Libertarianism in Civ videogames

Hi guys

This is an idea for someone with Delphi programming skills. Perhaps you know this game:

C-EVO

It is a freeware version of Civilization. I like it a lot, but I feel it lacks a Libertarian approach. The best form of government to win the game is Communism (no corruption, very little unhappiness, strong industry, etc) and even Democracy is not as good.

I am just a pityful Mechanical Engineer, but maybe some Libertarian coder out there could be able to add Libertarianism as a form of government. I guess the characteristics would be maximum production, maximum research and maximum luxury. Also the tax-consuming buildings become profit making activites if Privatization has been researched and applied before. The cons for the player would be that you lose control of production: cities build whatever maximizes  money making and no military units are built. Except if you build the marvel Insurance Company before switching to Libertarianism as a form of government. It would be a kind of munchkin strategy for players, but good publicity anyway.

I forgot to mention that this game is developed by a single guy who doesn't want any collaborators, but we could use the source code and make available our version of the game at Mises.org or another site.

Communism is the best form of government? One can tell this game has very few, if any ties, with reality based on that.

-Jon

gussosa:

maybe some Libertarian coder out there could be able to add Libertarianism as a form of government.

I've played a lot of Civ, and the problem with doing that in these kind of games - SimCity is another - is that the gameplay is entirely built around central control and collectivization of resources.  It'd be kind of hard to even conceive of a playable game that wasn't - Libertarianism is, in a sense, the idea that nobody gets to be the player.

Still, some form of government beyond Democracy could be doable.  The interesting thing about the game is how realistic the emergent behavior of the civilization you create is, in some subtle ways that I don't think were explicitly intended.  One of them is that managing a large civ well is nearly impossible, and a lot of details slip by.  Moving your government to "Minarchy" (requiring the "Privatization" advance, as you suggest), could relive the player of the burden of managing all those details, make some of them actually off-limits to the player. It could actually make the game more playable in the later stages.

Ever played Majesty? That comes close enough to a laissez-faire game. At least, the Monarch has very little power over the heroes. The Monarch builds the basic structures, and then other ones may show up independently. It's a good idea, which could be expanded further.

-Jon

I always thought the purpose of Civilization was not to really run an economy.  But just appease the masses while you kill everyone else on the map.  haha.

JohnSchreimann:

I always thought the purpose of Civilization was not to really run an economy.  But just appease the masses while you kill everyone else on the map.  haha.

You're not really running the economy per se, though there are aspects of it you can tweak.  The real goals are either destroy all the other civilizations (though when you kill one, the AI just pops a new one into existence already developed enough to be somewhat competitive), or to advance your tech and resources enough to build a spaceship and flee to Alph Centauri.  You're mostly just accumulating resources and allocating them to different tasks. The fun of the game comes from all the tradeoffs you have to decide on in doing that, which can be very realistic., with surprisingly complex interactions between the different goals, resources, techs, etc.

Whether the purpose is mass murder or escaping, it still seems like the purpose is probably the opposite of maintaining civilization through economic means -- unless it means for the short term in order to gain technology and peaceful relations in order to kill more later (or escape the ultimate fate:  worldwide carnage).

JohnSchreimann:

Whether the purpose is mass murder or escaping, it still seems like the purpose is probably the opposite of maintaining civilization through economic means -- unless it means for the short term in order to gain technology and peaceful relations in order to kill more later (or escape the ultimate fate:  worldwide carnage).

Then there it goes another change to make. Through the construction of a marvel (e.g. United Nations) of some sort or the achievement of an advance (e.g. Austrian School and then the marvel Mises Institute   ) the goal of the AI becomes pacific development  (space exploration and colonization in ultimate place) and the system won't allow the initiation of force against another nation, as the unhappiness would raise making production impossible. "Conquest" of other territories with critical resources is done by buying cities from other players or the civs might acquire such resources by commercial exchange the same way Knowledge is exchange in the current game.

C-EVO doesn't currently allow internet play, but it would be easy to implement that and I would sure love to play with or against some of you.

I agree with Histhasthai in that Minarchy would serve well enough for our purposes while still allowing for agressive gameplay.

I do think it is like a bit of a bigger picture version of Grand Theft Auto.  I can work against my own libertarian instincts because it makes for a fun game.  Which I think is fine.  There was a game called Capitalism on the PC.  That actually had online mode.  But it was very boring.  There's also a wall street game on nintendo.  Also boring.  No wonder kids grow up with a suspicion of the free market.

gussosa:

I agree with Histhasthai in that Minarchy would serve well enough for our purposes while still allowing for agressive gameplay.

However, Anarcho-Capitalism could be set as another way to win the game (besides conquering the world and fleeing to the space). Once a nation gets to that form of government, requiring the previous building of the marvel Insurance Company and the advance Austrian School, it is unbeatable in terms of power so the game ends.

gussosa:

building of the marvel Insurance Company

OK, but then we have to allow the building of another Marvel: The Mafia.  The civ that builds that is the only other civ that can potentially "beat" the "unbeatable" ancap civ, unless the ancap civ builds it themselves first.

Just to keep the game competitive, ya know.

gussosa:

gussosa:

I agree with Histhasthai in that Minarchy would serve well enough for our purposes while still allowing for agressive gameplay.

However, Anarcho-Capitalism could be set as another way to win the game (besides conquering the world and fleeing to the space). Once a nation gets to that form of government, requiring the previous building of the marvel Insurance Company and the advance Austrian School, it is unbeatable in terms of power so the game ends.

 It's a fun idea, a civic called Anarcho-Capitalism, but I fail to see the point with it. After all, what is this supposed to prove? It's a computer game!

Ohh and by the way, in Civilization 4, communism is not at all the best form of government, I'd say it's one of the worst. Rather if you are going after a victory by conquest you want fachism! Democracy works pretty well for this task to, just like in real life.

I've only made it to Civ2 years and years ago for Playstation.  A game I really liked.  Especially with the option to choose Abe Lincoln.  Perfect for any of the hegemonic tasks in that game.

Magnus:

It's a fun idea, a civic called Anarcho-Capitalism, but I fail to see the point with it. After all, what is this supposed to prove? It's a computer game!

It's just a matter of advertising through videogames. The whole idea is to throw a lot of libertarian or libertarian-related issues so kids and teens get familiar with the ideas.

For example, there could be a marvel called Ayn Rand's Atlantis that automatically freezes the economy of all nations under a socialist regime. Or maybe a Ron Paul's Revolution that increases happiness by raising hope.

You know... stuff like that.

Or an Objectivist Institute that encourages the people to believe in "total war" in the name of individualism.  Meaning you can kill more civilians and be at war for longer without people having any shame about it or protesting "what needs to be done."

"Or maybe a Ron Paul's Revolution that increases happiness by raising hope." LOL!