 |
| |
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
TK: I'd love to include that. I didn't explicitly included because the first time I brought that subject up (a very long time ago) there wasn't much consensus. If people agrees about having that effect, I believe we can introduce it in two ways:
1) Officially: If there's an official religion and it is inclined toward stopping science, then total RP production in the civ is penalized. Not for all techs, just for some of them (I don't want yet to go on specifics).
2) Self-constrained: People refrain themselves. They are less interested in science because of their intense beliefs. This can only be achieved if RP production is computed at the ethnic group level.
I think we can at least implement 1) if people agree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
The tech model has already includes these effects. There are two variables the social model provides:
I: This variable multiplies the effectiveness of research. High I means more tech growth. The default value is one, and the normal range is between .3 and 3
E: This variable multiplies the difficulty of maintaining a technology. High E means more tech loss and more difficult tech maintenence. The default value for this is also one, and the range should also stay between .3 and 3
These variables combine all social impacts on research. You can include whatever you want in the calculation of these variables, as long as the numbers stay close to the ranges provided.
Note that these variables currently only impact scientific and engineering type technologies. The philosophical stuff, which the religious leaders will be concerned with, will be handled in the social tech model that is currently being developed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Thanks for the info, Richard. As you say, some of the effects of an anti-sci clergy can be introduced in the social techs system and I'll keep it in mind while developing it. Religion could affect I and E too in the normal tech system, but as you said it in the other thread, it'd strange for religion to be in opposition of techs like agrarian tools. My point of view is religion can be opposed to science when it comes to "fundamentals". In the tech system you have separated techs in layers. I find that very useful for what I'd like to do regarding religious intervention. Religion don't stop people from developing "applications" or low level techs. But high level techs, as I undertsand your model, are more fundamental. They explain the world in a wider sense. That's where religions can be pissed off, because that's their "job" too. I think that if religion can affect variables I and E only for that layer of techs, we'd be adding the anti-sci clergy effect very nicely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
roquijad:
I can easily make I and E differ by tech Tier. That makes more sense with all aspects of society, not just the religious part. People can be very clever with one Tier and incompetent with another.
I was thinking about having I and E differ by tech tag. It would be easy to implement in the tech model, but the social model would have to provide all of the values. Do you think that would be worth it?
Actually, I will go ahead and build that functionality in anyway. Even though you might not need it, some scenario designer might want to take advantage of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi there
I'm Beör, popping in from the Apolyton SMAC(X) section. I posted some rambling regarding social techs in the Social Techs thread.
Here I would like to draw your attention to a point that has not been covered in the current Social thread as far as I can tell: Migration. This could prove to be uncomfortable, so brace yourselves.
Migration has played a major part in the rise and fall of civilisation. Hardly any spot on earth has not been completely altered by it. If you cannot model this very well, you will not get the feeling of recreating history (if that is the aim here). An effort was made in the old thread: New Social (well, now it is old, but never mind), but seems to have been neglected since.
I realise that there are major problems: At the proposed CLASH starting point 4000 BC all of the civilisations that we could envision being played by a player were historically in a more or less nomadic state geographically distant from their later core areas (with the exception of sumerians, and possibly egyptians). The indoeuropean cultures were only beginning to differentiate on their 2000 year long push from Western Asia (Armenia or Northern Iran?) SE to the Indian subcontinent, and N/NW to Europe, whence they have further spread during the succeeding millenia (from India to SE Asia, from Europe to the Americas, Australia and parts of Africa). This is a major problem since indoeuropeans gave rise to many if not most of the civilisations that could be included in a game ranging from Hittites, Celts, Greeks, Romans, Germans and Slavs to Americans. In fact I could probably mention at least 40 different indo-european civ-prospects. In fact many of these civilisations were not differentiated until recently (Australian civilisation - now there's a contradiction in terms  ) and most likely some interesting ones are not even created yet (Europeans?!).
So if a player is appointed leader of the righteous Franks, in historical terms he has no nation until 200-300 AC, and no civ for a further couple of hundred years. You could of course make him leader of the righteous German nation instead - at least he could have a nation maybe around 1500 BC, but then the Germans would later have to be divided into their various constituents, and how could this be handled game-mechanics wise. Another possibility is to grant the player a miniscule nation with a prohibitive tech-achievement possibility. and place him in the Steppes of Central Asia with three tents, a herd of goats and a possibility to catch a horse around 3000 BC! The chances of surviving are low indeed.
Another concern is that if the game is started this early, with people wandering around the steppes for a couple of thousand years, the human controlled Franks might end up in France, if played by a player wanting historical accuracy, but his neighbours might be the semitic Assyrians controlled by the AI, and his historical neighbours the Burgundians might be slaughtering the Romans in Uzbekistan. Thus nomadic nations will most likely give a very unrealistic feeling to the game, which I find most disturbing. Alternatively you could prematurely place the Franks where they belong - in France, that is - at 4000 BC. But where would you place the Gauls then? Should they not have a place in life. So if you start the game early the geographical framework, that could give the game a real feeling, is not in place.
This leaves an obvious solution: Start the game later, maybe around 1500 BC: You could have major civ-would-bes in place at this point with some minor historical twists: Basks, Iberians and celtiberians in Spain; Etrurians and Italic people in Italy; Greeks in Greece and Asia Minor; Minoic people in Crete; Early Balkan people in the Balcans (i.e. Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians, Dacians, Albanians etc); Celts in a zone from Ireland to the Black Sea; Scythians in Crimea and on the Ucrainian Steppes; Germanic people north of Celts and Scythians, to the east of them Slavs and Baltic people, then Huns, Avars, Hungarians, Turks and Bulgarians. Chinese in China, Japanese in Japan, Koreans in Korea, Manchurians in Manchuria (get my point?), Mongols in Southern Siberia, Semitic people (Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Jews) in the Near Orient (mixed with indoeuropeans: Mittani, Hittites, Armenians) and Arabia, Persians and Parthians in Iran, Egyptians in Egypt, Ku****es in Ethiopia, Hyksos in the Aegean/Cilicia/Cyprus, North African people in North Africa etc. You would loose 2000 years of history in Mesopotamia and Egypt, somewhat less in the Indus valley and in China, but you gain a lot more historical feeling. Some early tech advances would already have taken place in some civs, but as far as I understand the Tech Model this would only mean FE that the civ would have something like 25% Writing, probably still using pictograms or cuneiforms, but not having developed an alphabet yet. It would let the player choose between controlling an already ancient civ, but probably with some inherent social/ecological/demographic etc problems, that would be hard to overcome, or choose a rookie civ with a small chance of succeeding, but a potential to get it all!. Imagine the potential tension in the game, when Ku****es and Assyrians race to conquer Egypt from their decadent childless ruler, when Ramases suddenly siezes power in Egypt and levies enough forces to ocunterattack etc. There would still be problems though. What is to stop the Mayans from entering the bronze age at some point, build some seafaring vesels and discover Europe 800 BC? How are you going to keep the Americas isolated and indeed relatively undeveloped for 2000-3000 years? Indeed it has always been a mystery to me, that Mesoamerican and Peruvian civilisations crumbled before the conquistadores. BTW I find the inclusion of a Sioux civilisation in CivII misjudged. I have great admiration for the Sioux nation, but I beleive that cities is what makes differentiates a nomadic tribe from a civilisation (this might actually spawn a comment on the economy thread).
Yet another possibility which I would definitely not prefer is to allow the game to be grossly ahistorical - maybe even taking place in a generated world with arbitrary civ placement. This could of course be an option, but I think there has been several attempts at this - all OK, but I have a feeling this is not what we really want here. Please correct me if I am wrong
So you see migration is really an issue. What I would like to experience in a game could be:
I am trying to guide my Illyrian nation through history. I begin the game at the N end of the Adriatic and manage to carve a small empire out for myself (and my people) protected from the ferocious celts by the Alps, and having rather friendly relations with other Italic nations in the neighbourhood. I have fended of the Etrurians and am now ready to take on this crummy little nation in Latium. During recent years small bands of Dacians have raided my easternmost belongings, and quite a lot of Dacians have actually settled within my borders making a decent contribution to my populace. Suddenly around 800 BC the Dacian immigration steps up. Thousands and thousands of Dacians are pressing against my borders. Some Thracians are trying to enter from the south. I decide to allow the Dacians to enter my territory, rather than fight them. A good deal of them settle down reinforcing my holdings while some of them drift on into Italy where they are lost from recall. Later it becomes clear that a large population boost in Scythia has expanded the Scythian civilization all the way to the Bosporus, driving the Dacians and Thracians out. Most of the Thracians were driven south where they were amalgamated into the rising Macedonian Civ. For a couple of hundred years I strive to assimilate the Dacians and fight of the Scythians. suddenly the pressure from the east lightens and I can concentrate on my southern expansion plan where in the meantime greek citystates have joined and defeated the Romans. Etc etc.
or
Being Visigoths I start the game somewhere around the Prpiet Marshes in northern Ukraine. My people farm the land by burning the forrest and harvesting for a couple of years, living conditions are decent and the people thrive and multiply. We have horses and cherish them. However, space is getting sparce, and slowly my people are moving W/NW, where there is rich soil and some decent pillaging to perform among my western germanic relatives, who for some time now have been in contact with a large, extremely wealthy celtic empire in northern Italy, southern France and northern Spain. To the east suddenly appears a fierce horse-people: the Huns, forcing us away from our land of birth. For a couple of hundred years we are forced to wander west, west, ever west, never settling down, but still numerous. In the end we reach the ocean, now being pushed forward by a large Slavic empire coming from the northeast. Instead of fighting we move across the sea to the Legendary British isles where a large part of our population converts to the new strange religion of Christ, introduced here by the legendary minoic merchants trading tin.
or…
Hope you get the idea!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Beör:
We are not trying to recreate history exactly. That would be impossible in a dynamic environment. Even if we started the game in 1800 AD, the Clash world in 2000 AD would be nothing like the one we live in today. In fact, after a bit of time goes by, nearly identical starting conditions will always produce wildly different results, even if the player does the same thing. (Chaos Theory again!)
There are just too many things that could happen. Different random events will happen, the AI will make different choices, and the world will end up being entirely different.
What we are doing is creating a random class M planet, filling it with cultures loosely based on Earth people, and having them interact via models that are based on reality and altered to provide fun gameplay.
If you want to recreate history, you have to create a lot of linked scenarios with specific goals like they have in AoE. That way, you can make sure history stays on track. While you will be able to do that with the the scenario editors, it will not happen in the default game. The game is intended to be an open ended simulation of what could happen, not a replay of what did happen.
I do agree that we need to model migrations. I thought that was being covered in a seperate model still under development.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Populations will migrate.
Yeah, oddly enough the 'population' model, the very first, most important model that the entire rest of the game will be built on, was not done.
In coding the beast, I had to build a population and a map model.
People will, on a mapsquare by mapsquare basis, act very much like people in our world.
And Richard is correct, scenarios will cover any 'historical' games. One 'scenario' will allow you to start in 4000 b.c.e. We will call this the 'default' scenario, for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
OK - Point taken. If I want to simulate a historical situation, I have to play a scenario, probably with a later starting point and of shorter duration. Fair enough, I can get what I want. However, this implies the importance that the models be built so that they will function in shorter scenarios, maybe with a different turn length.
Back to migration
Here are my rather lengthy thoughts as to some important factors in building such a model. I am definitely not an expert in these things (actually I'm a physician) but here goes:
Nomadic cyclic movement:
From the beginning of time, tribes have been following the wanderings of their preferred prey. At some point some animals were semi-domesticated (raindeer) or domesticated (sheep, goats, cattle), but still in many areas it was necessary to change location during the year seeking better pastures. IMO it is not necessary to model most of this sort of 'migration': The number of people were small, the length of the displacement rarely exceeded the 100x100 km map square, and even if it did the cyclic pattern with a 1 year duration would mean that the people would have to be represented in all squares crossed. It could be argued that if one of the squares crossed on the tribe's yearly migration was captured, they might not be able to follow their normal pattern and thus had to be assimilated into the occupying population or eliminated (IRL some of these tribes e.g. the Bachtiari in central Asia, have actually kept up their wandering despite the coming and going of countless invaders and marauders). Effect on gameplay would IMO be negligible, and I think it would be sufficient to model these tribes as primitive inhabitants of said squares. If, however, turn length were less than a year it could be necessary to model the tribe being some place in summer and another in winter. (Note: turn lengths of less than a year could have serious implications in the ecological modeling as well).
Uncontrolled migration:
'Hey, the grass is greener over there, let's grab the kids and move'. Slow steady migration of small to moderate (occasionally large) numbers of people. This goes on all the time. If people think that living conditions would radically change for the better if they moved somewhere else then they will. This of course depends on the conditions where they live: general living conditions (income per capita, taxation, goods shortage etc), social status in their present country (discrimination because of ethnic or religious status), how 'fond' you are of the place you live (land connection?), can they leave their origin (slavery, serfs, economic dependency). It also depends on how difficult it is to reach the destination: What means of transportation can they use, how far away is it, any dangers along the road. And finally it depends on the perceived conditions at the destination: General living conditions, social status, are they allowed to settle down. Characteristically, this sort of migration will only be done by a smaller part of the population at the origin, maybe only some ethnic or religious groupings, and almost entirely from the lower to middle classes. Frequently but not necessarily, people from the same origin will go to the same destination. For a couple of generations these people may stick together in enclaves, preserving their original culture, and making it easier for followers to settle down, but eventually they will be more or less assimilated in the population of the destination, of course depending on how they are treated, how different they are from the original inhabitants, and how large a fraction of the population they are. This sort of migration is not coordinated in any way - it just 'happens', and thus cannot be instituted directly by the player. However, sometimes it could be necessary for the player to react to such a situation. If valuable or large parts of his population are moving away, it could be necessary to try to stop them, either by force or by improving their living conditions. If the region the player is controlling is the target of immigration this could be an advantage, thereby increasing the number of people under his control, which he should encourage by offering good living conditions. It could also be a mixed blessing, if the immigration causes unrest FE if resources are scarce, the immigrants are numerous or very different from the original population. In this case it should be discouraged by not granting the immigrants decent living conditions of even using force (from border patrols to Endlösung).
Controlled migration:
At points in history migratory movements have been controlled to a larger extent, and this would allow the player to get at least some control. Forced displacement of entire populations or large parts thereof is known: Jews to Babylon and back to Palestine, the Diaspora after the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans, Saxons by Charlemagne, slaves from Africa to the Americas, Germans from Eastern Europe after the 2nd world war and probably many more. Founding of new communities is another point, Sct Petersburg probably being the most obvious example, but several other cities have been founded by central authorities (Oslo (Christiania at the time) was founded by Christian IV of Denmark, Alexandria by Alexander the Great etc). The settlements of the Western part of the USA and of Siberia were also to some extent encouraged by central authorities by legislation, infrastructure-builds or economic support. Also the colonization of Australia could be seen in this light. The Roman Empire founded colonies all over the conquered provinces, frequently granting farm land to retired roman soldiers. Many European cities were founded around encampments of the Roman armies (Vienna, Cologne etc).
What I am saying here is that it should be possible for the player to found and encourage some sort of settlement either by founding a city, a military encampment, and maybe even by forcing entire populations to move from one place to another.
Mass migration:
So far there has not been many problems from a game point of view, but this one could prove to get tricky. I named it mass migration for lack of a better term: Large numbers of people can be involved in migration (Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans and African slaves to America) without qualifying as mass migration in my terms. What I am thinking of here is mainly the large movements of entire nations from central Asia to Europe/North Africa, the Indian subcontinent and Eastern/Southern Asia. Similar migration has taken place in Africa I believe. This is characterized by entire nations (Cimbrians, Ostrogoths, Huns, Mongolians) under some sort of central control moving from one location to another. At times it may be very slow, but sometimes thousands of kilometers can be crossed in half a century (Vandals). On the way more or less temporary settlements may be established (Goths in Balkan), depending on how the lay of the land is, other tribes may be assimilated (there was a considerable Slavic component among the Visigoths (even Huns!)), new customs incorporated (Goths were christened during their wanderings) and generally the situation is very volatile. The tribes wandering are generally very aggressive (they had to be). Along the way many are left behind, but subsequently these left-behinds will disappear in the general turmoil.
What is important is that it is the people wandering that are identified with the nation, and thus are carriers of the civilization. And the wandering is very militaristic. This makes it difficult in game terms, since as far as I can see, most of the modeling is based on the assumption that a civilization has a territory under its control that can be developed. This gives the civ a focus or gathering point. When the entire nation is on the prowl, how do you keep them going in the same direction, and how do you model the inevitable military conflict? Should the entire population be modeled as military units with the capability of settling down? A migration unit? Maybe not a bad idea. Another problem is that we know very little about what actually made these people act like they did.
Migration following conquest:
This may not be a separate entity, but I had difficulties organizing the Arab conquest of the Middle East and North Africa into the above. What happened here is that driven by a religious fanaticism a smallish somewhat nomadic tribe with highly mobile troops conquers a large more or less disorganized territory. Subsequently some migration of Arabs takes place, but mainly the original population takes on an Arabic guise, becoming as Arabic as the Arabs themselves. Thus the Arabic civilization took control of an area almost as large as the Roman Empire in a matter of 50 years! And most of this territory is still to be counted as Arabic (the major exception is Spain).
A similar conquest took place when the Mongols under Genghis Khan conquered most of the Eurasic continent, and established a long-lasting empire in China. But here the outcome was somewhat different, since the conquerors after some time were assimilated into the powerful Chinese civilization.
This made me wonder: If I were playing the Chinese and the Mongols conquered my territory, only to become the very essence of Chinese civilization, will I 'win' or 'loose'? In other words: Am I controlling a dynastic empire or am I in some way being the immortal bonus-pater-familias (a sort of non-magical 'Gandalf') of a civilization?
F_Smith,
Your migration model seems to be the one that is being used at the moment. But how does it work? Could you post the details, maybe some pseudocode?
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 07, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Boer:
Right now, there's no 'migration' code in the turn logic for 'ethnic groups'. There's a place for it, can add it quickly, but we've been busy coding up the govt system and haven't fleshed out code that isn't directly relevant to testing govts.
The details are entirely open to sculpting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Beör:
quote:
However, this implies the importance that the models be built so that they will function in shorter scenarios, maybe with a different turn length.
|
This has been one of our main goals for some time now. The models usually measure actual time rather than turns, so if you change the time frame the models should adjust automatically without too much trouble. Look at the Population Model thread to see an example of this.
Animal migration and hunting: I considered including this when I first made the ecology model, but it didn't seem important enough. You made a good case for including it, though. I can easily add a "hunting potential" attribute to the ecological provinces. This would be affected by human habitation, water availability, etc.
quote:
(Note: turn lengths of less than a year could have serious implications in the ecological modeling as well).
|
You are certainly right about that. I am encountering some big problems with adding seasons to the ecology model. When I first built it, I assumed all game turns would be a year or more, so I could ignore the seasons. But then I realised that turns could be a month or less, so I had to add seasons. It definitely is creating problems. It might also force me to model seasonal migrations of animals.
We did have plans for "nomad provinces" populated by people with no permanent home. These would be intergral in any modeling of migration, and I think their presence will make it easier to model migration. So when you search for info, you should also search for the term "nomad province."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Beör:
Just for your info...
The current social model is a "version 3". Two attempts to manage social stuff were made before this one. The first by Manurein (not anymore with us) and the second by Toubabo Koomi (still with us). From the very first model migrations were something we wanted to include, but it never intended to model what you've called "mass migrations" where entire tribes move and settle like goths did, FE. The sort of migrations in mind for the social model were those from a settlement to another, like FE, european migrations to the new world where things like economic conditions and ethnic/religious discrimination play the greatest role as the initatiors of the movement.
There isn't a migration sub-model in this last "version 3" social model covering the above only because I rushed the release of this model. I planned to develop it later. Maybe now it can be developed as a model of its own or within the new population model Richard is creating. But I believe it's important for this migration model to handle only the type of migrations described above (non massive).
Mass migrations are for sure needed. Although there has been little discussion about it, we have envisioned "nomadic civs" in the game to model such tribes as the mongols. In those situations the whole civ would be moving with its population, economy, "govt" and techs. Most of the examples you mention should be handled via this method, like germanic invasions or, in general, the whole indoeuropean movement. This part of the game is still unsolved in the sense that some adjustment would have to be done in each current model (all made for settled civs) to model a moving civ. Nomadic civs IMO is the way in which most of the things you're saying will find a place in Clash.
So, what I mean is I see all the migration issue divisible in two. Mass migrations handled as a per se characteristic of nomadic civs, and non massive, from a settlement to another, handled in the social and/or population models.
All:
About historical accuracy, I think we all agree that the game is not intended to recreate world history exactly as it happened. But now that Beör has brought this subject up, I see the settlement of tribes as something we should take care of more carefully. It's IMO not simply a matter of difining a time framework (scenario). If I want to play a "fall of roman empire" scenario, starting, say, in 300ad, I'd be frustrated if the Huns, goths, etc don't migrate to Europe but to the middle east, FE. We can't guarantee nomadic civs will move where they are supposed to.
Maybe we're not giving enough attention to mass migrations. In games like civ2 these things appear in a very crude way with random barbaric units attacking you. IMO we've given an excellent step forward when considering "nomadic civs", but maybe it's still not enough. In a random world this isn't relevant, but as a player, I'd love to play a "historical" game in earth from 4000bc and ahead, where at least tribes appear in their historical location. I'd like to see in the beggining of the game egyptians and chinese already settled, but I don't want aztecs settled as well. And this is problematic as Beör has shown.
Here's a proposal: What if, as an option for the player when setting his game, he can choose, when playing in planet earth, "historical settlements". This would put some civs already settled in the starting year, but many others would appear as nomadic civs wondering within a small territory. At the "right" historical time, the game would force these AI-controlled nomadic civs to move to pre-set historial locations and try to settle. In terms of code this is really simple, since each nomadic civ only needs to store a date and a few locations to move to and when the date is the right one, simply move the people to those locations. This would give more satisfaction for those who don't want to see germans trying to settle in China.
What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Sounds good. I'll start a new thread to discuss this and a few other things I've been thinking about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
During the 36 hour Apolyton recess I had some further thoughts concerning the modelling of migration. This was actuall written september 9th, so please forgive me if I address unnecessarily anything covered in the recent posts
Cyclic nomadic movement patterns
In the default 4000 BC scenario these movements IMO do not have to be modelled: Rarely a nomadic movement pattern would exceed the 100x100 km square, and even if it did the turn-length of at least one year would mean that you would have to model the presence of 'unmoving' nomads in every square along their route. Do not take me wrong, there is no doubt that the nomadic state would have to be modelled, but not the movements.
Uncontrolled migration
This migration should be modelled in a way that it is outside the player's influence. This is probably pretty close to what F_Smith describes as: quote:
People will, on a mapsquare by mapsquare basis, act very much like people in our world
|
. People will move to better squares depending on the factors - maybe more - I mentioned in the above post. The question remains whether it is desirable to discriminate EGs and religious groupings while doing this. This would probably mean modelling EG and religious composition on a mapsquare basis.
Controlled migration
This is acquainted to the previous discussion on Settlements and How much should the player control. I think that a consensus has been reached that this kind of action should be possible in various ways: FE founding a military encampment might spawn the growth of a city, because people seek the security and the increased trade possibilities of the nearby encampment. Such settlements could be encouraged by local geography (a river), by infrastructure investments (I am not sure of the details here - a major road, a bridge, a port perhaps) or by financial support (simply placing an amount of capital on a square, making it available for the people in the founding of their settlement). I believe it should also be possible but very expensive for the player to found a city outright, by making massive investments and ordering people to go live there.
Mass migration
I have given this a good deal of thought. I think that the initiation of a mass migration should be controlled by the riots model: Given the present circumstances, the people is sufficiently agitated to actually leave the land of their forefathers to seek better pastures. This could spawn a 'Mass migration'-event (MME). The nation splits into two EGs: One EG rallies under whatever leader is available and go adrift across the continent, while the other EG remains in the present location. The player controlling the nation should be given an option to lead the migrating EG or the remainder. The migrating EG converts a proportion of the population of the nations original squares into Migration Military Units (MMU): These are powerful units representing tens of thousands of people moving around. On their way they will leave some people, tired of wandering, behind, while absorbing discontent, maladjusted people from the nations of the squares they cross. This could lead to a snowball effect, creating massive invasions of multiethnic masses, capable of collapsing any empire (rare). On the other hand the Migration Units could slowly diminish, until the EG is lost to history (common). The squares crossed will of course be exploited heavily, leading to potential military conflict along the way. The migration units should have the option of settling down in any squares crossed, provided that the people is sufficiently provided for in the present location, absorbing whatever people are living there. If at some point along the road the cultural attributes are sufficiently different from the remainder EG or the geographical distance is large the two EGs are separated into two Nations (maybe this should happen automatically, the moment the MME occurs). The migrating EG will enter a Migration State, where special production mechanics will apply. Something like: No basic research, but maybe easier acquiring of new tech from the people met on the way. If an MMU stays in the same square for more than a few turns, there is increasing ability to harvest resources in the usual way, but parts of the people will settle down in the square, making the MMU weaker.
The player has little influence on the occurrence of an MME other than tampering with society in the usual way.
Migration following conquest
??? Probably won't have to be modelled separately
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I think that cities and settlements are conspicuously absent from the present models. After all civilisation is a derivative of latin civis=city. In my oppinion cities are necessary prerequisites of a civilisation. Could anybody please direct me to some discussions on this. I have tried the search function and nothing much came up!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Mark has suggested that I read some of the models with a newcomer's eye, trying to find flaws in the design, and obvious omissions. This is quite a task, and I have decided to begin with the tightly knit models: Social, Government and Riots. I will begin here with Social, because it is the most fundamental, and because this is where I kind of started. I also have a feeling that it is not to late to alter the model in some ways should that become necessary.
First let me say that I think the social model is admirable in its own right. I have not yet grasped the implications of the combination with the other models, and most of the discussion in this thread is above me.
However I have spotted some potential problems, more basic than whether religion should be modelled one way or the other:
1. Civ - EG - Nationality
I think there will be problems with the two-tiered model of Civ and Ethnic group. Example: Libyans (an independent EG) are placed between Roman Empire in Tunisia and Egyptian Empire in Egypt. Romans and Egyptians divide the entire Libyan territory between them. The Libyans living in western Lydia will become an EG at the Roman civ level LybRom), while the Lybians living in Eastern Lybia become an EG at the Egyptian civ level (LybEgy). The Lybian civ has effectively been split into two unrelated EGs. This can be handled, but then the Roman Empire expands into the Egyptian part of Lybia: LybEgy is now split further into LybEgy and LybEgyRom. Jugurtha comes out of the Saharan dessert and conquers the southern part of the whole of Lybia. We now have LybRom, LybEgy, LybEgyRom, LybRomJug, LybEgyJug and LybEgyRomJug - and so forth ad nauseam. These mechanisms will take place whenever a square changes hands and will result in a huge amount of infinitesimal EGs over time.
What is needed is a way to combine these very related EGs into one EG at the civ level as before. To this end I propose an OO class clsNation in addition to the proposed clsCiv and clsEG (this was sort of hinted at in the social model since nationality was one of the characteristics of EG, while the implications of this was not described). An objEG would retain its present civ level interpretation as all people in an objCiv that perceive themselves as being of a certain nationality (objNation). If an objCiv expands to include people from another objCiv but with nationality of an objEG already present, these people will be incorporated seamlessly into a joint objEG: The attributes of the new combined objEG is calculated as a weighted (based on population) average of the attributes of the original EG and the newcomers. In the most basic form clsNation need not contain anything more than a name, and probably a dynamic array pointing to all EGs of this nationality. If desired this concept can later be expanded, giving the objNation attributes, representing the proto-ethnic origin of the nation. These attributes might change over time, so as not to be too distant from the constituent EGs. However I am not sure if this would add anything to the gameplay.
The effect of this would be that a nation is divided into fractions along civ-borders, different, but still sufficiently related to be integrated into eachother should the territory they live in change hands. On average each nation would be divided into no more than 2-3 fractions (an independent and one or two civs). Each fraction would change their cultural attributes over time depending on their Governmental and Religious environment, but still they would be very similar (IRL: talking the same language, having the same mythological material etc). If desired it would be possible to model the splitting of a nation into two different nations, if the individual constituents became sufficiently different (maybe by the root-mean-square approach used to calculate religion-culture 'Distance').
The 'How many religions'-issue could be handled in a number of ways:
One nation - one GWR: The first GWR-convert of a nation decides what is possible in the entire nation. This is unrealistic, but simple to model.
One EG - one GWR: The first GWR-convert of an EG decides what is possible for the entire EG of the civ. This is more realistic, but will lead to instant 'mass-conversions' if a civ conquers people EG with a different GWR from another civ. This is a consequence of the all-or-none mechanics of the concept religion. You can average aggressiveness 35 and aggressiveness 65 to get aggressiveness 50 (assuming equal populations), but you cannot average 35% Christianity and 65% Islam. One method overcoming this would be to split the nation the instant two EGs of the same nationality encompass different GWRs, in fact degenerating the model into something like One nation-one GWR.
One EG - any number of GWR: This is very far from the original social model, and the question is: Will it improve gameplay, or just add unnecessary detail. To be really realistic, this would mean probably tracking proportional GWR-allegiance on a province- if not square-basis. Maybe this is not a problem, but is it really necessary?
2. What is a civilisation
I think the origin of this problem is in the very title of the project: Clash of civilisations. The problem is that 'civilisation' in a sense is ambiguous: What is a civ. Is it an entity with a central government - a civ/empire? Rodrigo seems to indicate this in his Social model where there is no clear sundering between civ, government, empire and controlled provinces: They all signify that the player controls a centralised governmental structure with a geographical entity. It is however very clear that an EG is something different, similar to a nation or a tribe. FE 'If Romans (empire I presume) take Egypt (province IP) then Egyptians (EG IP) end up living under Roman rule (governed by the Roman Empire IP) and they wont necessarily become Roman citizens and support the new regime (they remain being in the EG Egyptians IP). Even more, Rome (Empire IP) can invade just part of Egypt (province IP) so you can find Egyptians (EG IP) in roman provinces (Provinces controlled by Roman Empire, but not necessarily inhabited by EG Romans) and in Egyptian civ (Empire IP)'.
However in the thread Who is the player (good question BTW) it was suggested that a civ is something different from an empire, more like a major, more or less homogenous cultural phenomenon. In a way this makes sense, since Roman civ/culture outlasted the Roman civ/empire by centuries - in a way most of the western world - and probably to a degree the near Orient as well - still live in a 'Roman' civ/culture. It is also true that the geographical extent of a civ/empire rarely coincides with the area under a certain civ/culture. I guess a point could be made claiming that the Roman Civ/Empire really consisted of at least two different civ/cultures: the Greek and the Roman. However, if it is done this way it would probably mean that we had to create a special OO class called clsCivCult interacting with the classes clsEG and clsCivEmp. One CivEmp is composed of several EGs, of which one might be the ruling EG; as above one EG is only part of one CivEmp. One CivCult is composed of several Nations, and like with religion there would be several opportunities for how many CivCults are encompassed by one nation, although I would recommend the one nation - one CivCult approach in this case. This objCivCult approach is so similar in game terms to a clsReligion, that a separate modelling of clsCivCult would IMHO be superfluous. (IRL civilisations and religions have been walking hand-in-hand to a degree where the two are almost indistinguishable)
So what are your thoughts on this: Will there be both civ/empire and civ/cult or just the former?
3. Civs - barbarians
This might not be the right place to comment on this, but I am on a streek, so here goes:
Playing demo 4 it was obvious that the 'bad guys' came in two different flavours: a) Rival civs with mobile units and b) barbarians with limited military power (except to conduct a casual raid), primarily there to be incorporated into your empire before the other civs get around to it.
Will this be the same in the game? I realise that computational resources might limit the number of competing AIs available. But still it would be nice if you never really knew if the people of occitania just might rise to be a powerful civ.
4. General advice
This leads to some advice: To avoid confusion, try to define your game-entities very carefully. Preferably give them a unique name or an abbreviation instead of using a common, but ambiguous term like civilisation. Somewhat meaningful abbreviations would also help the reader, and probably the programmer as well. This makes it a lot easier to spot inconsistencies in the models. I prefer EthTol to ethnic tolerance or ET, RelTol to religious tolerance or RT, Aggres to aggressiveness, Trad to traditionalism etc. In this way it is clear when you are talking about a game term, and when you are talking about something general.
5. GWRs - judaism - others
It is true that Judaism may not have the attributes of a GWR in the sense of being universal and spreading to other nations to any major extent. However, some spreading did occur: The Kazar khanate, a Turkish empire in S Russia, E Ukraine, Caucasus, and bordering regions of central Asia, adopted Judaism to a rather large extent. Kagan (king) Bulan was converted in 821 and for the following centuries, this Turkish tribe lived under a religion of traditional rabbinical Judaism, being judged by the Torah. Had the Turkish kingdom along the southern end of the Volga not succumbed to the Scandinavian derived Rus, the history of Judaism might have been very different. I would therefore make an argument that Judaism is a potential GWR. Another potential GWR is Zoroasthrianism.
I think that the splitting of GWRs could in certain scenarios add to gameplay, but I would prefer to keep it simple
Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, maybe Protestantism)
Islam (Shiit (I hope this is not automatically censored as e.g. Ku****es), Sunni)
Hindi (If you absolutely want to you could perhaps divide them into Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva)
Buddhism (Theravada, Vahayana, maybe Vajrayana)
Judaism
Zoroasthrianism
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 11, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roquijad
|
|
Santiago
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Thanks a lot for taking some time to read the model and do this criticism. Here are my answers:
1. In general...
Soon after I released the social model, F_Smith joined actively the team and decided to code this model. The "Beast" (you asked about this in the other thread) is what F_Smith has created so we can all participate in the creation process. There's a thread in the forum called "Object Builder" or something like that. In the very first post there's a link to a page where you can see what's coded so far and you can *play* with it and see what happens. The social and govt models are being both coded by F_Smith in this "Beast".
When F_Smith started to code the social model, he suggested some changes to the social model. The model is in essence still the same, but a couple of things were changed. Most notable, ethnic groups are no longer managed at the civ level, but at the mapsquare level. This adds a lot of realism at the cost of using more computational resources, but F_Smith has convinced us so far that the cost wouldn't be too high.
The other change is the concepts of "Primitive Religion" and GRW have kind of disappear and mixed in a simple "religion" thing. This change in particular is not entirely solved in its details. This change was born also to achieve more flexibility.
The other change concerns "similar" religions. In this thread it was proposed by LGJ and others that a religion could suffer division and create branches, like catholicism giving birth to protestantism and the greek church. So far, this is an idea I commited to think about how to implement, but I haven't done anything yet.
Finally, Mark suggested a richer modeling for the very important Nationalism attribute. I haven't started to think about this yet, but some changes will be there sometime.
2. Civ-EG-Nationality
What I originally planned was that if a civ/empire expands in such way that conquers mapsquares with a new nationality, an ethnic group object is created in conquering civ OO-structure. But any other conquest of the same people would only increase the EG population and change its attributes according to some rule like averaging them. A civ would have then as many EGs as nationalities living within it exist and then there's no "dangerous" multiplication of ethnic groups.
In the real implementation, however, since ethnic groups are located (in code terms) in mapsquares, every time a mapsquare changes hands no EG objects are created or deleted from any civ and no averaging is necessary. In this regard F_Smith's approach is much better.
Either way, there's no problem with territories changing hands. It's all under control.
I've to confess, though, that in F_Smith's implementation there's still a part that confuses me. He has, as far as I understand, separate objects for ethnic groups and cultures. So an EG object has a culture object. I don't know what use this division serves. To me an EG *is* a set of cultural attributes. Having them separated may cause some problems when territories change hands... but I'm not sure. I'm maybe simply understanding wrong the implementation.
I disagree with your approach of having a "meta-EG" or something like that (Nation, as you call it) to which all EGs are related someway or another regardless of where they live. You're right when you say lybians will preserve their culture even if splitted in several empires, but as you also mention, after some time it's possible for these to split for good (a nation produces two nations) or to "forget" their national cohesion. I believe is much better keeping it how we have it. For some time lybians will have the same culture (same cultural attributes) regardless of who's controlling them just because variable "Traditionalism" won't admit any sudden change. But if the situation lasts, it is realistic to expect each lybian EG will evolve differently depending on where they live and a reference to a "meta-lybian-nationality" seems strange and "magical". Magical because the only real way for people to preserve their lybian ways is in reference to their tradition and not to some abstract and independent-from-themselves thing that seems to exist in the vacuum.
3. What's a civ?
An excellent point. I should have written a paragraph about it in the model just to make sure implications of EG modeling are understood.
In fact, once we accept we want a "civ" to be able to hold several nationalities as it happened commonly in history, we must deal with the question "what a civ is?". And as you say this is pretty much related to who the player is. My opinion, as you discovered it, is that a civ is a govt and the player is the ruler of that govt. This govt, in time, controls land where many "tribes" (ethnic groups) exist. Usually, only one tribe considers this govt/empire as "its own". That's why I've said a civ (govt) has a nationality. The roman empire was "roman" (or latin, if preferred).
As philosophical this matter might sound, it has important implications. In civ2 this was solved simply not having ethnic groups with a culture and sense of nationalism. There's only "people". As a result, if you invade other civ's posessions, people don't react. Germans can invade France and french people don't give a damn.
Modeling tribes and govts as two different things as opposed to the vague "civ" term in which any of the former concepts may lie easily, is what adds realism and historical accuracy in a number of fields. Since this realism is one of the top priorities in Clash, we need things divided like that. We need tribes/cultures/ethnic_groups and we need govts/empires. Separate.
4. Barbarians
As I said in the other post, barbarians will be nomadic civs with the ability to settle and successfuly become a power.
5. Religions
Apparently, we'll just have "religions". Not GRW, not "Primitive Religions". PRs, btw, are now called Ethnic Religions to avoid any misconception or prejudice. In this perspective I think the problems with Judaism could be solved.
However, what is most important for me is what you've pointed out regarding multiple religions. Most of Clash team members would like to see each ethnic group able to follow more than one religion as opposed to what I originally planned. The best way to do this in order to manage all the implications of it such as govt religious discrimination or religious fervor, is to convert ethnic groups into EG-Cult units. In the US, for example, you'd find these social units:
American-Catholic
American-Protestant
American-Jewish
instead of simply "Americans" having the property of being christians. This would lead us to a huge number of ethnic/cult groups, specially if these social units exist in mapsquares!
This is, btw, partly the approach Manurein (the first social model developer) took, calling each social unit an "agent".
The alternative is to remain within the initial idea of ethnic groups and provide as part of its definition something describing how people is divided among religions, like:
Catholic-30%
Jewish-10%
Protestants-60%
But this implies a mixing of religious attributes is needed to compute several things and in the other side it'd be difficult to apply a discrimination against some religions if ethnic groups have at the same time multiple cults. Things don't look good this way. Mixing religious doesn't sound too bad in this example, but what about averaging christianity with buddhism?
A third alternative, and the one I'm playing in my mind with, is to allow ethnic groups to follow several religions provided they're similar. Just like the example of alternative two above. Making some adjustments to allow govt religious discrimination to act only against "religious blocks" and to keep religous fervor only between these blocks, then it doesn't sound too bad. Averaging religious attributes wouldn't be too bad if religions are alike and ethnic groups could have multiple cults. The branches idea fits perfectly here.
Anyhow, the thing is modeling religions can become a pain in the ass if we push it too far. On the other side, I confess things are not solved in this topic.
Thanks again for the feedback. Keep insisting in whatever you feel is wrong.
[This message has been edited by roquijad (edited September 11, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
RE Ethnic groups
I am not sure I understand.
Do you mean that each square contains a number of objEGs? Each objEG contains a objCulture with the cultural attributes of this particular EG (the reason to do this eludes me - probably an OOD-thing, could you elaborate F_Smith?). I deduce that each objEG must also contain a variable for the number of people of this ethnicity in the square, and depending on how the multiple religion issue is solved, some indication of how many people follow each of a range of possible religions.
This leaves an important question:
Will objEGs of different squares ever act in common?
If not, I fail to see that this models unified action of substantial factions of the population in the Empire. And this was your original idea of the EG-concept wasn't it?
If objEGs do - as I suspect - act in common, then you have to have some criteria for which objEgs will assemble into larger groups. What are they?
It is in this context that I proposed using the Nation. In its simplest form this is really nothing but a name/code that allows objEGs from different origins to assemble into one group acting together - regardless of other cultural attributes, which typically would be averaged in some way. It would probably make sense to put this name/code in an object along with an array pointing to every objEG in the Nation, since this would allow looping through all objEGs of a nation, when necessary. (The addition of 'magical' proto-ethnic characteristics was just an idea (not necessarily a good one, at that), which could diminish the tendency of different objEGs to drift appart as time passes. These characteristics need not be static, but could evolve). I guess it would be possible to imagine other attributes that could have a similar function, the most obvious being language. In fact you could call it language instead if you prefer (I suspect Mark would like this).
This approach has some nice properties:
Historical acuracy. Nations/languages have been very constant through history.
Ease of computation. Basically it just takes comparing two integers to decide if objEGs are 'compatible'.
Handling of simple migration. Basically if a part of an EG migrates from one square to another there will be two possibilities:
There is no objEG of the same Nation there, in which case the people could either a) form an objEG in the new square of the original Nation (if they are numerous) b) join another objEG in the square (the one least distant in cultural attributes terms)
There is an objEG of the same Nation there, in which case the tally of that objEG is just increased.
It might be argued that migration should not take place on an EG basis, but rather as bulk-migration, where every objEG in the origin is reduced proportionally, while any objEG in the target square is increased proportionally. However, thereby you forfeit the opportunity to have discriminated EGs 'vote with their feet' and get the h… out of there.
It also has some disadvantages or complications:
As objEGs of the same Nation evolve as time passes, the Nation may become very inhomogenous. This necessitates the development of methods of splitting the Nation into two or more Nations. However, this needs only be done at fairly large intervals (every 50-100 years).
Conversely, two objEGs of different Nations will not easily be merged, even if they have exactly identical cultural attributes. It might therefore be desirable to develop techniques for merging EGs of different Nations. This too needs to be done infrequently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Double posted
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 13, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Boer:
Hi. Sorry to be just now getting back to you, work is picking up right now. This week and next, my time is kinda limited.
1) Yes, each square has a number of 'ethnic group' objects. Each 'ethnic group' object holds (encapsulates) data describing it -- culture, religion, tendencies and general attributes (number of individuals, demographics info, tech info, etc). Like a 'car' object would hold 'engine', 'color', 'transmision', etc.
2) Yes, in many cases ethnic groups will share the same 'culture'. The 'criteria' for grouping them together is thru their shared 'culture' object.
3) 'Nation' is a political concept, not a cultural one, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Lordy:
Again, this is data model speak -- the 'Ethnic Groups' will absolutely have to hold info on what their individual tech levels are.
Like an individual 'car' holds info on what kind of tech it was built with (to an experienced eye).
That has nothing to do with how the player manages tech info, or how the game 'models' technology . . . they're two different things.
It's a 'data storage' thing only.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
F_Smith
Maybe I'm just daft, but...
An EG is an object that represents people in a map square. It should hold data that are particular to the people in that mapsquare alone, like their number, demographic info and maybe possessions, together with some pointers to other objects that they are related to in some way. Why then, do you suggest that the square-based EG should encapsulate data that are not unique to a single square? In your next-to-last post you stated that EGs are grouped together through a shared cultural object. So what should really be stored at the map-level is a pointer to the shared cultural object, which then encapsulates the culture properties. The same goes for tech-level, which I suspect must be a civ-level thing. I would have the EG point to the civ, which then has a property called tech level.
Taking your car-analogy: The car should store data on the make, model, year etc, and a pointer to the owner of the car. The owner object should then hold data that is related to the owner, e.g. sex, nationality, insurance company etc.
And regarding the grouping of EGs. You say that EGs are grouped together by a shared culture object. Let's examine what happens: Take two squares inhabited by people with a Lybian culture. Each square will hold an EG, and a reference to a shared Lybian objCult. If the two squares are occupied by different civs the culture of each EG will evolve, beginning from day one. You cannot change the single Lybian objCult two ways simultaneously, and therefore you have to split the Lybian objCult into two objCults, the moment they are under control of different civs. They thus do not longer have a shared objCult, and cannot be grouped, even if they are united under one civ next turn.
As far as I can see there are three ways out of this dilemma:
a) You could group them according to an attribute that does not change when the square changes owner: This is where my suggested Nation/Language/Whatever comes in. It is simply an attribute, unchanged by controlling civ, that can serve as a common reference to group the EGs by.
b) You could group them together according to some arrithmetic 'nearness' FE the D-principle of the social model. However, whenever there is a need for concerted action on part of grouped EGs in a civ, you would have to check every EG against all other EGs to see which ones should be grouped(constructing a large 2x2 matrix of all EGs in the civ).
c) You could refrain from grouping EGs
And: No I do not think that nation is a political thing. Granted, the nation has become more or less synonymous with the state during the last century and a half, but this is not a phenomenon that has prevailed through history. FE the Latvian nation has only had its own state for 20 years between WWI and WWII and for the last 10 years. None the less it has been a national entity for more than 1000 years, and there are actually still a few people (less than 50 I think) that speak the balto-slavic Latvian language. A nation does not disappear from one day to the next as by conquest. In stead it is slowly assimilated into the surrounding nations, until in the end it disappears. I believe this is accounted for in the social model where people of minority EGs slowly change their allegiance to the dominant EG of the civ.
One more thing: I made an argument in my previous post about migration. How is this handled?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2000 02:23
I mentioned the Spanish Inquisition as an instance of the Catholic Church's attempt to suppress innovation and therefore scientific growth. It was an example of something that I feel needs to be in the game... some religions suppressing new ideas. I don't know if you had planned on this or not, but the simplest solution would be to reduce RP's... but I'm not sure if that's the best route to take.
|