Jump to content
270soft Forum
mahaadoxyz

Ruler of the World

Recommended Posts

This is a spin-off of my thoughts about a world scenario; in fact, it's essentially a hybrid of the world scenario and the all-time historical scenario. No time constraints, no geographical constraints (since geo = earth, that's literally true!), and only somewhat constrained to people who actually existed.

Now, this is probably a scenario that's in the planning stage. My previous experiments in making a world scenario usually became hopelessly gridlocked, where it was impossible for any Party to win a majority. Hopefully the 2012 model of the game will have something by way of a runoff option or just plurality-wins or something to make a genuine multi-party election more fun. In the meantime, however, I don't see any reason why the brainstorming part of making the scenario has to wait.

Candidate ideas:

Atahualpa

Augustus Constantine

Confucius

Qin Shi Huang

Ramses II

Akhenaten

Hammurabi

Charlemagne

Socrates

Alexander

Ashoka

Jalaluddin Akbar

Cyrus II

Julius Caesar

Ieyasu Tokugawa

Xocoyotzin Moctezuma

Genghis Khan

Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar

Siddhartha Gautama

Jesus Christ

Muhammad

Arthur Pendragon

Oliver Cromwell

Henry VIII

Robin Hood

Timur

Vladimir Lenin

Joseph Stalin

Leon Trotsky

Mao Zedong

Adolf Hitler

Benito Mussolini

Fransisco Franco

Franklin Roosevelt

Ronald Reagan

John Kennedy

Martin L. King

Thomas Jefferson

Winston Churchill

Margaret Thatcher

William Gladstone

Mohandas Gandhi

Ruhollah Khomeini

Nelson Mandela

Shaka Zulu

I have no idea how to sort these people into parties. They need to be parties that transcend any context whatsoever; the same must of course be true of the issues. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see those leaders between 8 factions:

-Royalist (for an absolute monarchy)

-Theocratic (for a theocratic regime)

-Humanist

-Liberal (in the classical sense, not in the modern US sense)

-Centrist

-Marxist-Communist

-Conservative

-Nationalist (for a regime with a strong leader and for territorial expansion)

Atahualpa (Nationalist)

Augustus Constantine (Nationalist)

Confucius (Humanist)

Qin Shi Huang (Nationalist)

Ramses II (Royalist)

Akhenaten (Royalist)

Hammurabi (Nationalist)

Charlemagne (Nationalist)

Socrates (Liberal)

Alexander (Nationalist)

Ashoka (Humanist)

Jalaluddin Akbar (Nationalist)

Cyrus II (Royalist)

Julius Caesar (Nationalist)

Ieyasu Tokugawa (Nationalist)

Xocoyotzin Moctezuma (Royalist)

Genghis Khan (Nationalist)

Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar (Nationalist)

Siddhartha Gautama (Humanist)

Jesus Christ (Humanist)

Muhammad (Humanist or Theocratic)

Arthur Pendragon (Nationalist)

Oliver Cromwell (Nationalist)

Henry VIII (Royalist)

Robin Hood (Humanist)

Timur (Nationalist)

Vladimir Lenin (Communist)

Joseph Stalin (Communist)

Leon Trotsky (Communist)

Mao Zedong (Communist)

Adolf Hitler (Nationalist)

Benito Mussolini (Nationalist)

Fransisco Franco (Nationalist)

Franklin Roosevelt (Centrist)

Ronald Reagan (Conservative)

John Kennedy (Centrist)

Martin L. King (Humanist)

Thomas Jefferson (Liberal)

Winston Churchill (Conservative)

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)

William Gladstone (Liberal)

Mohandas Gandhi (Humanist)

Ruhollah Khomeini (Theocratic)

Nelson Mandela (Humanist)

Shaka Zulu (Nationalist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a couple more issues. What I have so far:

Boundaries

Commerce

Criminal Justice

Death Penalty

Education

Environment

Feminism

Free Expression

Marriage

Possession

Poverty

Race Relations

Religion

Vice

Welfare

Have 15, need 3 more.

UPDATE:

I have the extra issues.

Weapons

Taxation

Asceticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my current plan is to have several broad-based ideological parties that will have nice contested primaries and be competitive globally, and then a Nationalist Party, which will consist of a bunch of "favorite sons" who will compete in their home states. It might have Tokugawa in Japan, Montezuma in Mesoamerica, Shaka Zulu in South Africa, Akbar the Great in India, one or more Pharaohs in Egypt, etc. I've made a test version to see if that concept works, and it does. So now I'm trying to find those "favorite sons" and then try to pick historical figures who fit more neatly onto the broad ideological framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my current plan is to have several broad-based ideological parties that will have nice contested primaries and be competitive globally, and then a Nationalist Party, which will consist of a bunch of "favorite sons" who will compete in their home states. It might have Tokugawa in Japan, Montezuma in Mesoamerica, Shaka Zulu in South Africa, Akbar the Great in India, one or more Pharaohs in Egypt, etc. I've made a test version to see if that concept works, and it does. So now I'm trying to find those "favorite sons" and then try to pick historical figures who fit more neatly onto the broad ideological framework.

I'd suggest maybe Hitler for a broad-based Nationalist, as his policies and ideals have outlived him in various radical far-right-wing militant groups around the world, though he'd be strongest in Central Europe and by far weakest in Britain, Russia, and Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I mean, I'm flexible on the name for the "favorite son" party, but that's a separate concept from the Party that will have Hitler in it. I think I want some sort of far-right and/or bloodthirsty conquerers Party. Here's my current scheme:

Socialist (ranging from social democratic all the way to hard-core Communist)

Liberal (everything from classical liberalism to modern American liberalism, probably including moderateness generally)

Conservative (anti-permissive society, pro-elites in one way or another)

Fascist? [not sure of the name] (far-right, bloodthirsty conquerers, etc. In addition to modern Fascists, I might add, say, Genghis Khan)

Populist (popular dictators, like Caesar, maybe Alexander the Great, other prominent figures who don't fit ideological axes well but had the support of their subjects)

Nationalist (a bunch of "favorite son" candidates as described above.)

For the record, here's my thinking on that last party, because it's pretty complex:

A while back I was working on a 2012 scenario, but I realized as I got close to the general election (playing as Obama) that I had forgotten to move the GOP convention up to 2012. So all ten Republicans stuck around into the General Election. I ended up winning all 50 states, 'cause the lot of them just divided the GOP vote share up into little pieces. At the time it occurred to me that this would be a good means of making a jungle primary. What I'm now thinking is that I'll have the Nationalist Party, with a bunch of candidates, each of whom will have 100% support in their home "state" in the primaries, 100% committed, and 0% elsewhere (or maybe a bit of support in surrounding regions, I'm not sure). Then I won't have a convention for that Party, and I will have set the general-election percentages such that the Nationalist Party is competitive in places where a given "favorite son" should be. When the general-election rolls around, each Nationalist Party candidate will be on the ballot, only receiving votes in their home state, and hopefully being competitive in their home state. As I mentioned, I ran a test scenario to see if this works, and it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I might split this up into several scenarios:

Ruler of Time (actual, solid historical geopolitical figures)

Ruler of Myth (fictional/mythological characters, incl. religious figures whose historical existence is uncertain)

Ruler of Thought (philosophers)

Ruler of the Heavens (gods of all sorts)

One or more of these scenarios will probably have more than 32 candidates in it, certainly the first one will, and so I'll just set ~32 of them as on by default and let the player sort them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never play a scenario that featured some of those "candidates". Hitler, Mussolini? Really?!

This is a spin-off of my thoughts about a world scenario; in fact, it's essentially a hybrid of the world scenario and the all-time historical scenario. No time constraints, no geographical constraints (since geo = earth, that's literally true!), and only somewhat constrained to people who actually existed.

Now, this is probably a scenario that's in the planning stage. My previous experiments in making a world scenario usually became hopelessly gridlocked, where it was impossible for any Party to win a majority. Hopefully the 2012 model of the game will have something by way of a runoff option or just plurality-wins or something to make a genuine multi-party election more fun. In the meantime, however, I don't see any reason why the brainstorming part of making the scenario has to wait.

Candidate ideas:

Atahualpa

Augustus Constantine

Confucius

Qin Shi Huang

Ramses II

Akhenaten

Hammurabi

Charlemagne

Socrates

Alexander

Ashoka

Jalaluddin Akbar

Cyrus II

Julius Caesar

Ieyasu Tokugawa

Xocoyotzin Moctezuma

Genghis Khan

Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar

Siddhartha Gautama

Jesus Christ

Muhammad

Arthur Pendragon

Oliver Cromwell

Henry VIII

Robin Hood

Timur

Vladimir Lenin

Joseph Stalin

Leon Trotsky

Mao Zedong

Adolf Hitler

Benito Mussolini

Fransisco Franco

Franklin Roosevelt

Ronald Reagan

John Kennedy

Martin L. King

Thomas Jefferson

Winston Churchill

Margaret Thatcher

William Gladstone

Mohandas Gandhi

Ruhollah Khomeini

Nelson Mandela

Shaka Zulu

I have no idea how to sort these people into parties. They need to be parties that transcend any context whatsoever; the same must of course be true of the issues. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never play a scenario that featured some of those "candidates". Hitler, Mussolini? Really?!

Fact is, as much as we'd like to bury them under the carpet, Hitler and Mussolini are as much a part of history as the rest of these leaders, and shouldn't be left out for PC sake. Censoring history should be a crime in my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree. Many old US presidents supported the slavery of millions, many European leaders supported proxy genocide and usurpation of Africans -- are we going to censure them? If you don't want to play the scenario, fine, but let's not run away from history just because it isn't pleaseant.

On that note, Hitler and Mussolini however disgusting their most vile acts -- did have opinions and philosophies on other topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never play a scenario that featured some of those "candidates". Hitler, Mussolini? Really?!

If it really offends you, you can turn these candidates off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my idea is pretty much to run the gamut. And you don't have to play as Hitler. (I haven't got the Fascist Party set very strong at present, though I think it's possible that one could run a solid campaign as one of them (probably Genghis Khan, who'd get a boost in much of Asia)). Also, I just find it entertaining to see the headlines about "Hitler: Stalin an Extremist!". If you don't like it, turn them off. There are so many candidates anyway that you'll need to turn some of them off just to play.

Note: I feel like this scenario, as stated above, might be more suited for the next edition of P4E, especially if it has more options for how to configure the general election. So I'm probably not planning on presenting a polished, ready-to-play version of it on the current model, though I might be persuaded to do so. If I do, it will definitely not be until the summer, since I am rather busy until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried a run-through of the Socialist Party primaries, with the following candidates: Stalin, Zedong, Attlee, Mandela (me), King, Guevara, Gandhi, Nasser, Gorbachev, and Meir. Here's how it went:

February 4th: Nasser wins 99 delegates from Egypt. Mandela, Meir finish 2nd and 3rd.

February 9th: Nasser wins 49 delegates from Fertile Crescent. Mandela, Meir finish 2nd and 3rd. Meir wins 36 delegates from Palestine. Mandela, Nasser finish 2nd and 3rd.

February 16th: Gandhi wins 133 delegates from India. Attlee, Stalin finish 2nd and 3rd.

February 23rd: Zedong wins 168 delegates from China. Stalin, Gandhi finish 2nd and 3rd.

February 26th: Nasser wins 36 delegates from Afghanistan. Stalin, Gandhi finish 2nd and 3rd. Nasser wins 75 delegates from Asia Minor. Stalin, Mandela finish 2nd and 3rd. Nasser wins 74 delegates from Pakistan. Gandhi, Mandela finish 2nd and 3rd. Mandela wins 64 delegates from Persia. Nasser, Gandhi finish 2nd and 3rd.

March 2nd: Stalin wins 33 delegates from the Balkans. Gorbachev, Attlee finish 2nd and 3rd.

March 5th: Stalin wins 41 delegates from Italy. Attlee, King finish 2nd and 3rd. (I love the headline: "Stalin takes Italy!")

March 11th: Mandela takes 72 delegates from Eastern Africa, 86 delegates from Horn of Africa, 68 delegates from Middle Africa, 37 delegates from Northern Africa, and 48 delegates from Western Africa. Nasser takes 19 delegates from Sahara. Stalin finishes 2nd in Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa, and 3rd in Middle Africa. Nasser finishes 2nd in Northern Africa and 3rd in Eastern, Western, and Horn of Africa. Mandela finishes 2nd in Sahara. King finishes 2nd in Middle and Western Africa, and 3rd in Northern Africa and Sahara.

March 16th: Nasser takes 17 delegates from Arabia. Stalin and King finish 2nd and 3rd.

Gorbachev endorses Mandela.

March 30th: Meir wins 55 delegates from Central Europe; Stalin and Attlee finish 2nd and 3rd. Stalin takes 92 delegates from Germany; King, Attlee finish 2nd and 3rd.

Gandhi endorses Mandela.

April 5th: Stalin takes 77 delegates from France. Mandela, Nasser finish 2nd and 3rd.

April 9th: Mandela takes 67 delegates from Iberia. Attlee, Stalin finish 2nd and 3rd.

King, Meir endorse Mandela.

April 20th: Mandela takes 56 delegates from Central Asia. Nasser, Stalin finish 2nd and 3rd. Stalin takes 93 delegates from Eastern Europe. Attlee, Mandela finish 2nd and 3rd. Nasser takes 11 delegates from Mongolia. Zedong, Stalin finish 2nd and 3rd.

Zedong withdraws.

May 3rd: Stalin takes 140 delegates from Russia. Mandela, Attlee finish 2nd and 3rd.

May 10th: Attlee takes 97 delegates from Indochina. Stalin, Nasser finish 2nd and 3rd.

May 13th: Mandela takes 88 delegates from Malaysia. Stalin, Nasser finish 2nd and 3rd.

May 17th: Mandela takes 11 delegates from Polynesia. Attlee, Stalin finish 2nd and 3rd.

Stalin endorses Mandela.

May 25th: Nasser takes 42 delegates from Korea. Mandela, Guevara finish 2nd and 3rd.

May 28th: Mandela takes 28 delegates from Japan. Guevara, Attlee finish 2nd and 3rd.

Attlee withdraws.

June 1st: Mandela takes 53 delegates from Australasia, 24 delegates from Ireland, and 72 delegates from South Africa. Nasser takes 80 delegates from Great Britain. Nasser and Mandela both finish 2nd in all contests they do not win; Guevara finishes 3rd in all contests.

June 8th: Mandela takes 62 delegates from Scandinavia. Guevara, Nasser finish 2nd and 3rd.

June 11th: Mandela takes 69 delegates from Canada. Nasser, Guevara finish 2nd and 3rd.

Guevara withdraws. Nasser becomes Mandela's VP.

Mandela wins 44 delegates from Caribbean on June 15th, 108 delegates from Mesoamerica on June 18th, 78 delegates from Andes, 62 delegates from Colombia, and 48 delegates from Venezuela on June 23rd, 78 delegates from Argentina and 128 delegates from Brazil on June 29th, and 125 delegates from the United States on July 4th, running unopposed.

Mandela wins the Socialist Party primaries unanimously!

I thought it was pretty playable. Obviously, it's very intense wheeling-and-dealing, since each candidate commands such regional strength. I think individual players are going to end up picking a handful of candidates from each party for a given run-through, especially given the 32-candidate limit. Note that I played with only two of the four available Soviets turned on, leaving Lenin and Trotsky off. This was to give the Soviets more electoral force; with all four of them in the mix it gets kind of crowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't. Not even remotely. I've only got the Socialist primary up and running; I still need to do Conservatives, Liberals, Facsists, Populists, and Nationalists. And then endorsers and/or events, if I decide that events are worthwhile and that I can make them happen without major errors. If you'd like to test out just the Socialist side of the game, I could send that to you, but that's all there is so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just played through the Fascists primary as Genghis Khan, dispatching Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, and the like, eventually taking Franco as my VP. Somehow ended up winning the popular vote in the general against Martin Luther King (Socialist), FDR (Liberal), Churchill (Conservative), and Caesar (populist), and the most EVs with 199 out of 459. Parliament picked Churchill, though. Two sets of primaries down, three and the Nationalists to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea how strange this sounds:

Just played through the Fascists primary as Genghis Khan, dispatching Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, and the like, eventually taking Franco as my VP

hehe.

If you're looking for a tester send it ot hfrancisco2006@gmail.com and I'll give it a whirl.

Cheers,

CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually needed some major wheeling and dealing toward the end. Mussolini and Tamerlane dropped out fairly early, and at the end it was me, Hitler, Pinochet, and Franco (after all the primaries). Hitler endorsed Franco, which gave him about 49% of the delegates, and I just threw all of my PIPs at Pinochet and he endorsed me. The primaries were bizarre, though: random people kept winning states they really oughtn't have won, including in the parallel Socialist primary (where Golda Meir won most of Africa!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in trying to brainstorm allocation of support for the various candidates in some of the primaries:

the Liberals:

Franklin Roosevelt (United States)

Thomas Jefferson (United States)

William Gladstone (Great Britain)

Napoleon Bonaparte (France) [Yes, I know he was an imperialist. He had his liberal aspects.]

Ashok Maurya (India)

Pericles (Balkans)

Akhenaten (Egypt)

Augustus Constantine (Asia Minor)

Sun Yat-Sen (China)

I have two Americans here, and they're the only Western Hemispherers. I assume Gladstone and Napoleon would fight over Europe (which they only just avoided doing in real life!), and that each of the others would have a regional power base. But: what of sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and, for instance, Russia? Probably FDR and Jefferson would fight over the Americas, but I'm not sure how to distribute power betwixt them. And which one should be stronger? Maybe Jefferson has the edge in the Americas, but Roosevelt has a stronger international presence?

Conservatives:

Winston Churchill (Great Britain)

Queen Victoria (Great Britain)

Abraham Lincoln (United States)

Charlemagne (France)

Hammurabi (Fertile Crescent)

Ramses II (Egypt)

Suleiman (Asia Minor)

Chiang Kai-shek (China)

Again, I have three Europeans here. Maybe make Victoria lead in GB itself, but Churchill the dominant player in Europe overall? (with Charlemagne dominating France and being somewhat regionally strong in its adjacent countries?) And then again I have the Africa and South America problem, as well as Russia and really much of Central Asia to contend with.

Populists:

George Washington (United States)

Julius Caesar (Italy)

Alexander the Great (Balkans)

Peter the Great (Russia)

Cyrus the Great (Persia) [noticing a trend here?]

Hatshepsut (Egypt)

Simon Bolivar (Colombia)

Oliver Cromwell (Great Britain)

Washington probably dominant in the US and Canada, and with a strong presence globally. No Asians that I see. Bolivar dominant in Latin America, obviously. Caesar and Alexander splitting up Europe (I'm not sure Cromwell will be all that strong, even in Britain). Still an Africa problem, and an added Asia problem.

So, any ideas? For the Socialists I have it pretty well divided up with each candidate taking a local, fairly strong power base, and I think it actually works out pretty well though it's a very crowded field. For the Fascists I have Hitler basically taking everything from Russia and westwards and Genghis Khan taking everything east of that, with Tamerlane taking Central Asia, Pinochet taking South America, and then Mussolini, Franco, and Vlad the Impaler taking their respective home areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...