I am looking for some kind of computer game that is along one of two tracks.
The first track would be some kind of political, diplomacy strategy
game. A bonus would be where (as opposed to the goal of winning war
in so many games) it is the goal to prevent war or bring nations
together. I already know that Civilization series can do this to some
extent, but it's more of a side-feature (you have to worry about
running and building your own civiization primarily) and I'm looking
for something that makes it more central.
The second track would also be a politics-type game wherein one must
operate within the limits of a democratic system or be involved in a
democracy in some way. Most games, esp. strategy games, put the
player in the role of what is essentially a dictator. Are there
strategy games wherein your citizens can act counter to your wishes
and that is a factor you must take into account?
I realize that these games may indeed be non-existent. Perhaps
playing such a game would be so boring in the eyes of most people that
no one has bothered to create it. I would just like to exhaust the
options. |
Request for Question Clarification by
hedgie-ga
on
13 Apr 2006 23:51 PDT
How to understand this spec:
" Most games, esp. strategy games, put the
player in the role of what is essentially a dictator. Are there
strategy games wherein your citizens can act counter to your wishes
and that is a factor you must take into account? " ?
In most games each player represent one nation or other such group,
so s/he indeed acts as a supreme commander - if you want a dictator.
How would the citizens be represented in a game?
Are you thinking about the 'games over internet' with large N (number
of players) and actual voting, or
or about 'simulated citizens' - which would (according to game
program) impose some penalties for moves deemed unpopular (such as too
many wars)?
|
Clarification of Question by
tparis23-ga
on
16 Apr 2006 20:47 PDT
I am unsure of how citizens would be represented. I am open to any
number of ways. In particular I speak of simulated citizens, rather
than interaction with an online gaming community. Does this help?
|
Request for Question Clarification by
hedgie-ga
on
16 Apr 2006 21:47 PDT
Yes, that helps.
There are still two ways to interpret this:
1) If 'the people' are simulated by a program,
the whole things looks like 'usual game of the rulers' - just with
modified rules, taking the the 'welfare of the people' into the account
in final score.
Example of that is very old game - which lived on first PCs, before GUIs,
called Hamurabi or Hammurabi, described in detaail here
://www.google.com/search?hs=TpK&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_fr&client=opera&rls=en&q=hammurabi+game&btnG=Search
You were managing a kingdom, and if you starved too many people, you were
declared 'national fink' and lost.
2) The other way, more interesting perhaps, would be a 'multiscale game':
Some players, would be premiers (PMs in EU model, presidents in US model)
and compete on global scale, for resources etc,
Other players (on local scales) would represent major parties within each
country. The EU model, where parties my form coalitions and replace the PM
at any time may be interesting. The rules (which sumulate people) would award
more or less votes to the parties, but players which represent parties would
add human-based decision making, making the play more realistic.
Are you interested in 1) OR 2) or both?
|
Clarification of Question by
tparis23-ga
on
17 Apr 2006 12:19 PDT
Number 1 is also interesting. In particular, in addition to being
able to lose a game, are there aspects of a game in which those you
command will not follow orders under some circumstance (i.e., you
don't have enough 'loyalty points' or your society does not support a
kind of action), and you then have to work around that or prevent
that?
Number 2 is particularly interesting. That sound the most like the
"politics game" I had in mind for track two.
I suppose that my response would be that 1) and 2) are interesting,
with an emphasis on 2).
If it is not too much trouble, I would also like to inquire about
track one. Some of the comments have answered that, but I would like
to know if you have anything to say about it.
Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
hedgie-ga
on
17 Apr 2006 23:23 PDT
Thanks for the final clarification.
I am a bit busy right now, so all researchers are invited to pick up this
challenging question. If no ones will, I will get back to this in couple days.
Hedgie
|
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTTK) series by Koei is the only
one that comes to mind. It's based on actual Chinese history. You can
play in either historical or fictitious mode and the ultimate goal is
the unification of China, either by conquering all or through
diplomacy. You can have duels and debates, and some of the different
stats you have for cities/characters are fame, loyalty, strength, and
social standing.
From Gamespot.com:
"you can choose to play as a free officer, vassal, prefect, viceroy,
or sovereign, depending on how much control you want to exert over
your surroundings. If you're feeling ambitious, you can form your own
rogue army and start capturing cities to build your force and
eventually become a powerful ruler. Or, if you prefer, you can simply
travel around the countryside as a free officer fulfilling requests or
socializing with other officers."
The last time I played ROTTK was way back in the early 90's on the
Sega Genesis, and at that time they were at ROTTK2 and ROTTK3. The
most recent version is Romance of the Three Kingdoms X, released in
2005. |
