25-10-2001 04:27									#1
	Riots Model 2.0 Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Riots.shtml

	25-10-2001 04:38									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'll be quoting for specific areas for easier referance.

quote: V. Events ... Revolutionary Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. Revolutionary units try to conquer the civ's capital. If they succeed, the ruler and govt are replaced. See below for more details on that. See also below how a "total" revolution can be triggered. Guerrilla Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. The objective of guerrilla units is to liberate the province from the civ's control. If they achieve it, the province is annexed to a civ with matching nationality or, if such civ doesn't exist, a new civ is created. ... Military Coup: When the event is called, a number of the civ's military units (depending on the average values of the event probabilities along all EG's and all social classes) become "rebels" and pass to AI control. The rebels will try to conquer the civ's capital province. See below for what happens if they succeed. See also below how this can lead to a "civil war". Army Betrayal: This is like the Revolutionary Forces Formation event, but instead of creating a people's military unit, a military unit already existent betrays the ruler and joins the revolution (becomes a revolutionary unit). Declaring Independence: The province where the event was called becomes a new civ. Contiguous provinces' PAF's are checked to see if they would join the declaration. Rebel Duke: A military/nobility leader in a province decides to decrease central govt's influence over the province. It's like a less radical form of independence declaration, where the local leaders just want more autonomy, but still find valuable belonging to the civ. The Province's Autonomy Level in the province is increased and associated Feudal Units are created (see Govt Model). See more of Feudal Units below. ...

There needs to be a way to determine whether any new rebellions that start up as others are join with the other(s) or are simply out to take advantage of the situation by having their own authroity and not joining the group (except maybe temporarily to depose the current ruler).

Also in the cases of betrayal of which there are several types, there should be a chance of loyal troops coming to help the ruler, varying depending on cricumstances.

quote: VIII.2. Civil Wars A civil war can only be invoked by the ruler. In order to do it, at least one of these two conditions must be met: a) There's at least one revolutionary or rebel unit on the map.... b) A province has just declared independence. (secession) ...Also, the declaration of independence (if that caused the civil war) is left without effect (no new civ formed) while at the same time no "Declaring Independence" event can take place during the time the civil war develops. In a civil war it is considered that there're only two sides (loyal and rebel). If the "Revolutionary Forces Formation" event takes place, it won't create a revolutionary unit, but a rebel one. A civil war ends when all rebel units are destroyed or when the ruler decides it should end. The latter may sound strange, but it's only a way to simulate a treaty between the ruler and the rebels where the ruler accepts losing all provinces currently occupied by the rebels. These provinces will form a new civ. This shows the ruler would have to be sick of the civil war and have no hope of winning it completely to opt to arbitrarily finish it. ...

What happens when a player declares a civil war when 2 differnt provinvces declared independance and didn't join each other?

Also this should be allowed for a Rebel Duke option as it is very similar (just differnt actors and not quite as incendary as declaring new nation).

One thing i think should be done is intially when a civil war is called, any groups about ready to break should either go to the other side or have a chance of taking the adavntage to declare their own indepedance. While this does complicate things a bit it shows that civil wars aren't always loyalist vs. rebels. There are other groups on occasion and allows for a 3-way civil war which is certainly possible (military, civilians and loyal subjects). I do agree for simplicity sake though, that once the war is started there should be no new actors (although a province could defect to an existing one).

quote: Feudal Units: Little AI needed. The units simply stay in the province where they were created and defend the province from attacks. The existence of Feudal Units represent a powerful local warlord (see more on the Govt Model).

One thing on feudal units, they should be allowed to attack other provinces (save a few special cases). When a feudal unit is created, the ruler of that province should be allowed to make its own secret treaties. This happened alot during middle-aged europe and feudal japan and china.

	27-10-2001 05:41									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like the new Riots model quite a bit! I just have a few minor points for now.

I think LGJ's point on feudal units, and attacking neighbors for power is an interesting one. It may be too complicated for the model, but I'd like to hear what you think about the idea also.

quote: Guerrilla Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. The objective of guerrilla units is to liberate the province from the civ's control. If they achieve it, the province is annexed to a civ with matching nationality or, if such civ doesn't exist, a new civ is created.

This may be a stupid question... but how do we know what the "matching nationality" is. As far as I could figure from the social model ethnic groups don't remember an old nationality, just the new one.

Attempts to Murder Ruler has a 50% chance. That seems way too big, and it also should be a variable including things like tech level (assassination with bombs and rifles is much easier than with a knife), secret police activity, and other factors.

Currently you have the government being replaced if a rebel units simply enters the capital. I think they should have to hold the capital for at least one turn or more to get the very large benefit you bestow for taking the capital. Otherwise, a unit of no military significance that is substantially outnumbered could slip into the capital and change the whole government. Then it would have to change back when this twit is squashed. Anyway, that's my take on it.

	30-10-2001 00:20									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Good points. A few answers:

LGJ said:

quote: There needs to be a way to determine whether any new rebellions that start up as others are join with the other(s) or are simply out to take advantage of the situation

That's covered. Any time a military unit appears from an event call, it stores info related to the social class triggering the event. So, if a communist revolutionary is formed, the unit has a data field storing "communism" as the regime it looks to impose. While the unit exists, it's possible for a "fundamentalistic" revolutionary unit to appear too. They will fight against each other and against the ruler.

LGJ said:

quote: Also in the cases of betrayal of which there are several types, there should be a chance of loyal troops coming to help the ruler

All the troops are by default loyal to the ruler. Those who betray are against him. Anyway, the ruler may call a loyal people's army to fight a rebelion. He just has to call a civil war.

LGJ said:

quote: What happens when a player declares a civil war when 2 differnt provinvces declared independance and didn't join each other?

can't happen. If a province declares independence and the ruler chooses to call a civil war, it's impossible for another province to call independence until the "dust settles".

LGJ said:

quote: Also this should be allowed for a Rebel Duke option as it is very similar (just differnt actors and not quite as incendary as declaring new nation).

Exactly. The rebel duke, although related to the idea of independence, isn't as incendiary as an indep. declaration. The "Rebel Duke" event simply increases a bit the Province's Autonomy Level (check govt model's "administrating the empire"). The Rebel Duke event is not a warfare situation as Guerrilla or Revolutionary Forces Formation (although the ruler may respond militarly).

LGJ said:

quote: One thing i think should be done is intially when a civil war is called, any groups about ready to break should either go to the other side or have a chance of taking the adavntage to declare their own indepedance.

All groups take advantage of any type of event because the Empire's Stability variable decreases its value and event probabilities are a function of it. But no, independences aren't allowed during civil wars for the sake of simplicity. And I believe this is a useful simplification.

Mark said:

quote: This may be a stupid question... but how do we know what the "matching nationality" is. As far as I could figure from the social model ethnic groups don't remember an old nationality, just the new one.

The guerrilla unit stores the current EG nationality. Guerrillas appear when the EG nationality and the govt nationality are different, representing EG's intention to get rid of a foreign rule. If a province with french population is controled by germans and it forms a guerrilla (with french nationality) that's able to conquer (liberate) the province, the game engine must look a matching civ (i.e. a civ with french govt) to annex the liberated province to it.

Mark said:

quote: Attempts to Murder Ruler has a 50% chance. That seems way too big, and it also should be a variable including things like tech level (assassination with bombs and rifles is much easier than with a knife), secret police activity, and other factors.

Agreed. It should be a function of other things.

Mark said:

quote: Currently you have the government being replaced if a rebel units simply enters the capital. I think they should have to hold the capital for at least one turn or more to get the very large benefit you bestow for taking the capital.

Ok. sounds reasonable.

LGJ and Mark's view on Feudal Units: If you think FU may be used to attack too I'm alright with it. When I invented FU I just wanted them no to be an AI problem so I gave'em an "easy job". Anyway, it needs some care. A player may use his power to use them to take'em out of the province to a badly defended position in order to kill them when he wants to decrease the Province's Autonomy Level.

	30-10-2001 01:04									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Hey roquijad, I like the riots model too, it sounds deep, fun and historically accurate.

I'd like to take the opportunity here to make a link between the riots model and the diplomacy model: as soon as an event is called (guerilla unit formation, military coup, whatever) inside a civ that opposes government forces against rebel or revolutionnary units, the code should treat the "new" force as an independant civ in the diplomacy model, even though they are still technically part of the civ they rebel against. This would allow rebel units and feudal units(LGJ's suggestion, by the way) to negotiate with third party independant civs. I can already see the interesting possibilities: "If you help us get to power/become independant, we'll guarantee you the best prices for our resources".

Also, another link between the two models that comes to mind: the counterintelligence network's role in the riots model. This was already hinted in roquijad's model, I'd like to elaborate it slightly more.
The strength of the ruler's counterintelligence model can achieve two things in relation to riots, coups, revolutions, whatever:

1.) Foresee the coup, revolution, riot, whatever and tell the ruler when it will happen (there's a possibility of error here, depending on the counterintel network experience.

2.) Attempt to sabotage the attempted coup before it even begins (capturing key groupleaders f.e). Again, risk here of failing, depending on strength of the network. Or sabotaging the coup after it has begun. This is more difficult.

I can already imagine a situation where the counterintel network defects and passes to the other side, but to keep things simple, I feel it's better to assume that they always stay loyal to their ruler. Or a way to simulate betrayal would be to gradually make the counterintel network less powerful as the riot/revolution gains momentum.

	30-10-2001 04:51									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: can't happen. If a province declares independence and the ruler chooses to call a civil war, it's impossible for another province to call independence until the "dust settles".[quote] No, no...Before you declared the civil war, 2+ provinces, on the same turn, declared independance. [quote]Exactly. The rebel duke, although related to the idea of independence, isn't as incendiary as an indep. declaration. The "Rebel Duke" event simply increases a bit the Province's Autonomy Level (check govt model's "administrating the empire"). The Rebel Duke event is not a warfare situation as Guerrilla or Revolutionary Forces Formation (although the ruler may respond militarly).

Well the problem is, to do so, he'd haveto call a civil war (atleast that's what i get) and that shouldn't be nessasry to quell a rebellious duke.

quote: All groups take advantage of any type of event because the Empire's Stability variable decreases its value and event probabilities are a function of it. But no, independences aren't allowed during civil wars for the sake of simplicity. And I believe this is a useful simplification.

No, i agree, during the civil war for simplicities sake that should be true, but not when its intially called. Here's the reasoning:
You have 3 groups in your country, Groups A, B, C. Group A is the native or ruling group. Groups B and C are conquered or relocated groups, both on different sides of the country with no linkage and each group hates each other. The ruler, Group A, sees that its domain is collapsing on the froniter and has no choice but to call a civil war. Why then would groups B and C side on the same side, with no way for either to contact the other, with hatred down to their core, etc. The reason i'm asking this is that in the event Group A looses big time to B and C, there will quickly be another war when this could have been handled already.

quote: LGJ and Mark's view on Feudal Units: If you think FU may be used to attack too I'm alright with it. When I invented FU I just wanted them no to be an AI problem so I gave'em an "easy job". Anyway, it needs some care. A player may use his power to use them to take'em out of the province to a badly defended position in order to kill them when he wants to decrease the Province's Autonomy Level.

Yes, i think you could order the duke or whatnot to attack this other province (or he could do so on his own if you permit it (or your to weak not to)). That way he can't take full advantage of the units. These units might not operate with the best AI either, but shouldn't be totally dumb. The duke would either if the ruler requests an attack, accept or deny it outright for simplicity sake, with a penalty on his (the duke's) social standing if he refuses.

	02-11-2001 04:27									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Lordy: I understand now your example of two groups looking for independence at the same time. I admit you're right and idealy things should be the way you say, but I'm going for the less realistic, yet simpler modeling.

And no, the ruler doesn't have to initiate a civil war to fight feudal units. He only needs to tell his troops to attack the feudal units. Anyway, your comment got me thinking: maybe the ruler, when attacking feudal units, may risk a civil war. Maybe feudal warlords could unite against the ruler if attacked, triggering a civil war. What do you all think?

Hi Mikael. Thanks for the comments. I agree there're elements to link riots and diplo models.

quote: as soon as an event is called (guerilla unit formation, military coup, whatever) inside a civ that opposes government forces against rebel or revolutionnary units, the code should treat the "new" force as an independant civ in the diplomacy model

I think it'd be great (not for any event, but for some key events). I have to admit I haven't read the diplo model in a long time and I don't know how feasible this is, but if it can be made, it'd be great.

I also like your idea of the ci network being able to sabotage an event right when it's about to happen. I'll add it to the model.

Excuse my ignorance: are you working in the diplo model, Mikael?

Here's a crazy idea: Since Mark, LGJ and now Mikael have commented that feudal units shouldn't be as dumb as I initially designed them and since we're talking about chances of foreign govts being able to negotiate with internal opposing forces, then what about including the characters model and make a multimodel link riots-chars-diplo?
As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the chars model is so far "isolated". There're no explicit links with other models enabling chars to influence the game in a significant way. On the other hand, if we want to give internal dissident forces the ability to perform diplomatic activities with foreign govts, then we need to model dissidents somehow and we need a place to "store" the treaties they make with other powers.
My proposition is: let's adapt the char model to represent any figure with potential diplomatic power, letting them make the diplomatic negotiations, being them the ones having treaties and having the possiblity of commanding troops. The list of figures should be restricted to:
Rulers controlled by the computer.
Revolutionaries (as defined in the riots model).
Rebels (as defined in the riots model).
Guerrilla leaders (as defined in the riots model).
Feudal warlords (the ones controlling feudal units).
Pro-Independence leaders.

These characters would be allowed to "use" the diplomatic interface, signing treaties with other chars. For this purpose, the diplo model would need two "modes". The "ruler" mode for rulers, i.e. chars who are in control of a govt. And the "non-ruler" mode, for chars who are not (all other type of figures). This would be needed because the diplomatic options (what a char can offer in negotiations) are very different. The non-ruler mode would also help players who choose to leave "office" and play, for example, a revolutionary, as it has been commented in the thread "Governments, civilizations, ethnicity and how they relate in the game".

The possibilities are interesting. Imagine a char called Benjamin Franklin meeting with the king of France looking for help in his quest to achieve american independence. Then, in later negotiations between the king of France and the king of England, the former may include in his demands the american independence. But pro-independence leaders may even negotiate with their own current govt the terms of independence. Imagine south african leaders achieving a treaty with the english govt where they get independence, but where South Africa must remain under the Commonhealth.
Dissident chars could even negotiate with each other. Maybe two different revolutionary factions could ally against the govt instead of fighting each other and the govt at the same time.

What do you all think?

	02-11-2001 05:08									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by roquijad what about including the characters model and make a multimodel link riots-chars-diplo? As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the chars model is so far "isolated". There're no explicit links with other models enabling chars to influence the game in a significant way. On the other hand, if we want to give internal dissident forces the ability to perform diplomatic activities with foreign govts, then we need to model dissidents somehow and we need a place to "store" the treaties they make with other powers. My proposition is: let's adapt the char model to represent any figure with potential diplomatic power, letting them make the diplomatic negotiations, being them the ones having treaties and having the possiblity of commanding troops. These characters would be allowed to "use" the diplomatic interface, signing treaties with other chars.

Well, there are planned real effects of characters upon the game such as giving bonusus to various activities... but I think your idea is pretty interesting. The potential issues I see is that there will be characters in the governments of normal civs. Surely these can't freelance diplomacy for their civs. So it seems more sensible to me to have these rebels etc. have some sort of pseudo-civ or government defined, and then use the normal diplomatic interface. The characters can be 'front men' for the discussions. The fact that it is a pseudo-civ doing the negotiating could limit the options as well as it being a character could.

I think we will clearly need diplomacy with non-civs for sure. Its just not clear to me that characters is the best way to do it.

	02-11-2001 05:13									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well if you can get a list of what characters you'll need and what things they should modify in the game that would be great help for character model. I just haven't done much with it since it seemed a long time till it would be implimented.

Anyway you still haven't commented on what happens if 2 provinces declare independance for 2 different groups on the same turn and you decide to declare a civl war that turn what will happen?

	03-11-2001 23:51									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yeah, I'm really more with Mark on this one. Rebelling factions shouldn't have to rely on special characters for their diplomatic negociations. They could, provided they have one at that moment, like any real government, but this shouldn't always be the case.

And yes, roquijad, I am in charge of the diplomacy. Check out the thread "Diplomacy discussion thread v.2" or something like that. You'll see I have made some additions to the model and your opinion on these would be much appreciated.

	10-11-2001 06:54									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Quoted from Rich's post in the diplomacy thread as i 100% agree with it:

quote: Base the riots model not on the actual policy, but on the desired policy that the player enters.

	10-11-2001 15:08									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm not sure its necessary to base riots models on the player/leader's expressed policies. If the player, thru their policies, really changes the result based on everyone else, then the govt policy will Already likely be fairly far from what some of the factions want. OTOH if there are riots aspects that relate to what the people think of the Ruler as opposed to the Government overall, then using the ruler's preferences is natural.

	10-11-2001 18:55									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think it is an issue of fun. Sure, it may be reasonable for the people to riot against the government as a whole, but if there is any kind of riot then the player is the one who picks up the pieces. I think it would be annoying to clean up a riot caused by a policy I didn't support.

Also, it solves the one problem of the negotiation system. Consider an example of a feudal-type society. Suppose the following are values of trade liberilization, with 0=no trade allowed and 100=free trade:

People's tolerance: 20-50
Faction 1, nobility: 30, 40% power
Faction 2, church: 20, 30% power
Faction 3, merchants, 70 10% power

Since the player has 20% of the power, any value between 25 and 45 can be chosen.

Suppose the player wants as much trade as possible in order to develop the economy and technology. In the current system, the player has no incentive to enter any preference other than 100 in order to get the 45 value. This is quite frankly an abuse of the system, and since the final policy is within the tolerance range the player gets away with implementing a policy that is a lot higher than the one desired by 70% of the power in the kingdom.

But if the riots model was based on the ruler preference, such extreme changes would carry a risk and abuse of the system would be stopped. Is there any other way to deal with the tendency to input extreme values?

	11-11-2001 03:21									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If the people can riot against the player specifically, they should likewise be able to riot against any other faction as well. And the player, being the executive power, would have to clean it up anyway. If the people don't like a policy they riot against the government. The governing factions suppress the protests and/or change policies and based on that the polpower of the factions possibly changes proportions. (suppression keeping polpower intact but lowering popularity, changing of the targeted policy increasing popularity but not necessarily actual polpower).

quote: Suppose the player wants as much trade as possible in order to develop the economy and technology.

In that case the player enters 100 and gets the maximum possible, 45. Not quite what he wants, but the maximum possible given the political situation. If he could enter 1000 and get 100 it would be abusive, but if he entered 45 he would get 45 because thats what the other factions can agree with.

	11-11-2001 12:16									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: In the current system, the player has no incentive to enter any preference other than 100 in order to get the 45 value

Actually, no. Rodrigo's model (NS) makes it unnecessary to lie on the player's goals. In the example, the 80%PP provide an average value of around 32, so we present the 25-45 range to the player and he chooses from that rather than from 0-100. It is just a matter of asking the player for their policy after we have computed the preferences.

quote: I think it would be annoying to clean up a riot caused by a policy I didn't support.

Well, see it the other way: If people riot and you had only 2%PP, it may be a good time to throw in a revolution so you increase your PP.

	11-11-2001 20:08									#16
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Well, see it the other way: If people riot and you had only 2%PP, it may be a good time to throw in a revolution so you increase your PP.

True. I hadn't thought of that. Very clever. Just make sure the player knows that this is a possibility. An advisor might say, "We can't beat them, so we might as well join them."

The interface plan you described (choose 25-45) looks good. I must have missed that.

	18-11-2001 05:59									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The riots model currently allows both types of unhappiness:
1) you don't like the current govt profile (you don't like govt)
2) you don't like the ruler's govt profile (you don't like what the ruler is going for)

So far I believe both are needed, but in the future we can get rid of the second one if we want to.

	08-04-2003 01:56									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The Riots model does a wonderful job of modeling internal unrest. One thing I don't see here, is a way for the people of a nation to protest/riot based on events in another nation, or the policies of another nation. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, last century or so, but I think it's important enough to be included.

Recent events (the Iraqi Freedom war), depict this quite well. People are rioting/protest all over the globe. I don't want to spark a political discussion of these events, I'm merely pointing to them as the most recent case of this.

Historically, these riots/protests have never severely impacted the nation they occurred in, that I am aware of. However, what they do impact is that nation's ability to get involved in the situation. For example, again recent events, Turkey, a very close ally of the US, initially refused to allow US military to operate from their land for fear of the repercussions it could have in the form of riots within their own nation.

This sort of thing plays an important role in modern diplomacy/warfare, so I think it's important enough to be a part of the model. I'm new here, and I may have just missed it somewhere in the model if it already exists, if so, point it out, please.

	09-04-2003 00:22									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Cmonkey,

You clearly have a point. But I also agree with you about this thing being a very recent phenomenon. Some two years back, when I wrote the model, I didn't have in mind, of course, anything like that, nor things like the anti-globalization movement.

The problem is that these things are so new that I'm affraid we can't evaluate correctly how important they really are. Will they have a long term impact, enough to become candidates to be modeled?

I'm not sure.

	09-04-2003 22:50									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

roquijad,

What I'm asking for here is really very simple. An event that triggers a riot or protest based on the actions of another country. This requires a few new variables be put into the model, nothing more. The first variable, actually an array of them, would be the disposition of the people towards each and every other nation. This would be handled in much the same way as a nation's disposition is handled in the diplomacy model.

The second would be 'bad foreign policies feeling' or some such, as a pro-action feeling. The chances of this being triggered should be very small, to prevent it from happening until modern times. With the advent of the application 'the Internet' these chances should rise dramatically.

The purpose of all this would not be to model some huge effect. This would model the effect a nation's people have on its foreign policies that they can't directly affect in the government model, basically its war policies. It is intended to prevent a nation, whether player or AI, from standing idle around while one of its neighbors or allies is being exterminated by another nation. It is also intended to prevent a nation from assisting another in wars its people don't want, even if the assistance is only a right of passage for its troops to attack from.

I assume Clash is going to go somewhat into the future as Civ3 does, 2050 or so. If this is correct, we can assume if this situation is occurring now, it is likely to occur until that point as well. However, if Clash stops in the year 2000, you're probably correct in assuming it's not important enough to model.

As a side effect of tracking a nation's people's disposition towards other nations, we could also model terrorism from this. Given the situation of the world, I'm not going to push for this issue, but it was suggested in the List sent to Firaxis for Civ3, so I thought I'd mention it, if the team decides it isn't too politically incorrect to do such a thing.

	16-04-2003 02:09									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Cmonkey,

Please have in mind I'm only checking the forums like once a week, so if I take too long to answer, it's only that....

I agree it's not complex. I disagree, though, about being something cheap to model ("This requires a few new variables be put into the model, nothing more"). Since PAFs are computed for each social class and since each Ethnic Group has several socal classes, and since a province can have several EGs, adding just one more PAF leads to several variables really. If we need one PAF for each "other nation", then it's a costly multiplication.

Anyway, I'm not the guy to comment on computational costs. I can only agree that they way you're proposing it would be the exact way to deal with it if we want to include it and are prepare to pay the cost.

Mark: What do you think on the cost of that?

	16-04-2003 06:17									#22
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by roquijad I disagree, though, about being something cheap to model ("This requires a few new variables be put into the model, nothing more"). Since PAFs are computed for each social class and since each Ethnic Group has several socal classes, and since a province can have several EGs, adding just one more PAF leads to several variables really. If we need one PAF for each "other nation", then it's a costly multiplication. Mark: What do you think on the cost of that?

Hi Gents:

I think this would be doable without the large computational overhead suggested so far. In short, if there is a Strong negative or positive reaction of an EG to a govt we could record that, and let it decay over time. A fairly simple algorithm could be used to figure when needed an EGs reaction to a govt or that govts policy.

The approach is doable, but I'm not sure we'll get much bang for the buck out of it play-wise. Personally I'd favor just leaving this idea lying fallow, and see when things are further developed if it is worth revisiting. We won't be playing the modern age for quite some time yet at the rate things are going.

	23-02-2004 01:29									#23
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I've got one question. In my social test scenario, the Persians do some ethnic discrimination against Greeks. The Greeks decide to revolt because of the ethnic discrimination and bad policies. This results in the creation of a warrior unit. However, this unit is part of the Spartan civ, which happens to be at peace with the Persians. Since Greeks revolt and decide they want to join Sparta, should that cause war between Persia and Sparta? Or should the Greeks not revolt in order to avoid the war? Or do they simply seize weapons and leave the place?

Admittedly, this is still quite unfinished, and I don't have all teh subtleties ready (like feudal units...). Right now a new unit just pertains to a civ. But this leads to another question: If the player controls a civ and an EG somewhere revolts and wants to join the player's civ, who controls the revolting units? Is it the player or the ai? And when/if the province is conquered, do these units disappear, are they controlled by the ai or (if they were previously ai-controlled) are they controlled by the player?

I don't know about war status.
If war is declared, it can ruin one's external policy because your neighbour has poor internal policies.
As an alternative, the player could decide they don't want to support the rebellion, in which case the units would become a new civ (and the whole EG would probably feel betrayed and switch nationality to that new civ).
If war is not declared, then new units will pop here and there, causing some people to move around. Shouldn't, in such a case, the units 'carry' with them the civilians (like settlers)? Or are they just free units for the civ the EG wants to be part of?

	23-02-2004 23:35									#24
	my opinion Full PM-box? Change here!

it strikes me that you need some kind of "obiedience" or "loyalty" factor to determine the actions of the revolting unit you describe.

If these people have a high level of public order, respect for the law etc, then they should be more inclined to obey their chosen masters.

however, being as they are revolting to the extent that you describe, then I think they would not have such respect for authority and therefore their actions should be unit specific:

they can tend to allegiance to the Spartans, but be in a state of insurgency which causes them to fight the Persians.

I think it should depend on factors like the ratios of kinds of classes in the Greek area - if military and crime sectors of the population are high then they should be more prone to aggression and unrulyness, if largely mercantile then they should be more "gandhi"-like.

The proximity of their chosen masters should also have an effect - they will not feel so inclined start a war if there is a Spartan military unit nearby!

Why shouldn't they attempt independence, and become a new nation! You should have the "opportunity" to choose whether you wish to embrace them as part of your nation but, should it only depend on whether you reject their offer of allegiance or not?
If they offer allegiance to your nation, then would they have poor relations with you if you had rejected them, and they became a new nation? or would it depend on how desperate they were to be on good terms with you?

I think rather than having settlers, why not have social sector specific units: merchants, clerics, artisans - either can set up a settlement, and you might want to change the balance of sectors in a population by adding a particular type of "settler" as it were...?

As for the revolting EG thing, I think they should be treated as another nation (ai) until you accept (click on ok) to accept them as under your control. You should get all the units that survive any invasion (conservation of energy prinicple!). I think there's a case for "guerilla units/nations" to handle this limbo, don't you think?

Last edited by yellowdaddy on 23-02-2004 at 23:50

	24-02-2004 01:46									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Why shouldn't they attempt independence, and become a new nation!

Because there's another event for that. I'm talking about guerilla uprising event, not declaring independence event. Here again, Gandhi is 'declaring independence' rather than guerilla uprising.
Letting the player have the option of waiting it out before they accept the rebels woudl lead to leader abuse: I let them declare war for me, and if they win I take them, if they lose, I lose nothing. There's no real choice involved here.

quote: I think rather than having settlers, why not have social sector specific units: merchants, clerics, artisans - either can set up a settlement, and you might want to change the balance of sectors in a population by adding a particular type of "settler" as it were...?

That's already been discussed elsewhere, but settlers will often change profession and social status when settling in a new country. Check for a migration thread.

quote: If they offer allegiance to your nation, then would they have poor relations with you if you had rejected them, and they became a new nation? or would it depend on how desperate they were to be on good terms with you?

Doesn't really matter. The diplomatic status is not really important here. What's important is the fact the ethnic group would change nationality. It should probably be all the ethnic group of the province, and only of that province, that feels betrayed.

I agree that units controlled by something which is not really a civ (typically feudal units) are needed at some point. I'm not sure I'm ready for them yet.

	24-02-2004 04:43									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i suppose the revolting greek eg in your scenario would have to be heavily drawn to the culture of the spartans to have enough allegience to obey the spartan ruler, so that mere oppression by their persian overlords is not enough to make them obedient to another civ, even if they declare allegiance to it.

the thing is you say they produce a spartan unit through revolting, but does that automatically have to mean that they are pledging allegiance to the spartan state?

i suppose the ball is in the persian court - if they choose to crush the rebellion, then the spartan player should be prompted whether and how the spartans wish to respond.
i think the idea of them choosing not to revolt to avoid war, or to simply evacuate is not realistic.
they'd revolt because they're unhappy, full stop. the spartans may then be faced with the choice of having to either acknowledge them immediately or wait until prompted by a persian act to defend or abandon them.

i think you agree that the revolting units become semi-civs until they are established as belonging to a particular civ. and that units should not instantaneously disappear in a puff of smoke.

separate units - with variable numbers inside them, civilians shouldn't be "carried" by other units IMO.

	24-02-2004 14:45									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: i suppose the revolting greek eg in your scenario would have to be heavily drawn to the culture of the spartans to have enough allegience to obey the spartan ruler, so that mere oppression by their persian overlords is not enough to make them obedient to another civ, even if they declare allegiance to it.

Unfortunately, that's human-thinking. Such considerations do not exist in the program or the model as it is. The model specifies a single nationality. It doesn't provide for a set of computations as to which civ has 'greeks' as its preferred ethnicity, and then which one would be most likely to declare war on the Persians. The problem being there may not be any other civ which prefers Greeks and is at war against Persians.

quote: i think you agree that the revolting units become semi-civs until they are established as belonging to a particular civ.

Yes, except that this is not coded and will not in the immediate future because it's probably going to take too long and I'd like to get a demo out before. So I need to decide on something in the meantime.

	24-02-2004 18:18									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

i think you misunderstood me on the first quote.

i think an aspect of the game was that eg or cities could revolt by being attracted to the culture of another nation - much like in Civ3.

here you talk about a scenario where an eg or city is revolting from its ruling nation.

i'm thinking that these are two different sets of coding, so that you can have a logical choice of combinations where the EG is:

a. revolting from X, but not attracted to Y.
b. not revolting from X, but attracted to Y.
c. revolting from X, and attracted to Y.
(d. not revolting from X, and not attracted to Y)

only in option "c" will the EG follow the orders of nation Y.
in option "b", the EG could be influenced by nation Y in various ways.
and option "a" is where they have some kind of allegience to nation Y, but will not obey orders from the ruler of nation Y.

all being distinct from independence; option "a" is like "autonomy". - perhaps like Commonwealth dependencies like the Isle of Man, Hong Kong, and Cayman Islands.

quote: The problem being there may not be any other civ which prefers Greeks and is at war against Persians.

i'm not sure if i know what you mean?

	24-02-2004 21:26									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I ment if I'm looking for a civ which matches the revolters' wishes, I may not find any. In such a case, the revolt can't join an existing civ, it has to create its own civ or try to overthrow the government and replace it (or become feudal units). As I haven't put regimes in yet (and don't want to until we've got some tech tree that will let new regimes to be discovered), nor feudal units, I think I'll leave things the way they are now for the next demo.

	26-02-2004 00:35									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Actually, unless they like the spatans why much they revolt as spartan unit? Why can't they revolt as say their home cities unit? Even if their city is destroyed, they'd still have aligence to that city, not ness to the spartans. I know to become viable long-term they'd haveto either give up on some of their ideals, ie compromise, overthrow a governemnt or atleast a city, or found their own nation somewhere else, but why can't for a bit they exist without a city (obviosuly such units existing would exist without costs as they're living off the land).