26-02-2004 01:38									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Why can't they revolt as say their home cities unit?

Because the way ethnic groups are set up, they have a single nationality. If I want to have one ethnic group for all Greeks (to make the distinction Greeks/Barbaroi), then, with the model as it is now, when they riot, they will riot towards the same civ whatever their previous civ was. Furthermore, they may not have a home city: If the Greeks migrated from several squares or were settled by several cities one after another (or just put there at the beginning of the scenario file), they don't have a home city and have always been under the yoke of the Persians.
And what if the Spartans have been conquered by Persia and immediately afterwards, Sparta and Persia declare peace. What should revolting Spartans do?

Anyway, I checked the nationality stuff more and understood I need to code the nationality shift equation right now, but htat will still not solve the problem because nationality shift is only towards the government's nationality, never towards an enemy of this government, which is what I think we need in this case.

	26-02-2004 02:06									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: If the Greeks migrated from several squares or were settled by several cities one after another (or just put there at the beginning of the scenario file), they don't have a home city and have always been under the yoke of the Persians.

then i suppose they become a new nationality,

or... oppose the regime (and thus military units) of Sparta, but not the civilians (and thus non-military units) of Sparta.

can they do that? you have opposition movements to the goverment within each nation don't you? (regardless of gov type)

they will attack spartan military units, but not non-military ones?

they become "spartan rebels"!?

	26-02-2004 08:14									#33
	Support Apolyton

Wouldn't they be then Greeko-Persians? Greece being the dominat ethic origin, but persian being the nationality and influencing factor? Thus over time they could become more like Persian-Greeks (persian being the dominant ethic fator and greek being the lesser point, until eventually they become just pure persians, unless of course their greek ehtic quality has a high resistance to absorbtion, such as jewsish people.

	26-02-2004 14:11									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: over time they could become more like Persian-Greeks (persian being the dominant ethic fator and greek being the lesser point, until eventually they become just pure persians, unless of course their greek ehtic quality has a high resistance to absorbtion, such as jewsish people.

Yes, that's what I wanted to do with the nationality shift equation, but it doesn't really allow nationality shifts early on because of the lack of a nationalism tech, which makes the Government Nationality Factor be almost zero. So with the current model, that doesn't work, even if there was a majority of Persians in the province.

quote: "spartan rebels"!?

That's probably what they should be. Looks like I'll have to code that first then.

	27-02-2004 00:00									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Here's what I coded:
Spartans who riot against Persia while being at peace with them create a new kind of civilization, a 'sub-civilization', of spartan rebels. This civ is limited in the sense it cannot possess land, only units. If it conquers territory, this territory becomes regular Spartan land. Units thus created will try to disband immediately in order to join the civilian population in a Spartan controlled-square.
This also allows riotting units of a civ to be at war against their own civ (feudal lords).
(The same code could be used to allow for privateer units.)
Technically, the units created are not considered as Spartan, are not controlled by the Spartan player (be it a player or computer), but by an independant ai, which gives them an order to disband in friendly territory. 'Feudal lords' never disband since they are at war with their own civ. Note these are not the definitive version of feudal lord units, but a first spike. It's just if you have policies that your people don't like, they may revolt, causing these guerillas to appear in addition to the damage to existing infrastructure.

	02-03-2004 04:56									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sounds like a decent solution to me! We can see from playtesting if it works out right or not.

	04-03-2004 13:01									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How long do the sub-spartans exist for? And what if Spata is destroyed?

also shouldn't they be able to settle if they find some relatively unclaimed land?

Last edited by Lord God Jinnai on 04-03-2004 at 13:18

	06-03-2004 00:55									#38
	Got spare money?

Sub spartans last for as long as they are in a non Spartan square or a Spartan square with enemy units.
If Sparta is destroyed, they can refound it, though there will not be new sub spartans if Sparta is destroyed (could be, though, which would make resurrection of civs possible, but I am not sure about such a feature).
They don't settle, but indeed they should be able to. Finding an empty square could be a possible goal for them, probably of lower priority than rejoining their civ.

	06-03-2004 04:37									#39
	Got spare money?

Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

	06-03-2004 05:07									#40
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

That might be a problem for realism, but not for gameplay or fun. I know that a balance must be struck and that this might bother others more than me, but for my $0.02 I wouldn't be bothered if a nation reforms 200 years after its defeat.

	06-03-2004 16:27									#41
	Support Apolyton

quote: That might be a problem for realism... ...if a nation reforms 200 years after its defeat.

...Romany gypsies, the Jews, most Southeast Asian peoples... and plenty of pre-mediaeval Southwest Asian peoples like Iranians, Phoenicians, Turks... don't they fit that model?

	06-03-2004 20:37									#42
	Tired of ads?

quote: Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

You can also see them as Spartans who went nomadic.
I don't think these units will last for long, though it's indeed a possibility. Again, a nation reforming after being conquered is something that did happen quite often, though usually not after centuries.

	07-03-2004 16:27									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think they're going to have to be susceptible to the same model which causes the ethnic groups to evolve, split and merge... If these Rebel Spartans are still seperate from the Spartan government after 250 years, they should be beginning to become a distinct EG, defined by a dialect. After say 500 years, then they should certainly have a distinct language, and be a descendent of the Spartans.

I doubt they would be able to wander that long unless they became nomadic or hilltribes. They'd have to settle eventually, and then they'd either be absorbed by a bigger nation or set up their own nation.

reminds me of this:
In the Balkans you get communities of "Aromunes" aka "Vlachs" they are little enclaves of Roman descended peoples - their dialects like Romanian
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/W...97/edoc7728.htm

in addition, if you are either really crap at, or unlucky in the game and get bummed by the other nations, it gives you the chance to make a comeback.

	07-03-2004 20:52									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: ...Romany gypsies, the Jews, most Southeast Asian peoples... and plenty of pre-mediaeval Southwest Asian peoples like Iranians, Phoenicians, Turks... don't they fit that model?

quote: You can also see them as Spartans who went nomadic. I don't think these units will last for long, though it's indeed a possibility. Again, a nation reforming after being conquered is something that did happen quite often, though usually not after centuries.

I'm not saying nations shouldn't reform, but that is almost always because of overthrowing current rulers from within, political redrawings of the map, refugee/nobility recaputing the terrioty with support. Wanding groups never have except isreal which was not done in the manner you describe.

In fact almost every example you've given are countries captured, but not absorbed by the new nation, not a displaced and wandering nation.

	07-03-2004 22:57									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

the Romanys haven't formed a state, but they still persist.

off the top of my head
Southeast asians:
Thais were the Nanzhao state, displaced by the chinese, reformed as Sukothai etc... the thai were nomadic, and some still are.

The Mons Dvaravati state, displaced by Thais, and Burmese Pyu state, reformed then was sort of absorbed,

what about Madagascans and Maoris sailing across oceans to set up states after being displaced.

I thought the Parthians weren't the only Iranian tribe to form states and be nomadic inbetween?

The Jews were conquered by the Romans, dispersed, and then reformed a state.

Phoenicians, were conquered but spawned the Carthaginians, and some people claim that the Maltese are descende from them.

I ought to look up more on the Turks, but my vague memory is of them being not only quite nomadic, but forming and reforming a multitude of states.
Attila the Hun being a fairly classsic example.

quote: In fact almost every example you've given are countries captured, but not absorbed by the new nation, not a displaced and wandering nation.

are you sure?

	07-03-2004 23:15									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

But what is the time scale? And turning into a nomadic/semi-nomadic tribe would just be becoming what we term a culture outisde the "civilizations"

	07-03-2004 23:28									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: after 250 years, they should be beginning to become a distinct EG, defined by a dialect. After say 500 years, then they should certainly have a distinct language, and be a descendent

if they can survive long enough as an identity like the Romany or Hebrews, then why not 2000 yrs?

	10-03-2004 18:55									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Because both didn't survive as wandering tribes, but as groups that integrated into other societies, but remained distinct enough that even though they might adopt some ideals of a particular culture (FE an american jew different from a french jew). What you're saying is that won't happen because they'll just wander around. After some time period they should start begin to want to settle down reguardless of where it is (maybe with the exception of palces that are openly hostile to them and/or the country that pushed them to wander). Romanies are a bit different, but essentially the same thing...although they tend to wander more, essentially to survive they had to make a compromise and atleast settle down somwehat, although like the jewish people keep their cultural identity intact. This part, of cultural absorbtion or whatever you want to call it, is suppose to be handled in the culture model for specifically such situations you mentioned.

	11-03-2004 07:38									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The way Clash works, any entity that cannot support a standing army cannot be a civilization. This may, at a later stage in the development of the game, be refined to allow tribal militias.

In history, the number of civilizations under this requirement is rather limited. The Germanic tribes, Gauls and Britons, the early Roman Republic, Greece except for Sparta, and later Thebes, do not qualify.

Cheers

	11-03-2004 14:47									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The way Clash works, any entity that cannot support a standing army cannot be a civilization. This may, at a later stage in the development of the game, be refined to allow tribal militias. In history, the number of civilizations under this requirement is rather limited. The Germanic tribes, Gauls and Britons, the early Roman Republic, Greece except for Sparta, and later Thebes, do not qualify.

That sounds incredibly dull.

I mean, aren't you missing a huge chunk of the game by failing to allow for large tribal armies which don't qualify as "standing armies".

What about epic battles like Telamon and the one where Vercingetorix and the Aedui got stuffed?

And, as you concede, early Rome won't qualify either - how many nations will before the year 1AD!

Every single one at 9000BC I should think! They'd surely have to develop one or two technologies before they could even research "standing army" tech, wouldn't they?!

I suppose there is a semantic issue here - I'm using the word "nation", you're using the word "civilisation"...

...What, in your view, are the things which differentiate the two in this game? And what facility is there for the former to evolve into the latter.

	13-03-2004 01:23									#51
	Remove this text

Gary is just subtly(?) pointing out that standing armies have no historic reality until quite late. Clash military model still relies on the Civilization model, where units are moved around and last for quite a long time. So thinking gameplay here, you'd have to either allow for not standing armies, with standing armies being a late tech (circa 1AD?) invention, or just ignore the limitation. If you don't have standing armies, how do you model units? Note militias can fight one another without requiring any armies, but it wouldn't be much like civ. Note that a civ that wouldn't produce units could still repel invaders because units would spontaneously form out of bad policies, discrimination feelings and such would make them form as a pseudo civ, fight off the invaders, and then rejoin the civ they come from. A very tricky way to defend oneself, but still possible.

From a non military point of view, civs are entities which an ethnic group would like to be part of. This means that most ethnic groups would either be civs or possible civs. It makes it slightly hard to model Greeks when you only have Athenians, Thebans, Spartans (not to mention countless others).

	13-03-2004 17:02									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In "Colonization" you didn't standing military units, you could just bolt a gun on any tradesman unit and he became a soldier, albeit less effective than a purpose-built one.
I think that suggests a possible approach to this issue. I think there are would could be described as civilisations which do not have standing military units - the ancient religious centre states like Angkor, Toltecs, and even early Egypt. The Civ is a cultural and economic entity, a standing army is not essential, as long as there are enough resources - i.e. Citizens + Weapons + whatever else - to form defensive or expeditionary units.
I think something resembling the "Colonization" model is worth exploring.

People with the Greek ethnicity (FE) could surely form into any number of states in a wide range of permutations, from 1 contiguous state to several of different sizes rising and falling, yes?

Names, such as "Theban, Spartan and Athenian", would all be in the little databank of names that the Greek Ethnicity as a whole can draw upon for names of cities, people, places, and nations, yes?

So what's the difficulty? Am I missing something?

	13-03-2004 17:46									#53
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy In "Colonization" you didn't standing military units, you could just bolt a gun on any tradesman unit and he became a soldier, albeit less effective than a purpose-built one.

I've always had in mind to have a mobilization model like you describe available. It is neither implemented nor heavily discussed yet. If the %Q$# search were any good (right now it is screwed up) we could find the old discussions on mobilization. They were IIRC quite a ways back (at least a few years) in mostly the main military threads, but also a bit in the econ and other threads. If anyone wants to keep talking about mobilization we should move the disucussion to the military thread, or maybe create a new thread just on mobilization.

	13-03-2004 21:02									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy People with the Greek ethnicity (FE) could surely form into any number of states in a wide range of permutations, from 1 contiguous state to several of different sizes rising and falling, yes? Names, such as "Theban, Spartan and Athenian", would all be in the little databank of names that the Greek Ethnicity as a whole can draw upon for names of cities, people, places, and nations, yes? So what's the difficulty? Am I missing something?

The point is that we have a string for nationality (the civ you'd like to be part of) and one for religion and that's an ethnic group. So right now if I split Greeks into 2 nationalities Athenians ans Thebans, they are no longer Greek. It's not just a name, it's a name used to know whether you are a favored ethnicity. Greeks discriminated against barbaroi but not among themselves, so the dominant ethnicity of all Greek civs should be the same according to the model. This has the side effect that all of them would like to be part of the same civ, which may not exist. But if they feel oppressed, they would riot and try to rejoin one of the existing Greek civs, and the model doesn't really allow that. I'd have to change it to say 'revolt and become part of whatever civ has your nationality as preferred ethnicity, is not the current square owner, and, amongst these, best matches whatever criteria (being at war with the civ we're revolting against, being near...)

	14-03-2004 00:51									#55
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: It's not just a name, it's a name used to know whether you are a favored ethnicity

I'd like to see Language and Race as part of the definition of an ethnic group.

So that the definition of an EG would be:


Nationality: Spartan or Athenian or Theban or...

Ethnic Group=
Religion: Greek Polytheism
Race: Caucasian
Language: Greek


The names "Mycenaean, Spartan, Phocaean" whatever would then initially "belong" to the Greek Language (= an Ethnolinguistically defined group of people), though once used in the game they could change hands and become something novel.
In the same way that you have a list of city names in Civ which gives you automatic and relevant names for you cities, I'm proposing a "tribe/nation" names list, so that as an Ethnicity (I mean Ethnolinguistic group like the Latins or Chinese or Bantu) evolve, or split into and form new states, tribes, nations, ethnic groups (as defined by language and sometimes race as well as religion) you have the same kind of auto naming tree which you can accept or type in your own, and which the computer controlled civs can draw upon to create a feel of a world which changes around your civ with or without its input.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if they all have the same language and race, then they can easily coalesce into a later Greek nation, as in history.
as in your quote it reflects the political reality of the time and place.

quote: Greeks discriminated against barbaroi but not among themselves, so the dominant ethnicity of all Greek civs should be the same according to the model. This has the side effect that all of them would like to be part of the same civ,

It's clumsy and unnatural to treat Thebans and Atticans as equally distinct with any other State which has the same religion - imagine an Egyptian state forming which had the same religion... well you're ignoring the fact that it has got to have a very different race and language.
which can be factors in discrimination, and the ability to negotiate and acquire technology. These factors also allow a historically plausible way of expressing a Nation's identity as it evolves through the game from straw huts to concrete metropolises.
And it's going to look like a glaring continuity error if you want to have faces for the characters...

I mean what differentiates the Greeks from the "Barbaroi"? Religion, Language, Politics (the greeks form separate states, though Barabaroi can be assimilated).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: I'd have to change it to say 'revolt and become part of whatever civ has your nationality as preferred ethnicity

Citizens should have preferences for their Religion, Language, and Race, perhaps in that order, or perhaps they could vary from regime type to regime type?
These things tend to define nationhood don't they?

(I'm assuming that "Religion" covers the intanglible "Culture", though when you look at the variety within religions like Islam, Chistianity, Buddhism, you wonder whether there's another factor which could be a game feature, though I doubt the others would go for this)

	14-03-2004 03:43									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Keep thing in the mind that the game should be finished before 2100 !

	14-03-2004 16:29									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Je ne suis pas exactement sûr que vous signifiez, mais je ne crois pas que cette idée que j'ai parlée de prenne beaucoup plus long pour appliquer. Et de toute façon, pourquoi c'est meilleur à pas progam ceci dans?

	14-03-2004 17:57									#58
	Support Apolyton

Bon, d'accord, je parle en français ...
Ok i will speak in French

Je voulais simplement dire qu'il faudrait qu'on finisse le jeu avant le 31 Décembre 2099 à minuit

Sinon je trouve que toutes vos idées sont bonnes et applicables Dans l'idéal on devrait implémenter tous ces modules ...

Voilà !

Quel mode de traduction utilisez-vous ?
What mode of translation you use ?

	14-03-2004 18:46									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

http://www.freetranslation.com

ne pas parfait, mais c'est mucho bettero thano meo!

	14-03-2004 21:16									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Arghhh please speak English or correct French if you can't but don't murder either language...
About races: Caucasian wouldn't work very well. I don't like the 'race' thing at all because what do you make of India: they were originally invaded by aryans who were presumably caucasians, but evolved by mating with natives into something different. Plus some people like in the island of La Reunion really can't fit into any of the 'races' you could think of. Would you make a distinct race of Basques for instance? I don't like this at all, because the definition of race is very arbitrary. People discriminate on skin/hair colour and looks, but that's not race. But putting in all the kinds of dicriminations that people have suffered (skin cokour and then hair colour/aryanness under nazis) would probably go a bit far for me.
Languages and families would be fine on the other hand to define groups of ethnicities that are related.