Welcome to rieblog!

What type of leader would I be...?

[More:]

In computer games, as with many other things, therieb is hopelessly behind the times. I don't go in for gaming much, and when I do, I refuse to pay for it. I played Doom III several years after it was released, on a laptop that made the action look as jerky as a Charlie Chaplin movie. If you ask me about my favorite games, I'll mention the original Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple 2 computer and Spaceward Ho, a galactic strategy game for the early Macintosh. Only recently have I started to play Freeciv, an open source version of the classic game Civilization, which has been written for the Linux operating system. Civilization must be at least 25 years old (the page on Wikipedia has a screen shot of an MS-DOS version. The object of the game is to create, grow, and manage a civilization on a fictional globe that competes with other civilizations that are controlled by other players over the internet or by the computer. The players must build cities, grow food, provide amenities for their citizens, manage their happiness, and protect them from the other players. The winner is the last or most powerful civilization at the end of an agreed on time period. The game begins in 3500 B.C and can continue as long as the players like. As in life, some civilizations die out or are destroyed along the way.

It is not my intention to write a review of a two decade old computer game. For the record, Freeciv plays pretty well. It's time-consuming to learn and not without lapses in realism, not the least of which is the ability of veteran units from the bronze age being able to defeat modern army units in combat. What really interests me about the game is that it offers me a chance to see what kind of leader I would be if I ran the circus. I spend a lot of time thinking about and criticizing world leaders. Freeciv allows me to be one. Although I'm sure my governance will improve with experience, I can already see the outlines of the leader I would be. First and foremost, I'm a monarch. The game allows players to govern through a number of different regimes. Everyone starts out as a despot, and different forms of governance are learned over a roughly historical timeline. Monarchy, the republic, communism, and democracy are also on offer, each with their own advantages and problems. Warriors appreciate despotism and communism because the citizenry is much easier to manage. Democracy offers a path to quick scientific progress, but the population must be kept in bread and circuses or they will revolt. Monarchy and republics offer compromise. As a rule I have trouble keeping others happy, so I choose monarchy, which allows me some leeway with my subjects, and affords me the adoration that, in my mind, I so richly deserve.

Each game of civilization begins with an explorer and a couple of settlers setting out to found cities. Each time the player moves one of his pieces, more of the map becomes visible. Different types of terrain and natural resources dot the landscape. Of course it's important to place cities in the most advantageous places possible, both with an eye on defence and on exploiting natural resources. Access to the ocean or at least to a navigable river is crucial. As the population in your cities grows you can send out settlers to found new cities. Rapid expansion is the key to the early stages of the game. Early on, each player must decide whether he would like to be a sea-faring nation or a land lubber. Often fate decides, sticking the player on a tiny island with no hope for expansion than to take to the ocean. I prefer large tracts of land. In the games I've played I've pursued my American-style manifest destiny, trying to secure the entire mass of land I started on, even if that means needlessly picking fights with other players who land on my shores. I have a strategic reason for this behavior: a single country is easier to defend than a group of islands. I can't help but think, however, that there is something distinctly American in my style of play. The patchwork borders of Europe are abhorrent to me within the context of the game. I want my country plain and simple. Big, contiguous, the way God intended. What's mine is mine.

Other facets of my personality pop up in my game play. I am not, as a rule, very bellicose. I am more interested in the race for technology. I make sure as many of my cities as possible have libraries and universities. While my country has researched the automobile, I refuse to build superhighways, instead relying on an extensive rail network. I neglect religion, failing to research monotheism even though it would make my citizens happier. Above all, I'm a spendthrift. In my current game I have over 1000 gold (pieces?) in my account, while my opponents deficit spend on their sizeable militaries. I believe I'm being smart by hoarding my money, but just as in real life, inflation will get the better of me. My treasury could never hope to produce an arsenal capable of holding off a sustained attack from one of my stronger rivals for more than a couple of turns. It would be much better to invest the money in technological improvements, but I just can't seem to get myself to do it. I have most of my cities making money instead of the stuff society runs on in order not to deficit spend. My game strategy sounds depressingly familiar to my real world financial planning. I have a slowly growing mound of cash, but without investment it will be of little or no help years from now when I really need it.

Civilization makes me surprisingly hawkish in military matters. I'm not that interested in fighting, but I spend a lot on defence. Just like in the real world, building and defending a far-flung empire in the game is incredibly expensive. I will, however, jealously defend my own holdings. In my current game, I am the third most powerful player out of five. I have formed an alliance with the Lankese, the most powerful player in the game, and I'm at war with everyone else. My partner is busy expanding his empire, while I am eager to stay out of the fight. At the moment, the Lankese are brutally punishing the Swedes, who I pissed off a couple of thousand years ago by razing a city or two I felt were on my rightful property. While I'm grateful to the Lankese for keeping my sworn enemies busy, I'm wary that eventually our cooperation will end and I'll be a sitting duck. There is no way I could withstand a sustained attack by the Lankese, and therefore I've been quietly exploring the nuclear deterrent. Part of the reason for my doing so is the logic of the game. Every player will try to win eventually, so it's certain that my good relations with the Lankese will run out. Nevertheless, my defence efforts bring me much closer to Ronald Reagan's world view than I ever thought possible, and certainly closer than I am comfortable with.

So what have I learned from Civilization? I would be a miserly, paranoid monarch of a second-rate power. I had imagined myself the leader of an intellectual republic straight out of Hesse's Glasperlenspiel. Perhaps the game's just not realistic enough, but it's made out of me a peculiar mix of Margret Thatcher and Muhamar Gaddafi that I find particularly unappealing.