17-08-2002 01:26									#91
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Ramo, what if I call your potential difference happiness, and use the scaled version of it as the cost function of a simple GA?

The basic problems with the GA are that:
1. I don't think most women should do anything independent from their husbands. Sure, there are exceptions, but they're negligible, and the husband's priorities should be far more determinant in a child's prospects. I don't want independent women running around in the game, unless there's a reasonable social reason for this phenomenon.
2. Quite often, lesser sons (and daughters) of noble households went into the clergy, despite their parents certainly not being of the clergy.

quote: Ramo, what if I call your potential difference happiness,

The thing is, that it isn't. I think it's called marginal demand, or some kind of economic term. Happiness is a very different concept in the game.

quote: For instance, when you don't have enough food, peasants will starve, are very unhappy, and will not want to have their childs in the same profession but try to get them into clergy.

If you don't have enough food, economic factors would dictate that the the peasants would be able to command a higher price for his food/labor, and the number of peasants would increase to meet this increase in demand.

BTW, peasant clergy were only marginally better off than peasant farmers.

	17-08-2002 02:00									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I don't think we should pay any attention to breeding/children dynamics because:
1. There's no real reason why its effects shouldn't be negligible.
2. And more importantly, it doesn't add anything, at all, to the player.

quote: Or girls were 'given' to the nobles as maids, just to make sure they were fed properly. If I understand the societal model well enough, maids of nobles fall in the same nobles class in CB. A count wouldn't marry a peasant, but a maid could...

If by 'maid' you mean noblewomen, certainly not. A poor maid might marry a rich burgher, but this is certainly a negligible phenomenon.

Well, I'm off to Pennsylvania. I guess I'll resume this conversation in about ten days.

	17-08-2002 04:15									#93
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The basic problems with the GA are that: 1. I don't think most women should do anything independent from their husbands. Sure, there are exceptions, but they're negligible, and the husband's priorities should be far more determinant in a child's prospects. I don't want independent women running around in the game, unless there's a reasonable social reason for this phenomenon. 2. Quite often, lesser sons (and daughters) of noble households went into the clergy, despite their parents certainly not being of the clergy.

Re: 1. : Okay, irl it was probably the case. But correct me if I'm wrong (in 10 days ), both men and women work in CB, no? If this is already so, would it be a big utopian thing if men and women had equal things to say over the raising of their children?

Re: 2. True, but this is modeled in the GA because of the mutation. Maybe the model should be refined a little, but there are also examples of peasants becoming Nobles (as in servants of nobles, but in very rare cases also true nobles (Jeanne d'Arc)), or nobles becoming peasants, rogues, merchants. Certain transitions are far more likely to occur then others, but irl all transitions happened.

quote: The thing is, that it isn't. I think it's called marginal demand, or some kind of economic term. Happiness is a very different concept in the game.

I don't know. Happiness is an abstract idea, which follows certain rules. As such it could qualify, without many changes... it already incorporates a supply-demand system because people in the wrong kind of jobs are unhappy. And the added things to happiness (like starvation) were a big factor too irl.

quote: If you don't have enough food, economic factors would dictate that the the peasants would be able to command a higher price for his food/labor, and the number of peasants would increase to meet this increase in demand.

Ah, but if that is the case, peasants should be more happy in CB when they are starving. They will be the first ones to feel the effects, and will be the first ones to die. Sure, purely economic they could ask higher prices, if only they had the power to do so... but that should make them happier, selling their own food. So if your economic model is followed, there is a design flaw in the current happiness model of CB.

Besides, using happiness as a costfunction while starving further adds to the game mechanic where the peasants are the first ones to die from too few food, it would be totally unlogical to let them have more children, while the parents are dieing... those children wouldn't survive long.

quote: If by 'maid' you mean noblewomen, certainly not. A poor maid might marry a rich burgher, but this is certainly a negligible phenomenon.

Maybe my terminology is a bit off, I wanted to talk about maids as in servants. If I understand the Nobles model, servants to the Nobles are also considered as part of the Nobles class, no? As long as they are very close to them, and not a seperate class (like e.g. artists working for them). It is not unthinkable that a servant marries a peasant, even if one is considered to be part of the nobles class (but not a noblewoman). If the class of Nobles is build like that, interclass marriage could occur, even if there would be a tendancy to keep within the own class. Another example: squires are considered to be Nobles in CB, no? Surely, these were not Noble irl, most of these came straight from peasant families.

At any rate, only having 7 archetypes is already a simplification, and can't in any way model the intricacies of medieval life accurately...

DeepO

	17-08-2002 08:22									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DeepO,

I just had an apocolypse. Our CB system doesn't model the middle ages, so much as the late middle ages/renaisance. Why?

The history. CB wasn't created by hordes of barbarian cheiftans vieying for power against a wounded empire, but rather people fleeing from a heidious force. In such, there was much more mobility between classes, and even the least of the people were in great demand. This works kinda like the plague, every class and people were effected. Peasants could move up due to the vacuums, especially if they did well on the battlefield.

Just a thought, though a lot of things could settle down after 200 years....

	17-08-2002 15:50									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

JMarks, so what was your point, that free marriage between classes/archetypes should be possible, because CB is a special situation, and not an accurate depiction of medieval life? I hear you, but maybe you should address this to Ramo

BTW: The plague: I've read something about implementing the plague somewhere on this forum, in which also the societal effects of it are described: It was not just a kill-everyone-in-sight decease, certain groups were harder hit than others. Peasants came less in contact with the plague, and burghers were over exposed and decimated. The only groups of burghers who were relatively unaffected were the gravediggers and the barkeepers: gravediggers became more or less immune, while barkeepers were keeping away the fleas because of the acidic wine they served. Might be an idea to use somewhere...

DeepO

	17-08-2002 17:16									#96
	Put an end to popups!

That's too funny, Deep-O! Hadn't heard that about the barkeeps before....coolio!

-=Vel=-

	27-08-2002 00:57									#97
	Tired of ads?

quote: Re: 1. : Okay, irl it was probably the case. But correct me if I'm wrong (in 10 days ), both men and women work in CB, no?

Yep.

quote: If this is already so, would it be a big utopian thing if men and women had equal things to say over the raising of their children?

Nope. Men and women certainly worked in the middle ages, but there wasn't anything close to a sexually egalitarian utopia.

I like to see clear, socio-economic reasons for the status quo being the way it is are in CB, being a pretty big fan of social history myself. For instance, if there was an extreme shortage of women in the world, something close to an equal status for women could be justified.

quote: Re: 2. True, but this is modeled in the GA because of the mutation. Maybe the model should be refined a little, but there are also examples of peasants becoming Nobles (as in servants of nobles,

I don't think peasant servants of nobles should be considered nobles themselves...

quote: I don't know. Happiness is an abstract idea, which follows certain rules. As such it could qualify, without many changes...

For instance, look at Europe after the bubonic plague/anthrax of the 14th century. Due to the huge decrease in peasant population, their bargaining ability increased quite a bit, but because their bargaining ability increased, the aristocracy imposed restrictions on their freedom, making them quite a bit more unhappy despite the increase in their demand. Happiness should be tied to government stability, not job changes.

quote: Ah, but if that is the case, peasants should be more happy in CB when they are starving. They will be the first ones to feel the effects, and will be the first ones to die. Sure, purely economic they could ask higher prices, if only they had the power to do so... but that should make them happier, selling their own food. So if your economic model is followed, there is a design flaw in the current happiness model of CB.

I don't think happiness should be directly tied to the economic status of an archetype, rather to governmental policies (taxation levels, serfdom levels, and the like).

quote: Besides, using happiness as a costfunction while starving further adds to the game mechanic where the peasants are the first ones to die from too few food, it would be totally unlogical to let them have more children, while the parents are dieing... those children wouldn't survive long.

1. If the populace is starving for some reason, the growth rate would decrease. The population would go down or at least increase more slowly.
2. The farmers would only make up a larger proportion of CB, they wouldn't necessarily increase in number.
3. The idea behind the increase in farmers is that peasants working in non-farming jobs would till the land.

quote: Maybe my terminology is a bit off, I wanted to talk about maids as in servants. If I understand the Nobles model, servants to the Nobles are also considered as part of the Nobles class, no?

I don't think that's a very accurate representation in the vast majority of cases... Peasants serving Nobles shouldn't represent the Nobility without a damn good reason.

quote: This works kinda like the plague, every class and people were effected. Peasants could move up due to the vacuums, especially if they did well on the battlefield.

Keep in mind the Black Plague gave feudalism a new lease in life. Serfdom was in sharp decline in the 13th century because land was scarce and labor was cheap, but the Plague changed that.

	27-08-2002 14:57									#98
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Let's end the discussion on whether women should be allowed to have a say in what their children do as an occupation, even if I take your point that it it may not be historically accurate, maybe the implementation will decide otherwise... let's cross that bridge when the societal model is being coded [quote]I don't think peasant servants of nobles should be considered nobles themselves...

Of course it wasn't in real life, but this is taken right from the societal model... Vel had a remark somewhere that the nobles class does not contain only the true nobles, but also everything surrounding them... I wondered how far this goes. Squires should be nobles, even if they didn't had blue blood flowing through their veins?

quote: For instance, look at Europe after the bubonic plague/anthrax of the 14th century. Due to the huge decrease in peasant population, their bargaining ability increased quite a bit, but because their bargaining ability increased, the aristocracy imposed restrictions on their freedom, making them quite a bit more unhappy despite the increase in their demand. Happiness should be tied to government stability, not job changes.

Well, in the model now it will be tied to both, I think. I haven't seen a complete happiness formula yet, but so far job changes (at least doing a job that is not really 'normal', like burghers needing to work the land because there aren't enough peasants) are part of it. Your economic-happiness relation is valid, but probably we'll have to abstract this a little to simplify the calculations.

quote: 1. If the populace is starving for some reason, the growth rate would decrease. The population would go down or at least increase more slowly.

So, when starvation leads to unhappiness, unhappiness would be (indirectly) related to growth: more starvation (=more unhappiness) = decrease of population.

quote: 2. The farmers would only make up a larger proportion of CB, they wouldn't necessarily increase in number.

No, that is not how the societal model works now, in there farmers are the first to starve. Their numbers would drastically drop, where the burghers had all the food they wished for, and even grow in number.

quote: 3. The idea behind the increase in farmers is that peasants working in non-farming jobs would till the land.

So, less farmers (because they die) lead to more farmers being born? Only if jobs are linked to the chance of relative pop growth... which was more or less my point to start with

quote: I don't think that's a very accurate representation in the vast majority of cases... Peasants serving Nobles shouldn't represent the Nobility without a damn good reason.

See above. It was not my idea, it's how I read Vel's description. Maybe I'm wrong...

quote: Keep in mind the Black Plague gave feudalism a new lease in life. Serfdom was in sharp decline in the 13th century because land was scarce and labor was cheap, but the Plague changed that.

Just to make sure: what era is CB supposed to be in? is it 11th century, or rather 14th century (early renaissance)? It changes a lot if we want to compare to what really happened. Even if societal history isn't one of my major interests, I know a few things of it as well, no wonder when you live in a country that had it's biggest economical surge in the late 13th to early 16th century. The return to serfdom certainly wasn't a general thing, and for Flanders I doubt it that it happened at all: the late 13th century marks where feudalism began its sharp decline... we're not France

DeepO

	30-08-2002 05:06									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Let's end the discussion on whether women should be allowed to have a say in what their children do as an occupation, even if I take your point that it it may not be historically accurate, maybe the implementation will decide otherwise... let's cross that bridge when the societal model is being coded

My point really was, maybe they will, maybe they wouldn't. We don't have to deal with that question if we don't model birthing dynamics, which I don't think is very important.

quote: Of course it wasn't in real life, but this is taken right from the societal model... Vel had a remark somewhere that the nobles class does not contain only the true nobles, but also everything surrounding them... I wondered how far this goes. Squires should be nobles, even if they didn't had blue blood flowing through their veins?

I'm not sure what Vel means. Where did he write that? BTW, squires certainly DID have noble blood. They were a step below knights int he feudal hierarchy.

quote: Well, in the model now it will be tied to both, I think.

I don't think the model says anything about economic dynamics (and how happiness relates to it) right now...

quote: Your economic-happiness relation is valid, but probably we'll have to abstract this a little to simplify the calculations.

Like I said, I don't think happiness should be tied to the economics of the situation, directly...

quote: So, when starvation leads to unhappiness, unhappiness would be (indirectly) related to growth: more starvation (=more unhappiness) = decrease of population.

No, I don't think happiness should be related to population growth rates... The only things I think it should be directly related to are stability and governmental policies.

quote: No, that is not how the societal model works now, in there farmers are the first to starve. Their numbers would drastically drop, where the burghers had all the food they wished for, and even grow in number.

I don't think this is a valid model. I think starvation should cause a disproportionate decrease in peasants' growth rates over that of the other classes, but burghers and members of other classes shouldn't start dying only after all the peasants are killed off...

quote: So, less farmers (because they die) lead to more farmers being born? Only if jobs are linked to the chance of relative pop growth... which was more or less my point to start with

No, under my model, more peasants would BECOME farmers. They'd move from non-farming jobs to farming jobs.

quote: Just to make sure: what era is CB supposed to be in? is it 11th century, or rather 14th century (early renaissance)?

I don't know. I don't know if we've reached agreement over what the society looks like.

quote: The return to serfdom certainly wasn't a general thing, and for Flanders I doubt it that it happened at all: the late 13th century marks where feudalism began its sharp decline... we're not France

Well, that's due to the huge textiles industry in Flanders. The low countries were exceptional cases. So was Italy. But in areas where agriculture was vital, the end of feudalism faced a setback.