this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
askchapo
23206 readers
282 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you'd have to completely rethink who or what you're actually playing as.
In Civ, you can have the communists overthrow the bourgeoisie at the click of a button and enduring a couple turns of "anarchy." Afterwards, you're still in charge.
Who is this person that you're playing as, who is in charge both before and after a communist revolution?
People in power make decisions that keep them in power - you can't have a realistic model of history where the person in power actually wants a revolution. You can't have a realistic model of history where there are no revolutions. So how do you have a game where one player's session spans all of human history?
I think in Tropico you could "lose" the game if the people overthrew you or voted you out. It's been years since I played, but I remember keeping the people either happy with your rule or firmly under your thumb was important.
Yeah in Tropico your "dictator" is clearly self-interested, no matter how you run your island you lose the game if your family loses power.
Several Civ games have "you can lose a city if they're unhappy or culturally influenced by a nearby rival" but I don't think any of those mechanics were actually done well, except for the scenario where if you tried to forward settle an enemy's capital.