It would also be interesting if players frequently chose an option that statistically harmed their war efforts because it was less repugnant to them. I.e, in a 'game' there is a tendency to learn which strategy is optimal for victory and ignore the social implications (no matter how repulsive they might become).
(Again I am being presumptuous that there will be uniformly (statistically speaking) repulsive choices that will have significantly (game changing) benefits.
You can also only get an achievement once. If there was an opt-in system to record choices, it could be interesting to see the results over time (ie in the first few games X percent of players institute a health care system, or commit genocide, etc, while after so many games that value changes, or not). I don't know if tracking that would be worth the effort, but it would be interesting.
