Nurturing The Inner Fidel

[Peron]

 I thought I would try playing a game for points so I selected a forty year reign and the "Place in History" option.

 I would have thought that since I chose to hold no elections for those forty years (yes!  I was a tyrant!) that there might be some tradeoff in points.  Like BAD points instead of GLAD points maybe.    
 Nope.

 Needless to say, my reign being rated only by number of happy citizens, the dollar(peso if you will) amount of the treasury and building value MINUS doubled negative points for the number of unhappy citizens made for a rather unimpressive
score.

 Forget the fact that playing like this is harder to pull off than playing as a "Silver Spoon" or their ilk.

 I'd like to see a more variable set of standards, since all dictators are NOT equal.

 How can they expect all carribean dictators all to try to provide liberty and happiness and wealth to every situation?

 OH well.  

 My Inner Fidel knows that it was a heck of an effort ---  and victory.
 

[WyrmMoon]

I'm not totally sure what you are saying. Are you are suggesting a tyranny-score based game?

What would you get points for?

Money, Swiss Account, Deaths, Unhappy people?

Lose points for:
Emmigrations, Happy People?

[Darkstar]

Maybe score would be measured by number of soldiers, number of protesters (lower=higher score), swiss bank, and number of prisoners. Now that would be a fun game.

[Peron]

 All I'm saying is that unless you play "a certain way" you will have low scores.   That's all.

 In a game that claims to simulate dictatorships, I think there oughtta be some variables allowing for the different styles of political rule.  

 If you wanna be a tyrant so be it.   Who cares but you anyway?

 Fortunately for me, having a low score for whatever tyrant I have chosen to play doesn't bother me.

 It would just be a "nice thing to have" to have scoring based on maybe the difficulty level of holding power DESPITE unhappy citizens.  Obviously if you hold no free elections, Liberty will suffer.  Maybe in a game where there were NO elections, the liberty factor should be eliminated altogether as a requirement for scoring and an "opression" modifier could be substituted, so that even your "Tyrant's Tyrant" can still score well against his peers.

 I think that this would more "realistic", if you will.  

 Not every successful dictatorship is/was necessarily "nice".  Even some of the most horrible governments were also very effective.

 In long games there are some tricks you can do with television and radio propoganda... but that's not what I am talking about here.

  For your score-based games  I'd just like to see a little more variety in the conditions of winning relative to the dictator that you select (and maybe modify).

[Wordmeister Bob]

It makes sense. Consider that Time Magazine sometimes gives its "Man of the Year" designation to bad guys, since it's based not on wonderfulness but on how much they dominated/affected the news that year.
Doesn't an unrepentant despot deserve to have his exemplary despotism duly acknowledged?
As my dad would have said: "Son, if you've decided to be a tyrant, you just go be the best tyrant you can be."

[General PinochetNut]

Yep. You should have another option. Dictatorship. We should just play open-ended anyway.

[Peron]

 Good point Emperor.

 I started out playing open ended games and decided to try "playing for points" just to mix things up a bit.  That left me a little dissapointed with the scoring system.

 Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy playing the occasional capitalist.  That can be fun too.  

 I'll shut up now so I don't start repeating myself too much.

 

 

 

[Moose_OLeanie]

methinks you should make an effort to have fun at being a fidel type if that's what is fun for you.

i also enjoy shaking the iron fist from time to time.  remember that one of the sets of victory conditions is based solely on money in your swiss bank account, so it's still possible to have a good score so long as you can squirrel aside some money.

i started off playing for points and started playing open games.  now i'm back to points.  the game is so darn replayable!

[Moose_OLeanie]

addandium:

in honor of fidel castro, i have started a 50 year game (hope he makes it another 20!) as fidel.  

i'm around 20 years into it.  so far so good.  the us almost invaded until i had the soviets build a base.  i'm having a harder time then usual getting educated workers to stick around.  up to about 200 people and still growing steadily with diversified trade in lumber, gold, coffee, tobacco, and corn.

i'm doing my best to keep the communists pleased, but aside from that it's sort of nice to not worry about "what they want" and worry instead about what *i* want.

then i started doing some research about fidel castro.  what an interesting fellow.  it must be amazing to have lived his life.

[Peron]

 A man after my own heart...  makes me kinda sentimental

 I truly believe that having no elections is more fun.

 To prove the point I played a goody 2-shoes capitalist at the most difficult setting I could come up with and didn't really feel that challenged.  20 year reign rid. hard/rid. hard for a place in history on a dinky island with lowest setting for resources.

 You might have a point about the swiss bank account, Moose.  I had been ignoring that factor because I wasn't planning on going anywhere...  but for the sake of scoring I might change my mind about it.

[Revolucionario]

That was good to nurture ur inner Fidel, u'll blossom one game don't fret.

[Peron]

 I wouldn't call a suggestion that the scoring could be different for different circumstances "fretting".


 Very simply stated;  With the current scoring system:

      Have elections - score high

      Have no elections - score low

 Should it always have to be this cut and dried?

[Coconut Kid]

I thought I would try playing a game for points so ...  I would have thought that since I chose to hold no elections ... that there might be some tradeoff in points.  Like BAD points instead of GLAD points maybe.  ...  [A Place in History system]  MINUS doubled negative points for the number of unhappy citizens made for a rather unimpressive score.  ...  I'd like to see a more variable set of standards, since all dictators are NOT equal.  How can they expect all Caribbean dictators to try to provide liberty and happiness and wealth to every situation?  ...

All I'm saying is that unless you play "a certain way" you will have low scores.  That's all.  In a game that claims to simulate dictatorships, I think there ought to be some variables allowing for the different styles of political rule.  ...  It would just be a "nice thing to have" to have scoring based on maybe the difficulty level of holding power DESPITE unhappy citizens.  ...  Maybe in a game where there were NO elections, the liberty factor should be eliminated altogether as a requirement for scoring and an "oppression" modifier could be substituted, so that even your "Tyrant's Tyrant" can still score well against his peers.  I think that this would more "realistic", if you will.  ...  For your score based games, I'd just like to see a little more variety in the conditions of winning relative to the dictator that you select (and maybe modify).

...  I started out playing open ended games and decided to try "playing for points" just to mix things up a bit.  That left me a little disappointed with the scoring system.  ...

...  I also enjoy shaking the iron fist from time to time.  Remember that one of the sets of victory conditions is based solely on money in your Swiss Bank Account, so it's still possible to have a good score so long as you can squirrel aside some money.  I started off playing for points and started playing open games.  Now I'm back to points.  ...

...  I truly believe that having no elections is more fun.  ...  You might have a point about the Swiss bank account, Moose.  I had been ignoring that factor because I wasn't planning on going anywhere,  but for the sake of scoring I might change my mind about it.

I wouldn't call a suggestion that the scoring could be different for different circumstances "fretting".

Very simply stated;  With the current scoring system:
Have elections - score high
Have no elections - score low
Should it always have to be this cut and dried?

Perhaps in his typical way, Peron went out of his way to fail to understand the features that the game does provide. Instead he insisted that the scoring system needed to be changed in order to accommodate different dictator profiles and gameplay styles.

Somehow he failed to understand the random game setup section called "Victory Conditions" beyond the difference between playing "Open Ended" i.e. without a computed score; or playing with a computed score. For whatever reason he was unable to see the difference among the four (4) scoring systems already available. He insisted on linking having or denying elections with the 'happy citizens' computations used in only two of those available systems.

Open Ended appears to be a subset of sandbox as it does not compute a score but still allows setting a difficulty level on the political and economic sliders.

Economic Powerhouse is the test of skill in beating the economic system of the game. Oppress the people as much as you can and loot the natural resources as you may desire. You can even build a tourist empire to impress your US neighbors. Score = Value of Treasury & Buildings times 2 divided by 1000.

'Tis Money that Makes the Man is the test of skill in being the absolutely ruthless tyrant who oppresses the people and loots the economy by embezzlement to provide a luxurious retirement for himself. This is what Peron should have recognized as the system for his style; it has nothing to do with "going somewhere." Score = Swiss Account times 20 divided by 1000.

Don't Worry, Be Happy is the test of skill in politics in the Tropican game world. This is for the player who wishes to play god and make the people happy (the problem of money will be there in gameplay but not in the score). Score = Happy Citizens times 4 + Content Citizens times 2 minus Unhappy Citizens times 4.

A Place in History is the test for "master players" because it amalgamates the other three areas of emphasis with adjusted values. Score = (Happy Citizens times 2 + Content Citizens times 1 minus Unhappy Citizens times 2) + (value of Treasury & buildings divided by 1000) + (Swiss account times 5 divided 1000).

[Coconut Kid]

The developers tried to give the various scoring systems they devised names which are lightly humorous rather than dully, exactly accurate. Perhaps the problem which Peron and others have in finding out how to use these systems is a need for precise but dull names.

Open Ended equals No Computed Score.

Economic Powerhouse equals Score Computed on Economic Manipulation.

'Tis Money that Makes the Man equals Score Computed on Embezzlement.

Don't Worry, Be Happy equals Score Computed on Political Manipulation.

A Place in History equals Score Computed on an Amalgamation of Factors.

One can make the argument that the game would be branded quickly as promoting antisocial values if it included "scoring systems" which rewarded too many of the bloody, murderous oppressive techniques of historical and current real world regimes.

Then again, perhaps not. In any case, a fan constructed an editor script for a "tyrannical scoring system." I think it may be lost, but any scriptor could do something similar.