Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
So I've thought about this and now inspiration has struck on how to wrangle Social Engineering/Civics (from now on SE/C) in the game. It'll require some balancing, but it can be done.
I've realized that in many cases, we can divide the SE/C according to their philosophical bases. In original SMAC (which I will use as the base for this), for instance, you can identify (in general) four ideas or currents informing the civics: Statism, Technocracy, Communitarianism, and Liberalism. For instance, in Politics, Police State was the Statist option, Democratic the Liberal option, and Fundamentalism the Communitarian option. Not all the currents were represented: for instance, there is no Technocratic Politics option, but there was definitely a Technocratic Future Society option (Cybernetic) and a Values option (Knowledge; the Liberal-i.e. Libertarian-option is Wealth).
Applying this to Planetfall and the CivIV engine's greater flexibility, I think we can definitely apply this principle fully. I can even explain it in terms of the storyline.
P.S. Though this might resemble the Political Compass somewhat, it really doesn't have much to do with it.
THE FOUR CURRENTS
Statist: Based primarily in the ideas of Chairman Yang, with substantial influence from the political theory of Sister Miriam and the military theory of Colonel Santiago. Statist thinkers are highly security-conscious, finding Planet to be an extremely dangerous place. They also look upon the turmoil of twenty-first century Earth (the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century) as proof of the wrongheadedness of the liberal ideals it claimed to have espoused, and combined with their perception of danger as being everywhere on Planet, Statist thinkers call for a powerful State that will protect the physical security of the colonies and ensure their political stability.
Technocratic: Based primarily on the ideas of Provost Zakharov, with substantial influence from the theories of Commissioner Lal and CEO Morgan. Technocratic theorists to some degree accept the theory that something incredibly wrong happened to Earth in the last century, but they don't accept the Statist solution to the problem, nor do they accept the assertion that Planet is a fundamentally dangerous place, preferring to think of Planet as a challenge to be met rather than a danger to be faced. Technocratic thinkers, blaming the so-called Crisis of the Twenty-First Century on the incompetence of political leaders, advocate the transfer of substantial power away from politicians--be they chosen by election or other means--and to a new class of highly-trained experts.
Communitarian: Based primarily on the social theories of Sister Miriam and Lady Dierdre, with some influence from the theories of Commissioner Lal. Communitarian thinkers emphasize the construction of coherent communities, and call for policies that build social cohesion. The Crisis of the Twenty-First Century, according to Communitarian thinkers, was the product of social breakdown and an over-emphasis on individual material improvements. Communitarians are particularly suspicious of free trade and globalization, with many of them placing the blame for the Crisis on the neoliberal structure of globalization that disrupted local cultures and communities and failed to replace them with a common global one, leaving a world without strong communities and thus social disorder. However, this fundamentally populist message has led to some strange bedfellows, and while all Communitarians agree that Planet represents an opportunity to establish strong communities afresh, the way to establish these communities and the approach to the alien environment are very much in dispute.
Liberal: Based primarily on the ideas of Commissioner Lal and CEO Morgan, with influence from Lady Dierdre and Colonel Santiago. Liberals reject the idea that it was liberalism that caused the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century, but rather a deficit of liberalism. The policies called "liberal" on Earth were not in fact truly liberal but rather grotesque alterations of liberalism that ended up serving a small class of powerful individuals, and besides, many of the most powerful states on Earth never even pretended to be liberal (Yang's Great China to name one). To Liberal thinkers on Planet, the new colonies represent an opportunity to prove liberalism's detractors wrong, without a preexisting society to interfere with the experiment in freedom. The ideas that liberals--especially those of a more laissez-faire stripe--had been itching to try for years on Earth could now be tried on Planet without the high barriers that had once existed. Liberalism on Planet calls for equality, individual freedom and local control, as on Earth, but the voices on Planet are larger now that there's half a chance of fully achieving the goals.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING/CIVICS:
These are descriptions of what I have in mind for each SE/C option. The text doesn't describe the exact benefits and drawbacks I have in mind.
Politics: How your faction comes to policy decisions.
Ecology:I really have no idea what was meant with Ecology, so I won't say much about it until the options have been explained. However, I'd recommend that Terraforming be Statist, and that a good, new, Liberal option would be Decentralization (local control of Ecology policy).
Values: What your society (or at least your government) thinks is most important.
Future Society: These options are complex and advanced, and are the pinnacles of the Four Currents of thought on Planet. Because they represent the final policy products of the Currents, I've decided they need something to impose semi-orthodoxy with them, to prevent contradictions (Democracy with Thought Control?). I've termed these "Restrictions," but whether they will be reductions of effects or outright bans on using the Restricted SE/C options with the FS option, I don't know.
Leaders, by the way, can be classified thus:
Dierdre: Liberal and Communitarian
Lal: Liberal and Technocratic or Liberal and Communitarian (depends on style)
Miriam: Statist and Communitarian
Morgan: Liberal and Technocratic
Santiago: Statist and Technocratic, or (paradox!) Statist and Liberal
Yang: Statist and Communitarian or Statist and Technocratic (style again)
Zakharov: Liberal and Technocratic
I've realized that in many cases, we can divide the SE/C according to their philosophical bases. In original SMAC (which I will use as the base for this), for instance, you can identify (in general) four ideas or currents informing the civics: Statism, Technocracy, Communitarianism, and Liberalism. For instance, in Politics, Police State was the Statist option, Democratic the Liberal option, and Fundamentalism the Communitarian option. Not all the currents were represented: for instance, there is no Technocratic Politics option, but there was definitely a Technocratic Future Society option (Cybernetic) and a Values option (Knowledge; the Liberal-i.e. Libertarian-option is Wealth).
Applying this to Planetfall and the CivIV engine's greater flexibility, I think we can definitely apply this principle fully. I can even explain it in terms of the storyline.
P.S. Though this might resemble the Political Compass somewhat, it really doesn't have much to do with it.
THE FOUR CURRENTS
Statist: Based primarily in the ideas of Chairman Yang, with substantial influence from the political theory of Sister Miriam and the military theory of Colonel Santiago. Statist thinkers are highly security-conscious, finding Planet to be an extremely dangerous place. They also look upon the turmoil of twenty-first century Earth (the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century) as proof of the wrongheadedness of the liberal ideals it claimed to have espoused, and combined with their perception of danger as being everywhere on Planet, Statist thinkers call for a powerful State that will protect the physical security of the colonies and ensure their political stability.
Technocratic: Based primarily on the ideas of Provost Zakharov, with substantial influence from the theories of Commissioner Lal and CEO Morgan. Technocratic theorists to some degree accept the theory that something incredibly wrong happened to Earth in the last century, but they don't accept the Statist solution to the problem, nor do they accept the assertion that Planet is a fundamentally dangerous place, preferring to think of Planet as a challenge to be met rather than a danger to be faced. Technocratic thinkers, blaming the so-called Crisis of the Twenty-First Century on the incompetence of political leaders, advocate the transfer of substantial power away from politicians--be they chosen by election or other means--and to a new class of highly-trained experts.
Communitarian: Based primarily on the social theories of Sister Miriam and Lady Dierdre, with some influence from the theories of Commissioner Lal. Communitarian thinkers emphasize the construction of coherent communities, and call for policies that build social cohesion. The Crisis of the Twenty-First Century, according to Communitarian thinkers, was the product of social breakdown and an over-emphasis on individual material improvements. Communitarians are particularly suspicious of free trade and globalization, with many of them placing the blame for the Crisis on the neoliberal structure of globalization that disrupted local cultures and communities and failed to replace them with a common global one, leaving a world without strong communities and thus social disorder. However, this fundamentally populist message has led to some strange bedfellows, and while all Communitarians agree that Planet represents an opportunity to establish strong communities afresh, the way to establish these communities and the approach to the alien environment are very much in dispute.
Liberal: Based primarily on the ideas of Commissioner Lal and CEO Morgan, with influence from Lady Dierdre and Colonel Santiago. Liberals reject the idea that it was liberalism that caused the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century, but rather a deficit of liberalism. The policies called "liberal" on Earth were not in fact truly liberal but rather grotesque alterations of liberalism that ended up serving a small class of powerful individuals, and besides, many of the most powerful states on Earth never even pretended to be liberal (Yang's Great China to name one). To Liberal thinkers on Planet, the new colonies represent an opportunity to prove liberalism's detractors wrong, without a preexisting society to interfere with the experiment in freedom. The ideas that liberals--especially those of a more laissez-faire stripe--had been itching to try for years on Earth could now be tried on Planet without the high barriers that had once existed. Liberalism on Planet calls for equality, individual freedom and local control, as on Earth, but the voices on Planet are larger now that there's half a chance of fully achieving the goals.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING/CIVICS:
These are descriptions of what I have in mind for each SE/C option. The text doesn't describe the exact benefits and drawbacks I have in mind.
Politics: How your faction comes to policy decisions.
- Mission Command (Basic): Developed organically out of the structures aboard the Unity and immediately after Planetfall, this ad-hoc kind of government varies from faction to faction. While acceptable for government of a small, newly-established colony, Mission Command government simply won't work for larger, older factions. No positives or negatives.
- Police State (Statist): The Police State has the external and internal security of the colony as its primary focus. To the former end, Police States tend to be quite effective at fielding strong security forces to defend (or "defend") from other factions and from Planet itself. These same forces can conveniently be used to preserve internal security, quelling dissent that threatens the stability of the state. Of course, the security forces are unnecessary for such purposes if an effective intelligence service applies itself to its secret police duties. However, these measures can weigh on the economy, and control of the media reduces academic freedom, hindering certain kinds of research.
- Technocratic (Technocratic): Technocratic government aims to modify politics by taking substantial decisionmaking power out of the hands of political figures and into those of a select group of educated experts. Such government improves efficiency dramatically and encourages research to . However, Technocratic government tends to chafe for those formally in power, and technocrats may find themselves subject to the discontent of the populace and the resentment of the bureaucracy.
- Fundamentalist (Communitarian): Fundamentalist government builds community around a single, strong religion, and makes that religion the central point of the state and society. An effectively-evangelized populace is enthusiastic, very tightly-knit, and very suspicious of outsiders, making for frighteningly zealous soldiers and easy identification of infiltration. However, Fundamentalist government also tends to be suspicious of natural science, fearing its potential effects on dogma.
- Democratic (Liberal): Democracy allows citizens to participate fully in government, giving them a spirit of freedom, self-sufficiency, and self-worth that boosts public morale and dramatically improves productivity. However, having the people in charge of the government hampers the military with even the most militaristic populace, and the power of the people can terminate wars before the military has achieved its objective.
- Subsistence (Basic): The only concern of the early Subsistence economy is providing enough food to eat, enough energy to heat the base and power its vital equipment, and enough raw materials to maintain the base and provide sufficient room and defense for the expanding population. It's decentralized and case-by-case, with economic policymakers going from crisis to crisis putting out fires, and is clearly ill-suited to meeting the needs of a large, complex civilization.
- Planned (Statist): In a Planned economy, the economy serves the needs of the State. A Planned economy may allow some free enterprise, but it is always subject to strict regulation to ensure that production matches the goals of the government. This ensures healthy, stable industrial growth, and ensures a fairly consistent and predictable economic climate across your territory. However, government control of the economy makes it very difficult to respond to economic changes, and business obviously doesn't care for the severe regulation.
- Mixed (Technocratic): A Mixed economy tries to bring the best of all the various other kinds of economic system in a sort of goulash carefully balanced by the government on the advice of a team of economists and policy advisors. The result resembles the social-market economies of Western Europe on Earth: the moderate regulation ensures economic stability and a social safety net, making for a happy, healthy populace, without being so onerous as to make the economy unresponsive to market changes. However, business often finds itself footing the bill for the benefits, which has some impact on profits.
- Autarkic (Communitarian): An Autarkic economy on Planet tries to build self-sufficiency for the faction for the sake of the workers (think Domai). Foreign trade is restricted, but workers, more secure in their jobs and brought together to achieve self-sufficiency, devote themselves to better work. Business' reaction is mixed and extreme: high finance, international trade, and export-centered businesses are furious, but domestic industries appreciate the support.
- Free Market (Liberal): A Free Market economy on Planet tries to uphold the laissez-faire traditions of the Chicago School. The economy is minimally regulated, with only a few laws to prevent fraud, ensure fair competition, and establish minimum standards for working conditions. This naturally increases business activity, and enterprising businesses, free to act as they please, seek out new markets abroad. However, the lack of regulation can lead to complaints of worker abuse, and the absence of environmental controls makes Planet unhappy. Very unhappy.
Ecology:I really have no idea what was meant with Ecology, so I won't say much about it until the options have been explained. However, I'd recommend that Terraforming be Statist, and that a good, new, Liberal option would be Decentralization (local control of Ecology policy).
Values: What your society (or at least your government) thinks is most important.
- Survival (Basic): Can't get much more basic than that. At first, your society really only wants to exist long enough to see then next Mission Year. However, as your society grows, mere Survival seems assured and your people and your government turn their thoughts to other things.
- Power (Statist): A society that values Power above all else seeks to expand the scope and strength of the State. At home, a society that values Power will exhibit strong militaristic tendencies and would be more willing to tolerate both the draft and extended military commitments; abroad, its expansionist, aggressive foreign policy causes the government to invest in well-trained, well-equipped troops. However, the military emphasis puts a strain on industry.
- Knowledge (Technocratic): A society that values Knowledge seeks to be the exemplar of academic freedom and debate. Research thrives in this kind of environment, and the open media encouraged by the system makes for a clean, transparent, efficient government, which is popular both with the man in the corridor and captains of industry. However, this openness means that the government leaks like a sieve.
- Community (Communitarian): A society that values Community seeks cohesion and community among its citizens, emphasizing the things the people hold in common, especially culture. However, a Community-valuing society can go about it in a few different ways. If the state has endorsed a particular religion, that religion generally becomes the focus of the national community, causing near-frightful levels of enthusiasm for the religion, with public religious frenzies not uncommon in such societies, boosting public morale and energy for public projects. In the absence of state religion, the diversity of the community is emphasized; the more religions present in a base, the closer they get to their counterparts in a single-religion state. However, no matter how this is handled, a society that values Community will offend individualists, many of them in business and science.
- Wealth (Liberal): A society that values Wealth seeks to build up its assets, investing in economic and industrial infrastructure, with significant results. However, the pursuit of material wealth upsets those who value community and can lead to laxity in the military ranks.
Future Society: These options are complex and advanced, and are the pinnacles of the Four Currents of thought on Planet. Because they represent the final policy products of the Currents, I've decided they need something to impose semi-orthodoxy with them, to prevent contradictions (Democracy with Thought Control?). I've termed these "Restrictions," but whether they will be reductions of effects or outright bans on using the Restricted SE/C options with the FS option, I don't know.
- None (Basic): It's not the far future yet, dummy! How can we have a Future Society?
- Thought Control (Statist): The ultimate expression of Statism, Thought Control uses a veritable menagerie of atmospheric neurochemicals, food-administered drugs, subliminal messaging, and plain old brainwashing and propaganda to control the populace. The people are generally obedient, loyal, and immune to persuasion by anyone but the State. However, Thought Control requires extremely high amounts of resources, and severely limits cultural output. Restrictions are Democratic (how meaningless of a democracy can you get?) and Knowledge (all that research might give people ideas that not even the drugs can control).
- Cybernetic (Technocratic): The ultimate expression of Technocracy, a Cybernetic goes beyond just putting experts (who are still human) in charge and turns over much of the decisionmaking process to artificially intelligent computers. Cybernetic societies have large creative classes, boosting research and culture, and the computers make the government very efficient. However, citizens put out of work by robots will be quite angry. Restrictions are Fundamentalist (for some reason, pure, non-cyborg AIs can never become true believers) and Autarkic (though the AIs understand the workers' concerns intellectually, the overall assessment is always that Autarky is incredibly inefficient; NOTE: this Restriction is subject to change).
- Eudaimonic (Communitarian): The ultimate expression of Communitarianism, a Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to fulfill his or her potential and coordinates these efforts for the betterment of all. Naturally, people will be much happier, and the concern of the government for the welfare of each citizen makes for higher productivity. However, Eudaimonic societies, having sought perfect justice and tolerance, begin to forget what on Planet violence is good for. Restrictions are Power (again, they've forgotten what violence is good for), and Wealth (though business does well under Eudaimonia, the pursuit of wealth as a goal of life is seen as rather crass and antithetical to personal fulfillment).
- Libertarian (Liberal): The ultimate expression of Liberalism, a Libertarian society uses some of the techniques of Eudaimonic and Cybernetic societies to very limited degrees to make the age-old dream of perfect liberty. A Libertarian society has decentralized government and a high emphasis on personal and economic freedom. This pleases business, and the reduction in the size of government makes for cleaner government as well. However, libertarian societies tend to ignore the poor. Restrictions are Planned (shouldn't it be obvious?) and Police State (again, shouldn't it be obvious?)
Leaders, by the way, can be classified thus:
Dierdre: Liberal and Communitarian
Lal: Liberal and Technocratic or Liberal and Communitarian (depends on style)
Miriam: Statist and Communitarian
Morgan: Liberal and Technocratic
Santiago: Statist and Technocratic, or (paradox!) Statist and Liberal
Yang: Statist and Communitarian or Statist and Technocratic (style again)
Zakharov: Liberal and Technocratic
Of course, I do have some input of my own. 
![[c3c]](/images/smilies/c3c.gif "Civ3 Conquests [c3c]")
got replaced in ![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
by Upkeep, and each Civic has an Upkeep value...but in SMAC, Corruption was more-concretely represented by EFFIC. This presents an interesting decision: Do we stick with Upkeep and eliminate EFFIC, or revert to EFFIC and ditch Upkeep?
