Post by trymon on Oct 14, 2006 13:47:31 GMT -5
First of all, Kudo's to Lynxshaman for mentioning hydropower and spawning this idea/topic.
For those who didn't see it , Lynx mentioned Hydropower dams as a potential powersink, and SUD fired back with a powersink that makes power doesn't make sense. It doesn't - however, a hydropower dam that is ann advanced building makes slightly more, and a hydropower dam that is a Seat of Power makes even more.
How so you ask? Take the US for example - a proclaimed democracy, which is more so a representative republic, which is in fact a limited socialist republic. Within the US is a gov owned entity called the Tennessee Valley Authority, a hydropower dam system built in 30's to provide jobs and electricty for the southeastern united states. One of it's goals, via President Roosevelt, was to regulate the cost of power across the country - ie, keep privately owned companies from charging huge amounts for electricity. Today it provides power for 8.5 million people across several states, still doing the job Roosevelt wanted it to.
Enough history. So - how does this fit into battle mines? Socialism (a new gov type) would have this as a seat of power. Call it a Hydropower dam, Hoover Dam, TVA - whatever. What it would do is provide an additional unit of power for land squares surrounding the owner of the dam. The in return for this free power, the owner of the dam would be able to make trades for one less item than was being asked for. I.e. instead of 1 PIRN:2 COAL, the could do 1PIRN:1COAL. Using electric power to keep in check ruthless capitalist trading tendencies
Socialism as a gov type is a bit more tricky, since real world examples of socialist gov's can practice very different types of socialism. I could see a -PM due to the gov's inefficiency at handling the means of production, a bonus percentage to good things happening because of happy citizens(maybe), or perhaps lower costs for construction due to prices being controlled.
Thoughts anyone?
For those who didn't see it , Lynx mentioned Hydropower dams as a potential powersink, and SUD fired back with a powersink that makes power doesn't make sense. It doesn't - however, a hydropower dam that is ann advanced building makes slightly more, and a hydropower dam that is a Seat of Power makes even more.
How so you ask? Take the US for example - a proclaimed democracy, which is more so a representative republic, which is in fact a limited socialist republic. Within the US is a gov owned entity called the Tennessee Valley Authority, a hydropower dam system built in 30's to provide jobs and electricty for the southeastern united states. One of it's goals, via President Roosevelt, was to regulate the cost of power across the country - ie, keep privately owned companies from charging huge amounts for electricity. Today it provides power for 8.5 million people across several states, still doing the job Roosevelt wanted it to.
Enough history. So - how does this fit into battle mines? Socialism (a new gov type) would have this as a seat of power. Call it a Hydropower dam, Hoover Dam, TVA - whatever. What it would do is provide an additional unit of power for land squares surrounding the owner of the dam. The in return for this free power, the owner of the dam would be able to make trades for one less item than was being asked for. I.e. instead of 1 PIRN:2 COAL, the could do 1PIRN:1COAL. Using electric power to keep in check ruthless capitalist trading tendencies
Socialism as a gov type is a bit more tricky, since real world examples of socialist gov's can practice very different types of socialism. I could see a -PM due to the gov's inefficiency at handling the means of production, a bonus percentage to good things happening because of happy citizens(maybe), or perhaps lower costs for construction due to prices being controlled.
Thoughts anyone?
