|
orwell -> RE: Game dealing with the type of problems facing Iraq/Afghanistan? (5/28/2008 5:40:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hertston
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr. Yuck
Like you, I'd be interested in hearing about anything else that models these issues.
I'm not sure anything can, really. Yet, anyway. A simulation that would have any real value would primarily need to model psychology and there just isn't any AI as yet up to the job. I have yet to see any 'political' simulator, as opposed to an economics one (and they are bad enough), that was anywhere near the mark - and the Afghan and Iraqi situations are even more complex than usual. People are so much better at computers than doing 'irrational', and if everybody thought and behaved rationally there wouldn't be 'situations' to model!
Seems to me the best way to do it would be to give the AI a set of goals for every tier of it's being.
To start from the very ground level:
Individual/Politician: Power and because they would be individual entities, their own need structure to be covered.
Individuals/Population Sectors: This is a mass group which has needs ranging from basic necessities to consumer products as well as a desire for power in some respect. Concede basic rights, and as they become more affluent, or, conversely, more deprived, dissent and perhaps those who want to start their own 'state' of sorts will appear. These function mostly as background pieces, and only become entities when they achieve a power level or rebel.
Party/Tribe/Faction: This can either be a entity or a non-entity much like a population section, any decisions will come from either it's own will with numbers drawn from population traits, or it can be a consortium of entities that decide how to proceed, with potential power mechanics for within the group. These people can be the first level of State powers. Provinces/regions/hexes (I would personally have a game mechanic that draws up provinces based on trait and geographic terrain.) These entities in state form exist with rare region control, meaning how they would react to anther's existence within the region, or passing through by another entity. So if they exist there, but aren't powerful, you could probably pass through with little incident regardless of what they want, compared to a powerful group which has support from all of the population in a region. Their goals would be power within the existing government framework, to maintain the status quo of just existing, for those who have no ambitions, or to become their own State and control more of [desired resource, whether land, resources, people, in a positive, or in probably the most prominent example, negatively akin to Hitler's treatment of a population sector: Jew.
The next level you would probably have would be governmental framework, where the various Individuals and factions would be vying for influence and power under either a province/state administration, or the supreme government, where the goals of factions and individuals are exerted in very much magnified form, which also include the strategic goals of the nation. Reclaiming Spain for the Spanish, Manifest Destiny, a Pacific Empire, or in the case of Monarchs and dictators, satisfying your own wants of either revenge, power, or material desire at the expense of your people. So Burma, the Junta fears a loss of power by letting in foreign aid, so they would decline offers. The part where many games might fail, is that instead of just "You have declined offer from Nation X" you need "You have rejected aid, angering the world at inhuman practices and caused suffering for your people" and have a Seat of Power move from the city to another location.
At each stage you'd be meeting social, political, material/economic needs of whatever entity you represent, with government and nation states existing, much less like they do in many games, as a small portion of how they exist, and much more as the framework for most actions that happen. This is why many strategy games seem to turn into total domination, is because there is no 'friction of life', rarely even friction in war. The idea of winning by destroying supply routes seems to be pretty rare. Or maybe I just missed that part in a lot of games.
I should mention that by no means does this have to as demanding as it might sound for a global game, I believe there is a LOT of room for abstraction here in AI games, and by taking away from the player the role of god in controlling everything, and putting it into sections, so you might be a politican, or a general, everything not immediantly relevant can generally be abstracted for effects only, not causes, and I doubt much would suffer for it.
|
|
|
|
