finding the situation hopeless, d'Almeida, acting as Garland's successor, gave the order for each leader to gather those crew still ambulatory and abandon ship. In his last official act as a United Nations representative, he unilaterally declared the Mission Charter dissolved.

She was basically a Social Darwinian and it sounded like the Spartans believed that they were the only ones apex predator enough to survive the challenges that laid before humanity. So the people who messed up earth, both the leaders and the masses, were weak sheep who should've been led, and possibly culled, by her wolves.

I imagine that Santiago actually wishes for the sheep to rise to the occasion. In my fiction, she infiltrates the Unity crew because she feels deeply aggrieved about being excluded. To do this, she and her "hypersurvivalists" make common cause with the Holnist movement. The Holnists are the dregs of humanity, hooligans and cranks who dress up their worst impulses with some low-rent Nietzsche.

Probably a legacy of earlier iterations of the game when Brother Lal led the Keepers of Wisdom and had a more science-oriented faction. No idea how they were going to manage that, since Yang's Labyrinth also had a science bent, never mind Saratov's Archons.

I've never heard of that.

I got to ask a question of Brian Reynolds, once. I inquired if any factions were left on the cutting room floor, and he said no. Where can I learn more about the earlier iterations of the game?

I bought Sid Meier's autobiography hoping for insight, but it had only a passing mention of Alpha Centauri.
Title: Re: Commentary on Unused and Unimplemented Game Features
Post by: EmpathCrawler on March 03, 2022, 03:20:04 AM
There are a few scattered references in some of the graphic files of the original faction concepts if you look for them. There's some old beta or concept art here: https://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=media;sa=album;in=11
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 31 - 840KB. (show)
Queries used: 14.

[Show Queries]