What if Alpha Centauri was like WW2?

[Hierophant]

I didn't post this for a while because I didn't want to create another non-gameplay discussion, but it's an idea that's been going through my head lately as I've been on a SMAC binge. Big wars usually have two sides. SMAC simulates that to some extent in the late game, but otherwise there isn't much clustering in two big groups like in WW1/WW2. I was thinking about who'd be on what side, while trying to make it at least a little balanced (both in terms of general power and in terms of momentum, hybrid, and builder factions).

Here's my suggestion, based on very general morality guides (i.e. how badly they treat their own people):
Allies: Peacekeepers-Gaians-Believers (with the Spartans joining later)
Axis: Morganites-University-Hive

It's not a perfect classification. The Axis should have the Spartans on it to be their best momentum faction, but that would make them way too unbalanced. I think the Spartans are more of a wildcard: they seem to be more neutral, morality-wise (the only thing I've seen that people have used to imply "bad Spartans" was the Punishment Sphere quote, but that's very ambiguous). They also hate University and the Morganites, so I don't really see them joining with the Axis. Despite their canon war, I think the Spartans would get along better with the Gaians, and also the Believers. At the beginning, the Believers would be the momentum faction on the Allies side, against the Hive.

Morganites are there as the builder faction for the Axis, and they seem to be a good fit with the other factions (capitalists need scientists and a captive workforce after all, and they hate environmentalists and people who argue for the human rights of workers), although one could argue they are not on the bad side morally. But if Morgan was, to some extent, modeled after Ayn Rand/anarcho-capitalism and that extreme sort of "survival of the fittest" philosophy, then there is no doubt that a large segment of the population will be treated extremely poorly. If it's a choice between Peacekeepers and Morganites as the big builder factions, definitely the Peacekeepers should be in the Allies and Morganites should be in the Axis (of eeeeeevul).

[bvanevery]

The basic morality comparison to WW II is wrong.  The Western Allies, ended up allying with Joseph Stalin.  Who was as brutal as anybody.

The Hive resembles Stalinist Russia.  This is because Chairman Yang is a straight take of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung with "cyber woo" added.  Mao was Stalinist, and was installed by Stalin.

The problem is, there aren't really any factions in the game that resemble Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.  This is probably because Civ 1 had a Fascist government type, but Civ 2 dumped it.  I can't remember if Civ 2 created Fundamentalist or retained it from Civ 1, but the Believers continued in that tradition.  Swapping Muslim suicide scimitar wielders (in Civ 2 ToT at least) for Christian yahoos.

I would compare the Morganites to the USA.  The Nazis did historically call them Plutocrats.  The USA did historically harm its own people, it's just that those harms were most likely to fall along boundaries of race.  If not that, then class, which is a very Morganic thing to do.

The U.K. under Neville Chamberlain was a bunch of "pusillanimous wimps", like Lal.  Of course, then they got Churchill.

Civ-style games generally have come down to a 2-power or 3-power finish.  I've seen 3-power finishes in face-to-face "freeform alliance" board games like Diplomacy and Avalon Hill's Civilization.  I think when actual humans play politics with each other, 2-power finishes don't happen.  This is probably due to "ganging up" dynamics.

[Hierophant]

I didn't mean to equate every country, just to have a war with two groups with a general ethical orientation. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Allies were good guys, but that is the perception nowadays given that they won of course. The victors write the history books, after all.
If we were gonna go along the route of exact analogies, then yes, I would agree with you. Hive and Morganites would have to be on the same side (although they are on my classification as well). Not sure I would equate Peacekeepers with the UK. They were no more concerned about human rights at the time than any other country. So an exact analogy breaks down pretty fast. Ultimately I tried to make it more about general ethical orientation and play balance.

[bvanevery]

There are 3 implemented axes of conflict in SMAC: human rights, environment, and religion.  That accounts for 6 of the original factions.  The Spartans are a tack-on and Santiago's characterization as a military leader is not credible.  It's the 3 pairings that drove the game's design, with the Spartans added to create imbalance.

The reason the comparisons are not easy, is because WW II was structured with only 3 ideological divisions.  The Western Allies were Democratic.  The Soviet ally was Communist.  And the Axis was Fascist.  You would need multiple nations with the same ideology to make the comparison.  But SMAC is a game where every faction has a different ideology, so the direct comparison doesn't work.

Since Patton and maybe some others wanted to roll right over Russia afterwards, it might be better to view WW II as a 3-power conflict.