GalCiv2 Used in Political Science or Economics Classes?

I'm not an economist, but I am a political science major, so i can comment onthat field. For as much as I love the game, GalCiv can teach you about as much about political science as it can astro physics.

The "indpth stratagies" are fun, but not even close to realistic. The "simulations of entire nations" would not be at all applicable to a budding political scientist, since they are to limited to be of any value.

For example, let's look at elections. GalCiv models what seems to be a unicarmel legislature (if you choose to have such) that operates under a mostly powerful executive. There is no mention in it of what type of elections they are. They appear to be based upon a "winner take all" (also known as a "first past the post") system. But, if that is so, then it doesn't model a proportional representation system, much less a mixed system. Nor is there any mention of who has voting rights, demographic breakdowns of parties, or what means are legal to use in campaigns for election.

Much less does the system model inter-party dynamics, the division of powers, party re-allignment, the actual system of government (just saying imperial doesn't mean a whole lot, as it doesn't dictate whether it is a monarchy, constitutional monarchy, etc.), and when you upgrade to Federalist systems, it doesn't specify whether it is a top down Federal system, a bottom up Federal system, or mixed Federalism. Nor if there are sperate heads of government and of state, and a whole slew of other various forms of government.

I won't even go into the issues with foreign policy.

In short, while it is a great game, it simply isn't cut out to be used as a political science resource/teaching tool/simulation.

I would be interested to hear an economists take on your question though.

You'd be better off checking out www.politicalmachine.com. That's the political strategy game we wrote previous to GalCiv II.

I'll field the economics side of the question.

While the economic system is quite detailed in GalCiv II, it is not a good representation of an actual economy (not that I'm criticising, the objective wasn't to create a economic model after all). This is largely because there is no treatment of private sector activity (none of which would be under the player's control) and all commercial buildings and trade goods are constructed and maintained by the state, as well as all research - it seems even the Korx are communists!

I will give kudos for a few things though:
1) Trade agreements are mutually beneficial, but highly restricted by all governments - just like in real life.
2) I understand that if you crank taxes up too high morale drops so far that tax revenue starts to fall as well. Economists refer to this as a laffer curve, though its an open question as to where this peak revenue point actually occurs.
3) The spending split between social and military spending gives a more realistic decision than in most games - a proper choice between guns and butter.

Anyway the important thing to remember is that GalCiv II is a game, and a damn fine one at that - keep up the good work.

I've taught a bit of community college political science, and I have to basically agree with Feud and Prince of Crows.

But if I'd ever been confident most of my students read and thought about their course syllabi, I might have included a PC Game section in the Optional Reading list, and GCII would have been high on the list.

While GCII certainly has no direct value in helping a student pass a basic poli sci or econ class, playing the game could help students who are starting to consider some basic political theory b/c it is a framework for competition over scarce resources. Plus, finding and listing the "flaws" as Feud did is an excellent student exercise.

I especially agree with Prince of Crow's remark about the econ slider guns-and-butter choices, but like so many of my students he conflates (confuses by smashing together) communism and authoritarianism. Communists can be egalitarian (good ones always are) and pure democrats can vote a free market out of existence, although that might well wreck their society.

The basic gov model for GCII is complete autocracy (rule by one), and as Feud points out, that mechanical necessity makes the "advanced" government forms into black boxes that are definitely hiding some guts that don't fit with their branding.

My point regarding communism is that all primary economic activity is directed by the state. Not all authoritarian states have this tendency. Pinochet's regime for example had a disticnt free market streak (though I doubt such a combination could be stable in the long run) and fascist states tended more toward corporatism.

I suppose a more accurate description would have been Stalinist, rather than communist, specifying a particular flavour of communism that combines Marxist economic control with strict totalitarianism, but I though that was a fine point

With the exception of Sim City, I have never seen a game that wasn't basicly Communist, i.e. total state control of all means of production. I would like to see a game that models free enterprise. Governments can tax and subsidize, and set up state run enterprises, but most economic activity should be conducted by free actors (i.e. corporations) not under government control.

In most science fiction settings, mega-corporations are very powerful, and rival, or even exceed the power of governments. I'd like to see a game with mega-corporations.

Please don't forget the fascists here. Nazi Germany was every bit as totalitarian as the Stalinist USSR, they just had different strategies for managing the national economy.



Lapsed anarchists like me love this sort of question.

Depending on who you adopt as an intellectual authority, SF "mega-corporations" like this *are* governments--they are oligarchies, most often with an authoritarian streak. The have total control over the lives of huge populations, sometimes whole planets or more. The only difference between them and what most US citizens mean when they say "government" is that there is typically *no* input from rank and file employees.

OTH, Bruce Sterling's novel Islands in the Net does offer some interesting exploration of the idea of a democratically operated corporation operating in a larger world along the lines Blackrook mentions.