Game dealing with the type of problems facing Iraq/Afghanistan?

[orwell]

Anyone know of any games that simulate, at least to a degree, the same kinds of things that face creating a stable state in Iraq and Afghanistan with a world scale? Something like a grand strategy that has also a focus on internal situations as much as external?

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: orwell
Anyone know of any games that simulate, at least to a degree, the same kinds of things that face creating a stable state in Iraq and Afghanistan with a world scale? Something like a grand strategy that has also a focus on internal situations as much as external?

Sure - Civilization for instance - deal with insurgencies, keep your population happy, keep conquered territory from gaining independence again etc.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[String]

If you are okay with a slightly more historical setting, try Victoria (with it's expansion) by those lovable swedes.

It features both Persia and Afghanistan, although you really have to go to great lengths to make them civilised. It's great at modelling various socio-economic issues though.

[Feltan]

What you are really seeking, I suspect, is a game that simulates the situation where you are winning a conflict and the press refuses to admit it.

Seriously, from a military/historical perspective, there isn't much to offer a game/simulation -- it is more like a large police force stamping out gang activity. I read an article that stated, althought I can't confirm, that is was statistically safer to be a solidier in Iraq than to be an African-American Male in Philidelphia.

Not much fodder for a game designer there.

Regards,
Feltan

[Widell]

For the more tactical side, you may want to try out Point of Attack 2: http://www.hpssims.com/pages/products/poa2/poa2b.html

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

What you are really seeking, I suspect, is a game that simulates the situation where you are winning a conflict and the press refuses to admit it.

[8|]

[orwell]

Perhaps I didn't quite convey what I'm looking for. My concern for the military side of this is quite little. If I wanted to look at it from a military perspective, your right Feltan, it would be quite boring, but what I find quite interesting, is the challenge of making a government function. I suppose, though it's not quite what I'm looking for either, Democracy comes close to being what I'm after. I'd like to see a in-depth socio-political game that functions within a more cohesive grand strategy.

As for Victoria: Revolutions, it is indeed an excellent game, but the troubles of managing your new colonies, even with mods, falls short of what I'm after. Been a while since I've played, but I think the closest it comes to simulating what I'm after is "Revolt Risk: 25%" Well why? I mean, sure, new rulers and such, but what about creating policy that would focus on reducing this, instead of just events that give you choices, or building something. Their latest, In Nomine, looks promising, I'm looking forward to seeing how that will work out.

[Mr. Yuck]

I say Victoria. Uninstall Revolutions and get the OHGamer hot fix for plain Victoria and you really can create policy that reduces such things. I have not played in a while but I do remember figuring out how to do such things.

Like you, I'd be interested in hearing about anything else that models these issues.

[Hertston]

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!

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: jnier

ORIGINAL: Feltan

What you are really seeking, I suspect, is a game that simulates the situation where you are winning a conflict and the press refuses to admit it.

[8|]

Connecticut.........nuff said.

[Grell]

The only thing I can think of in this clouded mind is Superpower 1 & 2. Both games you control any country in the world and lead them without getting attacked or having your country change on you.

Regards,

Greg

[Feltan]

You may want to look at the upcoming release of Supreme Ruler 2020. It is being distributed by Paradox, and developed by Battlegoat Studios in Canada.

Supreme Ruler 2010 was a fun game, but certainly had issues. I am not sure SR2020 is going to address all these issues, but it might be what you are looking for.

Regards,
Feltan

[orwell]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

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.