Realm Management

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Willy

Seems we have a misunderstanding. Of course they can! I wrote " Another reason which is also a ERROR is that governments of any size, from the small town up, can´t be insolvent" , not that they can´t get insovent.

My misunderstanding, then, sorry.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

This is also reflected in the rules via Dissolution.

Yes, and there's more. If some players really want to run Germany in 1919 or Argentina in 2001, you provided them with the dial they need to depict this. They only have to take a whopping amount of the In Debt Limitation.

[Ramidel]

I'm curious why Corrupt was made the disadvantage for Communist societies, instead of Inefficient.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Michele

Yes, and there's more. If some players really want to run Germany in 1919 or Argentina in 2001, you provided them with the dial they need to depict this. They only have to take a whopping amount of the In Debt Limitation.

indeed. :-)

Originally Posted by Ramidel

I'm curious why Corrupt was made the disadvantage for Communist societies, instead of Inefficient.

Felt more appropriate for the cases I saw. You could make a case for Inefficient as well, but Corrupt just worked better in my opinion.

[Ramidel]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Felt more appropriate for the cases I saw. You could make a case for Inefficient as well, but Corrupt just worked better in my opinion.

Fair enough, I just figured that the bread lines and the shortage economy were the iconic misfeature of Communism. But the system has always had enough corruption to go around too.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

Fair enough, I just figured that the bread lines and the shortage economy were the iconic misfeature of Communism. But the system has always had enough corruption to go around too.

Mostly from what I've read those sorts of things were due to graft by those running them. Again, you could swap it out with Inefficient and it would probably still make sense.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

I'm curious why Corrupt was made the disadvantage for Communist societies, instead of Inefficient.

Putting aside that 'communism' is not the proper society/economy type for USSR, 'socialism' is . . .

We had a saying: 'What we are owed according to law, we obtain through friendships'.

That is, things that are supposed to be buyable or even freely available need to be obtained by quid pro quo and bribes. Those shoes in the shop's display window? Sorry, out of stock. Unless you know the merchant, or are willing to make an under-the-table deal. And this was found on all the levels.

[Ramidel]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Putting aside that 'communism' is not the proper society/economy type for USSR, 'socialism' is . . .

We had a saying: 'What we are owed according to law, we obtain through friendships'.

That is, things that are supposed to be buyable or even freely available need to be obtained by quid pro quo and bribes. Those shoes in the shop's display window? Sorry, out of stock. Unless you know the merchant, or are willing to make an under-the-table deal. And this was found on all the levels.

That was quite informative, thanks.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

I'm curious why Corrupt was made the disadvantage for Communist societies, instead of Inefficient.

An society that actually operated by communist principles (rather than paying lip service) might be inefficient (we have no examples, so hard to determine), but real world examples have trended towards being kleptocracies.

[Ramidel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

An society that actually operated by communist principles (rather than paying lip service) might be inefficient (we have no examples, so hard to determine), but real world examples have trended towards being kleptocracies.

That's kind of the nub, isn't it? Pure command economies never happen and probably can't happen as long as humans are involved.

If the kleptocrats and black marketeers are able to profitably abuse the state to their own benefit, then that's definitely Corrupt. (If even the nomenklatura can't effectively bring home bacon from their positions, it's Inefficient.)