Your choice for ruler of the world.

[Norbert]

OK, here goes a right-wingers look at the whole thing...

Just the original leaders, right?

1. Morgan. Honestly, when is Sid Meier going to get off of making anyone religious or conservative: (A) a sadistic religious wacko ala Carries mom. (B) a sadistic murdering Nazi. or (C) a Sadistic monopolizing robber baron? It really grinds my last nerve. If you look at how well APPLIED Capitalism works in the Real World, and how all functional economic systems in the West are derivatives of it, it would work on planet too. Also, Morgan's society would be among the most free, with opportunity and Meritocracy for people, but not necessarily the wishy washy individualistic anti-society proposed by Lal. Finally, why wouldn't we want to STAMP OUT THOSE BRAIN EATING PARASITES. I'll bet fungus tastes nasty, too...

2. Santiago. As a gun enthusiast myself, a society based on gun rights and promotion of the general good through authoritarianism would be one of the more likely to survive on planet. While Santiago herself is paranoid, she's no crazed despot, at least not from what I can see.

3. Lal. WHile internationalism, forced "human rights" and the godless glorification of humans as the top dog is not a philosophy I adhere too, his love of freedom and mankind can't be bad, which is why he goes before the

*BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*

4. Zakharov. All the flaws of Lal with none of the decency or respect for conventional ethics.

5. Deirdre. This was a toughy, she's not necessarily evil, or even selfish, which is why she get's fifth, and you could wrap her in Aluminum foil and call her Boeing, cause she's fly.... BUT...It's delusional, self-abosorbed, Godless, pagan, hypocritical, Society hating, tree-hugging, drug dealing, relativistic WISHY_WASHY, FUN HATING, FRIENDLESS, PARANOID, POLITICALLY ILLITERATE, COMMUNIST, FREEDOM HATING, BIGOTED, ARROGANT and MISGUIDED "SCIENTISTS" <-----(oh how I hate how they assume that mantle), that get under my skin more than any other type of person on earth. I happen to know a "Deirdre" of my own...she's pretty fly, and otherwise a very nice and intelligent person, AND THEN YOU HIT THE ENVIRONMENTALISM.

6. Yang. This was also hard, but I'm putting him here for two reasons.

1) protest and logic. "Real Communism" does not exist, the idealism inherant in Hegel cannot be accomplished in the imperfect world we live in, read Hobbes and Adam Smith before you disagree, man is equal in opportunity, not in gifts. Communism has been used as nothing but a front for despotism, removal of rights, stamping out of religion, and ahnihilation of dissidents since it's inception in the Soviet system. Even Fascism (NOT NAZISM)is not as extreme in it's authoritarianism, as it only outlaws what hurts the state. The Communists totalitarian society condemns all "selfish" behavior, an unavoidable extension of humanity, except for that of the state. While Yang is a dictator, and a foul, despicable one, at that, he's only doing what's to be expected...and he's intellectually honest.

AND REASON # 2:

7. Miriam... what this woman has done to real religious faith is just sick, twisted and repulsive. The hottest spot in the very afterlife she condemns others to is reserved for hypocrites...disgusting.

(Yes, I know these aren't real people, but they're symbols for types of real people, don't get on me...)

 

[Jerrymander]

I would say Zhakarov as first. Ethics may be lacking, but scientific progress is a must, especially for a space-faring civilization.
Next is Morgan, for his economic prowess. Economies are also very important.
Santiago is third. A strong, militaristically-focused society with a limited number of freedoms has a high probability for success.
Lal comes next. He's very mediocre.
Deirdre is fifth. Her ideals leave us with one very happy planet - but what of others? She grants us one planet, but the inability to rapidally expand to others leaves me feeling, personally, cheated.
Next is Yang. Very efficient military societies with heavy police state influences could work. But no one ever likes them.
Last is Miriam. Ugh. Fundamentalism is strong, yes. But in the long run, it will eventually leave one weak, as heathens will always be there.

 

[TheBoatman]

Diedre
Zakharov
Lal
Morgan
Santiago
Miriam
Yang

 

[Major Scientist]

OK, here goes a right-wingers look at the whole thing...

Just the original leaders, right?

1. Morgan. Honestly, when is Sid Meier going to get off of making anyone religious or conservative: (A) a sadistic religious wacko ala Carries mom. (B) a sadistic murdering Nazi. or (C) a Sadistic monopolizing robber baron? It really grinds my last nerve. If you look at how well APPLIED Capitalism works in the Real World, and how all functional economic systems in the West are derivatives of it, it would work on planet too. Also, Morgan's society would be among the most free, with opportunity and Meritocracy for people, but not necessarily the wishy washy individualistic anti-society proposed by Lal. Finally, why wouldn't we want to STAMP OUT THOSE BRAIN EATING PARASITES. I'll bet fungus tastes nasty, too...

(Yes, I know these aren't real people, but they're symbols for types of real people, don't get on me...)

Actually, religion and government really don't mix, just look at the Church during the Reniassance/Middle Ages (what Miram's society is REALLY based on.) They invented half of the "rules" the Bible lists today in order to keep their flocks obident and the tithes coming at that time.
Morgan would not make a good "conservative" as being conservative generally implies giving up short-term rewards to maintain the profitable long-term. Morgan generally represents the dark side of big business, which doesn't care whether the right or left is in charge as it will still step on people in order to boost its profits.
I assume that you are calling Santiago the "gun nut." While the NRA is a right-winged organization, Santiago represents the "Survivalist" philosphy. While often associated with people who believe the government is out to get them, it is the idea that a man (or woman) should be responsible for themselves and as self-sustaining as possible. If anything, survivalism represents the extreme left as they really despise government involvement in their daily lives.
And to prove that I'm not out to get you, yes I agree that Yang is a petty power-mad dictator. His ideals about security and control being important to a society might sound impressive, but they create a country that rots from within.

 

[RubricousMidget]

I'd probably prefer Lal running the show. The devil you know... His world is pretty much the one I'm living in right now. The deciding factor, however, is mutability. As long as a baseline of human rights is preserved, his society is free to change - if you can get past the petty bureaucrats, that is.

The second choice would be Zakharov. On the short term, however, he would be a very bad choice, as he runs inefficiently with little-to-no regard for human rights - but in the long term, he leads humanity to the greatest future, because science is where it's really all about. And, in the long term, I have this nagging feeling that we will find ethics to be quite logical - happy people = better output, better output = shorter delay before next input = faster development - so Zak may end up reneging his amoral ways.

In third comes Skye. Although I agree with her in that protecting the environment is critical - after all, if the environment gets screwed, we're screwed - and she seems to be something less than dictatorial in nature. However, something about her sets me a little bit on edge - she seems a bit too monomaniacal for my tastes.

No. 4, Morgan, is a very short-term investment. With him at the helm, the course is straight for oblivion with a one-way ticket to Extinction Station due to complete depletion of all natural resources, and the destruction of the environment; that is a bad combination, as it leaves us dependent on our technology to survive - technology that we lack the natural resources to produce or keep online. However, it would be a great ride while it lasted, with all the luxuries you can imagine and, probably, several you can't. Go out with a bang.

Clocking in at fifth comes Santiago. Her government leaves us with the greatest chance to survive the initial turmoil, but it seems all too likely to collapse into a totalitarian militaristic dictatorship. It is not completely certain, however, and so she still has and edge on the sixth one.

Number six is Godwinson. She is a fanatic, with no regard for science or anything else that might give us a decent chance to survive the century - such as food. Her redeeming feature is that, as long as you let her completely dominate your religious beliefs, you will still be allowed most of your freedom to live out your days however you might.

Finally, representing the very worst qualities of human nature, comes Chairman Mao - eh, Yang. He wants to control every single one of his subjects at every level, and will probably instate the harshest police state ever seen. Expect his population to go in ebbs and flows, as new generations emerge from the breeding labs or cloning vats, depending on the stage of the game, and get purged from existence due to negligible missteps. The only redeeming feature about his society is the great chance it has to be blown up by the planet busters of the combined forces of all the other non-psychotic (Or, in Miriam's case, only slightly psychotic) faction leaders around the world.

 

[Norbert]

@ Major Scientist. I agree with you mostly, but I'd point out that really Morgan dosen't say a lot of the scary things in game that the other leaders do. Really, the only thing going for the "Morgan is Big OIl" comparison is the oddly severe downside of "Free Market" in-game, and if we're going to get technical, while Morgan usually values wealth, he's usually Green economy, because +1 commerce is just not worth -5police in time of war...that's including gameplay, but whatever... Also, I feel duty bound to point out that the left and right are both for Big gov in some areas, and small gov in others (usually the exact opposites, respectively... ) The Extreme right leads to authoritatian societies, and the extreme left to communist ones... but one thing I CAN'T agree with, is the statement "survivalists are liberal because the like small government" maybe libertarian...but not liberal. Look at Bush's gun policy versus Clinton's, for example.

 

[Major Scientist]

@ Major Scientist. I agree with you mostly, but I'd point out that really Morgan dosen't say a lot of the scary things in game that the other leaders do. Really, the only thing going for the "Morgan is Big OIl" comparison is the oddly severe downside of "Free Market" in-game, and if we're going to get technical, while Morgan usually values wealth, he's usually Green economy, because +1 commerce is just not worth -5police in time of war...that's including gameplay, but whatever... Also, I feel duty bound to point out that the left and right are both for Big gov in some areas, and small gov in others (usually the exact opposites, respectively... ) The Extreme right leads to authoritatian societies, and the extreme left to communist ones... but one thing I CAN'T agree with, is the statement "survivalists are liberal because the like small government" maybe libertarian...but not liberal. Look at Bush's gun policy versus Clinton's, for example.

Your arguement has some points but fails on two counts.
- Republicians and Democrats DO NOT represent the idealogies described SMAC. They are political parties that clog the American government by monopolizing power and forcing only two sides to every issue, something Washington himself warned against when he said "Beware of political parties" (Not a direct quote.) It is easily conceivable that if you put seven republicans and seven democrates in fourteen different rooms, given bios of the original SMAC seven as well as a basic rundown of their philosphies, and told them to pick one, each of the SMAC leaders will get a vote from each party. Moral: Different people flock to the two parties for different reasons.
- When you are saying Morgan picks green (no one with half a brain will pick the broken Free Markets anyway) because it's better from a mechanics sense, you are describing what Morgan would do if he was PLAYING a game.
Morgan is not a player of SMAC, he is a character IN the game. The actions Morgan players take is not representive of his character, his quotes and the quotes of other Morganites when describing base faculties, technologies, and secret projects are what describe him and the culture he creates.
And from those quotes, I get this picture of him: A greedy A-hole who sees progress as good (he likes research but not for research's sake alone,) is good at PR and kissing up to the public, and sees nothing wrong with being the only (economic) game in town and doing anything possible to get there.
-Third one: It's something we both are sort of acknowledging but skating around, none of the idealogies are "Good" or "Bad." Just different beliefs on how people should live.

Edit: And while it has Sid Meier's name stamped on the top, he did very little. If you want to blame anyone, make it Brian Reynolds.

 

[Cuivienen]

@ Major Scientist. I agree with you mostly, but I'd point out that really Morgan dosen't say a lot of the scary things in game that the other leaders do. Really, the only thing going for the "Morgan is Big OIl" comparison is the oddly severe downside of "Free Market" in-game, and if we're going to get technical, while Morgan usually values wealth, he's usually Green economy, because +1 commerce is just not worth -5police in time of war...that's including gameplay, but whatever... Also, I feel duty bound to point out that the left and right are both for Big gov in some areas, and small gov in others (usually the exact opposites, respectively... ) The Extreme right leads to authoritatian societies, and the extreme left to communist ones... but one thing I CAN'T agree with, is the statement "survivalists are liberal because the like small government" maybe libertarian...but not liberal. Look at Bush's gun policy versus Clinton's, for example.

If you're playing as Morgan and not using Free Market, you're severely crippling yourself. -5 Police is nothing; -3 Planet is more painful but can still be overcome.

Also, we have:

"Of course we'll bundle our MorganNet software with the new network nodes; our customers expect no less of us. We have never sought to become a monopoly. Our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us."

and

"And when at last it is time for the transition from megacorporation to planetary government, from entrepreneur to emperor, it is then that the true genius of our strategy shall become apparent, for energy is the lifeblood of this society and when the chips are down he who controls the energy supply controls Planet. In former times the energy monopoly was called "The Power Company"; we intend to give this name an entirely new meaning."

and

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."


Perhaps more telling is that none of Morgan's quotes address any concept of human existence, only making money. A world governed by Morgan would be even less "ethical", as you will, even less "human", than one governed by Zakharov, and at least as inhuman as one governed by Yang. Making money is interesting as a means to an end, but the Morganites and Morgan himself seem to view making money as the end, which would be a dreadful society to live under, far worse than at least Deirdre, Lal, Zakharov and Santiago (and maybe Miriam, whose society would at least be happy, if hopelessly deluded).

 

[Major Scientist]

Ah Cuivien, you forget this gem:

"I want to live forever. Barring that, I'll settle for a few thousand years, even five hundred would be nice."
-Morgan on the Longevity Vaccine (Is it me or did that project movie have a South Park reference in it?)

 

[Monkeyfinger]

This "original 7 factions only" rule is ******ed and I'm not going to follow it. 4 pages of this topic and none of you have told him to sit and spin for saying that? What's wrong with you guys? I even saw a couple of you say "I'd like to include the Alien crossfire guys but you said not to so I won't." Grow some damn spines, jesus christ. *sigh* Anywho, not going to bother with the progenitors. I should not have to explain why.

1) Dierdre. Least likely to actually take control of the world, and for the same reason, I'd hate to live under a country ruled by her. A kid with a slingshot could utterly massacre the sad joke that is the mindworm-less gaian military. Magically bypass that problem though and you have a winner. A healthy, free, happy populace in a beautiful world. The main price paid for this? Restricted population growth. Which is actually awesome for me because I hate kids and never wanna have 'em.

2) Domai. Makes the whole "wormkan's paradise" concept actually function; you bust your ass and contribute, and you're rewarded appropriately. With his high value on hard work, and his devaluement of science and higher learning, living under him would actually kinda suck for me, but on a grand scale his society would work just fine. His rather brutal, human wave based wartime methods would not be an issue if he had power over the entire world. There would be no enemies for him to sacrifice tons of people trying to beat.

3) Lal. His would be a somewhat less tightly wound version of our society. The people would have freedom and power, and the weak would be cared for. Such concern for the dregs of humanity would hurt both the planet and the race's advancement, but not enough to overcome the pleasentness of living under him.

4) Sinder Roze. The society she'd run is a bit.... too far on the freedom end of things. With a pretty sad police force watching over you, you could get your throat cut kind of easily... but honestly that would only be likely to happen if you really made it a point to use and oppress your fellow man. Creative thinking and unusual talents are welcome there, and the average joe would still have a place keeping the society running.












5) Svensgaard. Don't piss him off, don't become strong and powerful enough to be a concievable threat to his power. Do either and you don't wake up. Otherwise you're fine. You need some physical strength and skill to survive here, but it is not the end all and be all of life like it is for say a Spartan. The society is pretty freewheeling, decadent and lacking in fidelity; it looks appalling to some, but wouldn't be all that bad to actually live in. And hey, he at least respects PART of the planet's ecosystem, the blue, liquidy part...

6) Zakharov. Ooooph, this guy's a little tough to place. If your luck under his rule is bad, it's -BAD.- You can be used as a tool for any sort of experiment, and if the experiment fails, you're crippled, dead, or a freakish mutant. Stay out of the way of that sort of harm? Great place to live. Lots of scientific advancement to improve daily life, a high value for people with brains, and plenty of ways to actually grow intellectually. Unlike Dierdre and Domai, Zakharov would be better off ruling a nation as opposed to a world. With other leaders around to give him harsh looks and sanctions if he's TOO much of a dick to his populace, you'd be less likely to get screwed, and with an insane edge in military tech, few would be dumb enough to go toe to toe with him, and none would survive making that mistake.

7) Morgan. You have the chance to become something truly great in this society. Rich, powerful, and swimming in luxury. Most people won't do this, however, and.... well. Most Morganites would end up corporate slaves. But, they'd be better off than a wage slave of any other country, since the morganites would have so much luxury, so much wealth, to go around, and some of it would trickle down from the hands of the now complacent, lazy fat cats. (The soft, often disgruntled police force wouldn't do much to stop would be Robin Hoods from speeding that process along.) Eventually though this society would blow up due to resources being consumed really damn fast and the planet crying out in pain. There'd probably be a hell of a bloody revolt, the result being a morph into a new faction, or even a splintering into a bunch of 'em.

8) Santiago. This society would be dangerous. Step on someone's toes, and they have the right to shove their boot up your ass. Be soft and weak, and you'll be everyone's *****. The strong survive here, and often, they would throw down with each other to prove who has the bigger dick, or to stop each other from infringing on each other's rights. Of course, this means if someone messes with you you've got the right to splatter them all over the pavement, provided you're strong and well equipped enough.





















9) Yang. Oh man, now for the dregs. He stomps on human rights, he tried to make everyone a slave, and all he cares about is making a strong, glorious state. Because his means stomp out individual, creative thinking and as such create a weak economic and research base, he doesn't really succeed either. Just.... a hell of a failure at life. If the state thinks you have the right talents for a position of power, things aren't that bad for you, and if you're completely obedient to the state it kinda sorta looks out for you, but.... damn. Pretty bad. Yet, there are 3 people below him!

10) Miriam. Bible beaters are one of the lowest forms of scum we have running around in the modern U.S. Can you imagine Jack Chick, Randy Ross or Fred Phelps RUNNING THE WORLD? Damn. You'd be held to a strict code of behavior based around obeying and glorifying Jesus. Deviate, get thrown in a prisoon or institution or something where they try to break you. Stand fast, get slaughtered without mercy. Of course, like with Yang, this stomping out of many forms of thought would make the human race advance forward like a snail coated in apoxy. If Miriam ruled merely a country, her sheer force of will would unite the populace in a sort of brotherly frenzy against the godless heathens, making the people happier and life a bit more bearable, hence dragging her a couple notches up the list. As a world leader, though, it's not easy to get worse then her. But you can, for example by being...

11) Cha Dawn. Dierdre gone wrong. Dierdre is the kind, loving environmentalist. This little bastard is the evil, forceful one. Like Yang he demands complete supplication. You've gotta toil thanklessly under him to meet his goals, and if your role was to work in a factory, mine or something like that, you will at some point end up out of a job and miserable as your workplace was deemed too unhealthy for planet and totally wiped out. Their deviotion to nature is an actual religion, not just a way of life like it is for Gaians, so that's yet another thing you've got to adhere to. And he's a ****ing kid. Did I mention I hate kids?

12) Aki Zeta 5. What's worse than being Yang and trying to turn humanity into mindless robots with no sense of happiness? Being the leader of a cybernetic consciousness and actually succeeding. Enough said.

 

[Major Scientist]

This "original 7 factions only" rule is ******ed and I'm not going to follow it. 4 pages of this topic and none of you have told him to sit and spin for saying that? What's wrong with you guys? I even saw a couple of you say "I'd like to include the Alien crossfire guys but you said not to so I won't." Grow some damn spines, jesus christ. *sigh* Anywho, not going to bother with the progenitors. I should not have to explain why.

You know, you're right. And with that:

1. Domai- While his military tactics leave something to be desired (someone should get him a copy of Sun Tzu for his birthday) his view on socialism actually sounds plausible. Work hard, get what you put into it back, there's no hobos begging for your change because everyone is employed, everyone is fed, clothed, and has some kind of roof over their head, and you can be assured that you feel "needed" and even praised for your craftsmanship (if you're any good.) Karl Marx's dream carried out by the person he intended it for.
2. Roze- While not as good with computers as I would like, I would appreciate her views on information exchange and possibly a free press. Unfortunately she's too anarchistic to lead more then a small country.
3. Lal- As a person, he strikes me as a total wuss. However, he is very much for peace and democracy, can't go wrong there.
4. Deidre- A democratic hippie. Although her emphasis on enviromentalism is a little... devout, at least Gaia's Landing can't be a bad place to live with it's clean air and pretty parks. Also, our understanding about the possiblities of biotech has improved since the game came out. Gene-modded crops that produce medicines, bioformed colonists who can live freely on Planet, there's alot more her faction could have played with based on what we can dream of now. Heh, who knows what she would have us come up with to make a trip to outer space unnecessary?
5. Santigo- Pretty much tied with Zhakarov. I hate needless military force, but her society promises stablity and security as well as frowning on the wasteful frills of a consumerism culture.
6. Zhakarov- I would have rated him higher as I do value scientific progress but if the deciding factor is how smart you are, then where's the cut off?
7. Aki and the Cyborgs- Honestly, I'm sort of neutral on her philosphy. On one hand so many of our conflicts stem from petty emotions and illogical thinking; on the other, if we lose our emotions and our creative drive, are we still human?
8. Sven- Okay... a society based on looting, pillaging, and the pirate's "code". The only reason he's higher then Morgan is because at least Sven's honest about being a thieving rogue and a petty thug.
9. Morgan- While I do real well with him as a player, can you live in a society where your bank account is the only thing that matters? Also, as a after thought, I really don't think I'm crafty or heartless enough to get very far in his world.
10. Mirham- Because fanatical religious people scare me, her refusal to see technology as a mere tool without any bias infuriates me.
11. Dawn- My few misgivings about Deidre mixed in with everything I hate about Mirham. Is it understandable why I like wiping this kid out first?
12. Yang- Do I even need a reason? Okay, here's one: Everything revolves around Big Brother, you must always trust Big Brother because he knows what's best for you and you want what's best for you right? Seriously, he makes his home country look like a anarchist's commune by comparison.

 

[RubricousMidget]

Statement: I don't much like the SMAX faction. Therefore, I wouldn't have included them in my list, anyway. However, for a simple list of all the 14 factions (Yes, all), here goes:
Lal
Zakharov
Skye
Roze
Domai
Morgan
Hansen (Aki - Why does she have a Finnish first name?)
Morgan
Santiago
Miriam
H'Minee
Dawn
Yang
Marr

 

[Norbert]

Your arguement has some points but fails on two counts.
- Republicians and Democrats DO NOT represent the idealogies described SMAC. They are political parties that clog the American government by monopolizing power and forcing only two sides to every issue, something Washington himself warned against when he said "Beware of political parties" (Not a direct quote.) It is easily conceivable that if you put seven republicans and seven democrates in fourteen different rooms, given bios of the original SMAC seven as well as a basic rundown of their philosphies, and told them to pick one, each of the SMAC leaders will get a vote from each party. Moral: Different people flock to the two parties for different reasons.
- When you are saying Morgan picks green (no one with half a brain will pick the broken Free Markets anyway) because it's better from a mechanics sense, you are describing what Morgan would do if he was PLAYING a game.
Morgan is not a player of SMAC, he is a character IN the game. The actions Morgan players take is not representive of his character, his quotes and the quotes of other Morganites when describing base faculties, technologies, and secret projects are what describe him and the culture he creates.
And from those quotes, I get this picture of him: A greedy A-hole who sees progress as good (he likes research but not for research's sake alone,) is good at PR and kissing up to the public, and sees nothing wrong with being the only (economic) game in town and doing anything possible to get there.
-Third one: It's something we both are sort of acknowledging but skating around, none of the idealogies are "Good" or "Bad." Just different beliefs on how people should live.

Edit: And while it has Sid Meier's name stamped on the top, he did very little. If you want to blame anyone, make it Brian Reynolds.

Like I said, while I don't think SMAC is very comparable to the real world, my original rankings stand...I only didn't complain about no SMAX factions, cause I don't own SMAX... I didn't know Sid Meier wasn't very involved, but if you play CIv IV, you know he COULD have done the civs in SMAC... I TOTALLY agree with you on the two party system, I'm sick of the "Republicrats" giving us one narrow Democratic-Republican free trader, unfocused ideology to vote for...BTW, I consider myself a conservative, and while not wanting to step on anyone's toes, I do consider some Ideologies (Federalism) to superior to others (Marxism.)

 

[ArneHD]

I would rank Aki and Zakharov first. In my mind these represent the next evolutionary step of mankind. Although I will admit that Zakharov might want to brush up on his ethics skill.

Aki, well, this might be a world without death.

 

[Major Scientist]

Like I said, while I don't think SMAC is very comparable to the real world, my original rankings stand...I only didn't complain about no SMAX factions, cause I don't own SMAX... I didn't know Sid Meier wasn't very involved, but if you play CIv IV, you know he COULD have done the civs in SMAC... I TOTALLY agree with you on the two party system, I'm sick of the "Republicrats" giving us one narrow Democratic-Republican free trader, unfocused ideology to vote for...BTW, I consider myself a conservative, and while not wanting to step on anyone's toes, I do consider some Ideologies (Federalism) to superior to others (Marxism.)

SMAX is... well, "I" think it's good, optional but good never the less. And you go ahead and have your beliefs, it's more fun then everyone fighting as the same faction.
I also don't own Civ IV so I can't help you there.

 

[Major Scientist]

The Extreme right leads to authoritatian societies, and the extreme left to communist ones... but one thing I CAN'T agree with, is the statement "survivalists are liberal because the like small government" maybe libertarian...but not liberal. Look at Bush's gun policy versus Clinton's, for example.

If I may trim your quotes to get to the point. The Survivalist philosphy is "I only need me to provide my basic needs, everyone else can just go away," not "I need a big gun just because I can." Survivalists carry firearms because they feel the need to protect themselves from outside influence if necessary, not because they just feel like being trailer park rednecks who like guns.

Like I said, while I don't think SMAC is very comparable to the real world, my original rankings stand. BTW, I consider myself a conservative, and while not wanting to step on anyone's toes, I do consider some Ideologies (Federalism) to superior to others (Marxism.)

Technically, being a conservative means you support the status quo, whatever it is. And while you're right, a couple of the factions don't apply, most have very real roots in real world philosphies.

 

[Norbert]

There are many different types of conservative now, one of which includes the "politics of opposition", which most would refer to as "paleocons" and survivalists, which I did NOT call rednecks, i called libertarians. Rednecks tend to be much more blindly patriotic and loyal to the government than the latter...(I'm a future poly-sci major, I should know this stuff.) I respect you ideology too, (whatever that is... ) so I guess it's just one happy-happy love fest...

 

[Grakelin]

The irony of Alpha Centauri is that the leaders aren't solving ANY of the problems that they escaped from on Earth, but are instead amplifying them to insane extents. You'll be hard pressed to find a heroic faction here, but you'll find villainous aspects in each and every one of them. None of them are truly evil people, and none of them are truly good. In fact, people often make big exaggerations in their viewpoints of the different faction leaders. It's all up to your personal preference, and I've taken note that each of the different leaders is about equal in their leadership abilities and philosophy. This game is a sociologist's dream, and it was intended to be that way.

It all depends on how you interpret it. Nowhere in the game does it say that Morgan is an outright sleazebag. He doesn't seem like such a terrible person to me, just unappreciative of the environment, and always an oppurtunist. He looks out for Morgan Industries, not for Pact Brother Zakharov or Pact Sister Santiago.

Yang isn't a slavemaster, but he IS striving for a sort of utopia that most people find unpleasant. This utopia is touched upon in quite a bit of literature.

Santiago only comes across as evil because of the thing in the manual and that official story thing. She's probably the most blatantly unopinionated person around, and the least likely to annihalate another nation for silly means.

Miriam is a religious fundamentalist. I don't like her much, and have to admit she's probably the only truly evil one of the bunch. She represents the religious extremism soaring to incredible heights.

Deirdre seems nice and all, but she WILL kill anybody who messes with the environment, with hardly a second thought. She will send masses of psychologically traumatizing beasties upon you, so you die a slow, terrible, painful death. She is probably the most vicious of the lot.

Zakharov is all about science and knowledge, but science and knowledge isn't all it takes to run a country. He honestly doesn't give a damn if his people are happy, so long as the test tubes are full and the chemicals are boiling. He verges on the very edge of insanity, and yet is not such a bad guy. In fact, he probably wouldn't go out of his way to bother anyone else, unless he needed them as test subjects, or the like.

Lal looks great, right? I mean, you've got human rights, peacefulness, all that jazz! But, there is one little problem. He is as overzealous about peace as Miriam is about her God. He will tear you apart in a heartbeat if you are somehow opposed to his belief. What better way to garner peace, than to ENFORCE the freedom? It loops around itself, providing him with an ironic twist of fate. He is the biggest slave monger of them all.

They'd all make bad leaders, but here is the order I would pick.

Santiago -- With the least extreme ideas of them all, though her steadfast discipline may be irksome to many. She's the least likely to cut you out on personality, preffering to hate weakness.

Lal -- Overzealous, but still would please me more than some others. At least he has intentions that aren't all about him.

Morgan -- The economy would look very nice. Sure, people would complain about capitalism, but so what? They do it anyway. He's the most likely to sell bad things to terrorists, though.

Zakharov -- Chance of being a test subject, but it could be worse, I guess.

Miriam -- Other than being forced to believe something, I don't see a real problem. If you're into freedom of religion and all that, you won't like it. Otherwise, it's pretty much just an ordinary place to be.

Deirdre -- She'd make us live in tune with nature, and if we slipped up even slightly, the consenquences would be extreme. If you think that seems happy to you, imagine how easily Deirdre sends people to their deaths. Those "Book of Planet" excerpts are from Deirdre's story, even though they do say the name of whatever leader you are using. In a storyline where one of the biggest messages is our abuse of nature, Deirdre is the main character. But do you really think she'd be all that great?

AND, in a category all by his lonesome:

Yang -- It wouldn't be so bad, because we wouldn't have the emotion to care either way. We'd be neither happy about it, or sad about it. It wouldn't be good or bad. Eventually, somebody will think they want emotions and live out an incredibly sad story with either an ambiguous or suicide ending. People will find this ending to be unsatisfying, but realize that it is realist. If you want examples of what life might be like, try reading "Brave New World", or "The Giver". The Giver, although not as good a read as Brave New World, is closer to Yang's utopia. He'd probably remove colour, too.


The SMAX faction leaders totally missed the point of the story. In fact, it doesn't even make sense for a nation made up of pirates, or a bunch of androids to be running around. I'm pretty sure most of them stem from other factions, which makes no sense since they all start at the same level. It could have been done much better.

Also, take note that if you play your faction toward its ideology, every AI faction gets pretty pissed off at you to different extents. This isn't an accident. If you conquer everybody who has harsh opinions of you, you'll find it very lonely in the council room.

 

[Major Scientist]

There are many different types of conservative now, one of which includes the "politics of opposition", which most would refer to as "paleocons" and survivalists, which I did NOT call rednecks, i called libertarians. Rednecks tend to be much more blindly patriotic and loyal to the government than the latter...(I'm a future poly-sci major, I should know this stuff.) I respect you ideology too, (whatever that is... )

While Grakelin is so right about the true nature of SMAC (no one is evil, it depends on perspective.) I have to ask, what's a federalist again? Wait, isn't it someone who believes in a confederation of city states or the like?
Also, libertarians are essentially the Deidras and Santigos of America lumped together then.
And I'll say it again in case we're miscommunicating somewhere, survivalism under Santigo is somewhat misrepresented. It's really about self-reliance, the belief that the world is a cold, harsh place, and the old saying that "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger." While in many ways her militant lifestyle lends well to those tenants, it shouldn't be thought of as the only way.
Rednecks... nuff said.
In case it wasn't obvious, I tend to agree with Domai's worldview in many ways (except for the almost Stalinistic way he sends hordes of his men off to battle of course) because society (at least in my country at any rate) seems to reward people who don't produce anything and scam their underlings more then those who are honest and take pride in their work, unemployment and homelessness is an apparent problem everyone but the most desolent towns, and democracy has seemingly become the plaything of the few and the elite (if Domai offers you a treaty, it's because he thinks "you seem generally concerned for the welfare of your citizens.")
If Domai was President of the US... at worst he'd probably be akin to the president in the Fifth Element movie, do whatever it takes so long as it protects the greater good of his citizens.
I'm not deluded enough to say his society is perfect, it would require some serious considerations in administration (what little we have suggests he heads a socialist democracy,) efficient use of technology and resources (gawd, Deidre's a prick when you're Domai,) and culture (what exactly are the working classes supposed to enjoy when their shift is over?)

 

[Cuivienen]

Hansen (Aki - Why does she have a Finnish

Her real name was Aki Luttinen, and she was apparently from Norway (though that name sounds Finnish to me). In the storyline, she was a Peacekeeper talent killed in battle with the Spartans, then discovered and reanimated in the morgue by a rogue University digital artificial sentience experiment, Zeta-5, that now inhabits her body.