This game has some very realistic political situations which pretty much mirror our past, current, and future events in one shape or another.

I as well have just been observing the comments made within this thread and wanted to jump in on several occasions. Politics and history, along with personal views on such matters can become quite volatile so I decided to refrain. The comment made above by Evil gave me an opportunity to gently wade into the waters without causing a huge wake. Thanks Evil.

I have to agree with evil on the point that the game has some very realistic political situations. Whether or not they mirror "our" past and or current events is dependent on several variables in my opinion. First, who is "our"? A particular nation, religion, or government type... or the planet as a whole? Secondly, it would also depend on your interpretation of both the events within Galciv2 and within documented history. The interpretation of these events and how one perceives them is crucial. Evil made a point about the winner writing history. I tend to agree with this statement in one way because the history in which Evil speaks about is "mainstream history" known worldwide. On the other hand, growing up displaced and visiting 5 of the 7 continents on the planet, I have found that the loser writes as much, if not more historical information that seems to be over looked. It is out there and can be easily obtained.

The way in which we "rule our empire" in this game is based on what our beliefs are, and those beliefs are/were formed by our political/religious/capitalistic influences and upbringing.

This quote by Evil however, I have to completely disagree with. The decisions I make in the game are strictly decisions based on how I wish to play. One game I may wish to destroy my opponent and use every means necessary in order to achieve this. Another game I may decide to use political means to achieve a victory. To say I make my decisions for a given game "event" (assumed) or how I "rule" the rest of my empire, based on my own beliefs and how I was raised politically, religiously or with what capitalistic Influences were prevalent during my childhood, is a stretch. The only ramification my actions in game will generate, will be a win or a loss, nothing more. I do not put my citizens in the alien pods because I am sadistic in real life, I put them in there for the research bonus if I am playing an evil Civ. If I am playing a neutral or good Civ I will choose one of the other options. I do what benefits me most in the game I currently am involved with.

I determine which direction I will go in a game based solely on who my opponents are, their placement in the galaxy, and who may serve well as an ally. All of this is leaned with experience playing the game and is only limited to the parameters defined by the game itself.

I guess I could argue Evils point as well... but I would have to add a category that Evil may have inadvertently left out when he wrote...

political/religious/capitalistic

That would be, of course, our own personal life experiences.

Thanks for allowing me to be a part of such an entertaining conversation and once again, thank you Evil, for the opportunity to enter this conversation on a good note.

thank you Evil for the opportunity to enter this conversation on a good note. [Captain] [Third Place Empire] [Racial Victory] [5 Game Winner] [Yor] [Over 10 Battles] [Chaotic Evil] [Normal]

Well thank you for the thanks, heh, heh. When I said that my "views" affect how I rule my empire I might not have been totally clear. I've lived in PA/WV my whole life, so my upbringing is based on US values, if you want to call them that. But to clarify...
In all of my games I play as an evil custom race, and almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship. All of my decisions are based on what is best for my empire, and those choices all seem to be the most evil ones you can choose. In real life, despite my screen name, I could not have the willpower to suppress millions or even billions of people the way I do in this game. Now I could definitely do nasty things to those people who do bad things to others, which pretty much encompasses politicians, the rich, and most any leader that I read about these days. No one seems to have a "world civilization" mentality with regards to what is best for all of us, not the few. This game allows me to be one of those whom I despise tremendously, without actually joining their ranks.

The way in which we "rule our empire" in this game

When I said that my "views" affect how I rule my empire I might not have been totally clear.

Then I must thank you again sir, if not for this unintentional grammatical misrepresentation <-------- (me trying to be a grammar Nazi    ) I probably would not have posted and just stayed lurking in the shadows.

almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship.

Up until recently I was pretty much the same way. I find now that the influx of economic / social / military production is just to great to ignore and in my last few games, I have changed to the other forms of government, depending on how high my populations morale is.

politicians, the rich, and most any leader that I read about these days.

I agree to an extent Evil. Why do you include the 'rich' folks though? I am thourghly middle class and intend to remain so but I don't have any ill will toward those with more than me. I think its better for the poor to become richer than the rich to become poorer in monetary value and other areas.

In all of my games I play as an evil custom race, and almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship. All of my decisions are based on what is best for my empire

I must agree with Quixen that the bonuses from not being Evil are just too great to ignore. My son enjoys the high powered weapons that an evil alignment brings you, but I've found that when my productive/economic might is two or more times greater than my opponent (evil or good), it matters little in determining the ultimate victor. To each his own. I tend to gravitate towards a Neutral Star Federation. But I've certainly been known to do positively nasty things to get a fat planetary quality bonus on a nice juicy 20 PQ marble near my enemy's borders  .

Now I could definitely do nasty things to those people who do bad things to others, which pretty much encompasses politicians, the rich, and most any leader that I read about these days

Again, I do not see the point in demonizing success, if this success is gained with humility, charity and love for others. I must agree with Evil S on politicians as a general class, however, since a lust for power does drive a commanding majority of those with a political impulse.

This game allows me to be one of those whom I despise tremendously

Again, I am puzzled, but to each his own. If I were to be the person that Evil S plays his games as, perhaps I too would despise myself  .

Up until recently I was pretty much the same way. I find now that the influx of economic / social / military production is just too great to ignore and in my last few games, I have changed to the other forms of government, depending on how high my populations morale is.

Did I miss something? Government type is not dependent on alignment, is it? I do agree with Quixen with regards to leaving the default dictatorship government ASAP.

The metaphorical extreme might be more appropriate in an age when vast fortunes slosh around the globe daily, but I often like to think about the ancient greedy merchant trying to squash down his load of lucre so he could avoid the long trip 'round to the bigger gates.

Although the image is amusing, there you go again knocking success by assuming only greed equates to success.

Cheers!

Did I miss something? Government type is not dependent on alignment, is it? I do agree with Quixen with regards to leaving the default dictatorship government ASAP.

No, you did not miss anything. Evil made mention that he rarely if ever uses another form of government.

almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship.

I just responded on how I felt about how he plays the game.

Up until recently I was pretty much the same way. I find now that the influx of economic / social / military production is just too great to ignore and in my last few games, I have changed to the other forms of government, depending on how high my populations morale is.

Has nothing to do whether you are evil or good.

Again, I do not see the point in demonizing success, if this success is gained with humility, charity and love for others. I must agree with Evil S on politicians as a general class, however, since a lust for power does drive a commanding majority of those with a political impulse.

I'm all for caution re "demonizing," but in the old days my academic discipline was called "political economy" (some folks still get that degree, but the math scares lots of people away). I'm a theorist, and to me money is a medium or expression of power, which I bumper-sticker define as "the ability to get others to do that which they otherwise would not do." The quote above assumes that someone seeking boundless wealth has no interest in power, but I don't buy that, even if the hypothetical person never thinks in those terms herself.

I think that what Evil and I agree on is that greed is bad and that greed (or worse, mindless acquisitiveness) dominates US culture. Another part of the "problem" here is that very few people have a precise notion of what it means to be "rich." In world historical terms, my slovenly home is a finer dwelling than most "royalty" have enjoyed. I have hot and cold running water, an indoor toilet, (aging) climate control, and lavish entertainment devices. So I'm "rich." And I have no health insurance, no retirement plan other than paying my mortgage, etc. So some friends think I'm poor.

Ah, back to the philosophical, good. Too bad my time for a reply is so limited.

Quickly, then.

money is a medium or expression of power

Agreed, no argument there.

The quote above assumes that someone seeking boundless wealth has no interest in power, but I don't buy that

Neither do I. I must conclude that the error was on my part for not making myself clearer. There are two types of politician: Idealists and Careerists. Idealists want to change human nature or defend against those trying to change their nature. The careerists are in it for the money and power. The latter are despicable in their own way, but generally are far less dangerous than the former. My interest was to move beyond thinking in terms of just the dichotomy of "rich" is bad while "poor" is good.

very few people have a precise notion of what it means to be "rich."

This could get interesting. I agree.

greed is bad and that greed (or worse, mindless acquisitiveness) dominates US culture

Can't argue against the second half, but I would quibble about mindlessly throwing around the label of "greed" when describing success.

Gentlemen, my time is up. I will return after the Holidays.
Cheers!

And I have no health insurance, no retirement plan other than paying my mortgage, etc. So some friends think I'm poor.

Same here, save for the health insurance. However, it costs 110.00 a week off the top, thank God, for BC/BS and another 16.00 weekly for United Concordia Dental. This covers my wife and myself. We are fortunate that we have the coverage, but unfortunate if anything happens to either one of us.

Again, I do not see the point in demonizing success, if this success is gained with humility, charity and love for others.

I would challenge anyone to show me raw hard data with regards to someone achieving success like this. What, do you think that what Billy boy Gates did with his "foundation" is really going to help people? Do you think anyone who runs a Fortune 500 company has true ethics in mind when in the board room, or on their yacht, or maybe on vacation on their private island in some tropical paradise?
I am happy with what I have, and find no contempt for anyone who "has more" than me, especially in the material. It is when I see such a gross negligence on the part of people who could do so much to help those less fortunate. People who would rather fund lavish toga parties and claim them as business expenses than take a few thousand homeless off the street and provide some sort of education/training/counseling efforts to raise our society up from the cess pool that it has become.

I thought I would just let this play out and watch from the sidelines but the discussion has gotten rather interesting so I have decided to chime in. Not sure if that is a bad thing or not.

Again, I do not see the point in demonizing success, if this success is gained with humility, charity and love for others.

I agree with the above statement. Just because success is achieved by an individual does not always mean the person did unspeakable, immoral things to obtain such status. To give you all an idea of where I may be coming from on this point you first have to clearly define the word success for yourself. I am sure there are many different ways to do so. How much one is worth does not necessarily mean that person believes they are successful although others may perceive this, and net worth is not the only way one can measure success.

I would challenge anyone to show me raw hard data with regards to someone achieving success like this.

I might get laughed out of here and that is ok, for the comment I am about to make may be completely wrong but since this was a challenge handed out by Evil I thought I would at least try and take him up on it.

Oprah Winfrey. *** cringe *** I know, I know...

I do not know to much about her life but the things I have read about, giving away multiple cars, the charities she contributes to and the amount she gives, the way she speaks with people, the way she seems to care about her guests, so on and so forth. I really do not watch her show, and I really have no idea how exactly she achieved her wealth, but most of us think she has hit a rather high level of success morally.

I think that what Evil and I agree on is that greed is bad and that greed (or worse, mindless acquisitiveness) dominates US culture.

I agree that greed is bad but I am not sure it dominates US culture. The word "dominates" is a bit strong in my opinion. Most of us in the US it seems, just try and get by with what we have and try to better ourselves and our families lives... I must ask you... Is this greed? If I have been driving a Ford Pickup built in 1972 for the last 10 years, and dream of the day I can buy a brand spanking new Ford F-150, am I greedy? If I have the bare minimum in food supplies for my family, is it wrong to want Pop Tarts and Steak? Is it considered Greed to reach for something you do not have but would make your life better?

I know there is a line that can be drawn in the area surrounding greed, and in my opinion, it is up to each of us to figure out exactly where this line should be.

Greed can also be used as a description for other things besides the almighty dollar as well..... Power and Fame also come to mind.

This thread goes from grammer Nazis to Oprah... *** hangs head in shame ***

I work in the nonprofit sector... the upside is that there are a LOT of good people with piles of money that want to help make the world a better place. Gates is one of those people.

When we talk about computer industry practices, Gates is evil. He bases his practices on Go and game theory in general. People who lose the games he sets up are, not surprisingly, upset. However, when it comes to human welfare, the man has big ideas and the money to make them work.

He's doing what governments consistently refuse to do. He's doing smart things (vaccination, sanitary infrastructure) alike that asshat from MIT with his $100 laptop idea for places that don't have fundamental legal mechanisms like zipcodes or streets.

This thread goes from grammer Nazis to Oprah... *** hangs head in shame ***

Maybe so but that's how we keep this forum interesting!
My hat is off to you for being able to drive a Ford, let alone one as old as that 72 that you speak of.
As far as greed, you are right, it is up to us to define it as we see fit. I am not versed on Oprah and her life, wouldn't want to be, but I do know of the things of which you speak regarding her "acts of charity". Yes, she did some nice things for people, but were the people she did this for needy? They were audience members, not homeless, at least not as far as I know. And the gift giving to those parents who were artificially inseminated and then pumped out what, six or seven kids... was that necessary? I wish my wife and I could practice what I would call "stupid sex" and have way more kids than I need or could even afford, and then have some wealthy benefactor throw tons of money and baby supplies at me to help me take care of my family. It is this kind of insanity that pisses me off to no end. And if memory serves me, the couple who had all of those kids couldn't get pregnant the old fashioned way, so they inseminated. Now if you can't have one kid the legit way, why should you be able to have six kids? I realize they add more eggs to make sure at least one takes, but then what? You achieved your goal, don't overkill it. Just rambling now... see what you do to me Quixen.

Governments are only as strong as the people who keep them in power.

what governments consistently refuse to do

While I do think it is a govenrments responsibility to care for the masses who put them there I also think the masses have a responsibility to care for themselves. A hand up instead of a hand out. There are too many lazy folks who don't care to better their lot in life by taking action. They would rather sit around and blame someone else for it while collecting my taxpayer dollars for doing nothing.

Most of us in the US it seems, just try and get by with what we have and try to better ourselves and our families lives... I must ask you... Is this greed?

No. It is our responsibility to better ourselves in our own eyes. If a person thinks being a millionaire is better then more power to them. The problem lies in values and how they are applied to becoming better.

It is this kind of insanity that pisses me off to no end.

Enter social programs. While it may not apply to the folks mentioned, it certianly applies to some areas. The gov't writing checks each month to the aforementioned lazy folks in the post above.