 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
I'll be quoting in this section parts from the actual model and replying to them afterword.
quote:
Ethnic Tolerance: It represents how you see other tribes and what kind of relationship you think exists between your tribe and others. A low ET means you feel your tribe is superior and the rest hardly qualify as human beings. A high ET means you respect other tribes and you're willing to live together with them. |
That's a good idea, but 2 things I'd change. A low one would mean you feel superior, a moderate one you'd feel equal and respectful of other tribes and high one is you'd feel your inferior. The latter is historically accurace. It happened in Far East in several countries after the Europeans came. In some places it was so extreme that someone from outside praising their culture would be an affront to them because they felt they were inferior in every way.
The other is simply a 1/2 switch in that you feel that way about all other cultures or all cultures that are not similar to yours.
quote:
Aggressiveness: This defines how aggressive the culture is. A high score indicates a very warlike culture while a low score indicates peaceful. |
A high score should denote a warlike culture, a moderate score a peaceful, or coexistance culture and a low score a submissive culture.
quote:
The model assumes the govt tries to encourage the idea of Nation and people's adoption of govt's nationality, but this is only possible as long as the concept of Nation is well refined. Assumes also it's harder to do it for far away territories and it's easier for people to embrace govt's nationality if the govt is representative. |
My one big question is how to determine whether a conquered nation with high nationality considers it for the old one or the new one (generally its for the old one, but not always) and for how long because nationality can continue to be strong and slowly change to the conquers nation at the same time.
quote:
In this version both criticisms are incorporated via the "Philosophy" concept. Here, Philosophy will be a moral code (i.e. a set of cultural attributes) the ruler, as the govt's lead, may encourage in his people...For example, somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century a "Fascism" philosophy could be available with high aggressiveness and low ethnic tolerance. With a sufficiently high level of development of some other techs like Sociology, it'd be also possible for the player to create his own philosophy. |
I think it would be a good idea if there were some kind of level indicator on their also for some things, like socialism, ie how far does it go...China is a good example of a partly social state.
quote:
Although this approach serves pretty well for social engineering, it's limited for the other aspect. Moral codes as a form of philosophy aren't necessarily restricted to a govt "implementing" them from top to bottom. The best in terms of realism would be to treat them more like religions, but this would greatly complicate the model because we'd have to model things like "philosophy spreading" and, more importantly, define rules to determine why a certain philosophy finds supporters and others don't. What is proposed here is therefore a compromise between realism and implementation. |
I see no reason why we cannot use the already existing model for religions with very minor tweaks.
quote:
Finally, the family value is a way to introduce "religion branches", like Catholics and Protestants in christianity. Two religions in the same family have the same family value. The value itself is unimportant. |
Hmm...i dunno....atleast 1 attribute should be differnt...otherwise when spreading is concerned if both are present at the same time there will be no easy way to determine which one is more likely to take hold.
These last questions/statements are too broad to contain in a quoted section, so i'll just ask them outright.
1> I still don't see how new EG can be created except if they are conquered (partly) by another nation or part of them move to a new area. I guess I'm wondering how a EG could split in two because of a religious differance or whatnot. And also when would the split occur?
2> Also why can't a ruler force 1 ER over his entire country if his control is high enough and/or try to spread it 'by the sword'? The is certainly historically accurate.
3> There should be somewhere to cope with the ability of ER to counter MER in what i call QER (Quasi-Ethic Religions). This is that the ER feels threated (ie loss of worshippers) to the new invading MER. To counteract this, the ER has a chance to change and adapt to this threat. QER would then get a boost in their popularity (the effect of countering the new religions ways so it seems more appealing while still keeping local traditions). This should only happen once. per religion (not familys, just religions). Thus when it happens, the data is stored in the QER what religion it modified itself to so that if it succeeds and the religion comes back again, it won't happen again. QER cannot spread like MER they adapt to. There is also upon the creation (or recreation) or the QER a switch to wether the parent MER feels its close enough to its religion not to go after it as being hertical to worship. If it was formerly a QER and was contacted by another MER and adapted, then the former MER should now consider it heretical, no matter what.
This solves the problem of religions adapting to fit local customs (which happened with every religion in history, except the first religions ever) and allows for the idea mentioned that many areas 'claimed' to be a major religion, but had many local practices that might be considered heretical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Great Job Rodrigo! The model is getting quite refined. Is there an appendix with the math available yet?
Maybe I don't understand the model completely... but I second LGJs comments about the way you handle Nationality for two High-Nationality states where some territory changes hands. It almost seems to me like you need two Nationality numbers. One being the one you have now in the model, that is Nat for the country they're in, and a second for Another country. So the Bs taken over by the As can be shown to be hating the rule of the As but fervently wanting re-conquest by the Bs. Whereas if the Cs were about to take over they might not prefer them to the As.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Sep 2001
time: 04:38
| |
|
|
Where are the main changes to the model? 
In the meanwhile just a few quick comment about LGJ's feedback:
quote:
A high score should denote a warlike culture, a moderate score a peaceful, or coexistance culture and a low score a submissive culture. |
I I agree with roquijad on this; IMO submissive isn't the opposite side of warlike. Of course that each model team can use the aggressiveness score as they see fit.
quote:
I think it would be a good idea if there were some kind of level indicator on their also for some things, like socialism, ie how far does it go...China is a good example of a partly social state. |
This is already a government policy factor, and as such is affected by the level of the people's Individualism.
As a matter of fact I think we have too many of those variables, and that Private Property and Social Policies should probably be combined into one factor.
Last edited by Yoav Sissman on 25-10-2001 at 21:41
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
|
Sep 2001
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
I assume that the Land Attachment can decrease due to migrations? since as it is it should increase to ~100 and not change. I figure the more of a population that tends to move from one square to another (and the more distantly they move) should describe the TV for Land Attachment (more movement=Less Land attachment)
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
What i meant probably got confused. By submissive i meant thinking themselves as less than others, perhaps less than human. Japan after reopening of trade and prior to the Meiji restoration is one of the best examples of a submissive culture. They viewed themselves as inferior to everyone and would be shamed if any westerner pariased any aspect of Japanese life during that time. They thought all Europeans and Americans were superior in every way to them, culturally, technollogically, economically, etc.
The differance between peaceful and submissve for governments is whether or not they're willing to sacrafice anything for peace.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Rio de Janeiro
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
I second and encourage your thoughts there Mark. I'm not going to repeat what you said, but indeed much of the thinking in the current world isn't based on religion. Philosophy and humanism as you said played a big role in shaping our modern occidental society "code of ethics". Actually I believe that everything got more or less mixed up together, philosophy influencing religion(religion wasn't interpreted the same way in the Middle Ages as it is now), religion more or less influencing philosophy... Another troublesome point: philosophy has been around for a very, very long time (since the Ancient Greeks, Socrates...) yet it hasn't had any real effect on our society's way of thinking until the 16-18th centuries. How to model that? IMHO basic concepts such as philosophy should be "dormant" during the entire game, everywhere in the world. Yet their "influence" in certain parts would be triggered by certain factors, such as in this case:
-prosperity period. When people don't work, they have time to think.
-birth of a "special character" who revives the forgotten doctrine (might be Erasmus, Descartes, Kant,... in Europe f.e).
-contact with other civ that is impregnated by philosophy.
-after a long period of war and general unrest (such as the Middle Ages).
-changing of the cultural attributes of the civ. Some cultural attributes make philosophy more or less likely. A very aggressive civ for example won't see the emergence of philosophy in its boundaries unless they are "clamed down" one way or another. Also, cultures that are extremely attached to religion tend to have a hostile attitude towards philosophy.
Just my 2 cents. Was I clear? What do you think of these ideas?
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
Mikel i haveto disagree with your last statement...once a philosophy is introduced and accepted, it is almost impossible to get rid of entirely. Sure, it'll have its ups and downs, but forms of it remain. What most likely will happen is it will become so part of everyday life that people won't consider it a philosophy, but just common sense or everyday living ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Rio de Janeiro
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
But take for example a religious, despotic form of government that decides to forbid philosophy. In that case you'd have to more or less eradicate philosophy from your nation, as any preachers would be persecuted. Overtime philosophy would be forgotten. Of course another alternative would be that the people decide to overthrow the current regime because it is opposed to their philosophic ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
Do you know how hard that would be? I can think of only 1 time in history where it came close to eradicating all unwanted forms of philosohy, and even then it was not 100% complete. Government attempts to stamp out a religion or philosophy usally work to some degree, but never 100%. Sometimes they've even backfired and made it more liked.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Rio de Janeiro
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
Well, I was thinking of some of the biggest, baddest, brain-washing regimes in History, like Nazi Germany, the USSR... If it happened in those countries then that means it might happen elsewhere. But you are right that 100% eradication should be pretty much impossible.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
In Germany it was supressed, but there were germans who went against the Nazis and even an attempted coup. In Russia, I believ you were refferring to when Stalin was in control? Even at that point, there were many secret orginazations that pervayed and continued their traditioal philosophies and religions. Sure, they were heavily supressed, but never erradicated because they simply began to hide themselves better and better. The point in time i was reffering to was Japan in the latter part of the Meiji Restoriation. This took generations to achieve and they did so by killing off any even slightly possible person who'd rally them against the emperor. Even so, although every japanese person was behind the emperor, he was not able to erradicate their philosophies they've been attached to for generations, merely surpress they in the form of a religious patriotism and fear to those that would openly practice those practices that were banned.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Santiago
|
Nov 1999
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
Comments:
On LGJ's Ethnic Tolerance: I believe you're right, but I'm scared it'd be difficult to model. An EG should have to compare itself with the rest to determine if others are more powerful in order to simulate a feeling of inferiority. And that's a lot of comparisons (too expensive).
On LGJ's Aggressiveness: I agree you can be so peaceful that you avoid confrontations so much that you can consider the culture is submissive because it is willing to accept "bad" treaties in order to preserve peace. I think you have a good point.
On LGJ and Mark's comments on Nationality: I don't see any problem. When french are conquered by the germans, they remain as french (that's because nationality in the model represent the nation the EG feels it belongs to and does not indicate the nation where it lives in or the nation it legally belongs to). Their high nationalism (that's in reference to their (french) nationailty) will make'em hate the german rule or any other foreign govt coming in. And they won't rebel against a french govt if it's able to liberate the territory. If the germans are able to retain power over France, as time passes the new generations don't feel nationalistic as their ancestors did, mainly because the new german rule encourages the german nationality (assuming germans apply little or null discrimination, thus encouraging nationality shift). This is simulated through a slowly decrease in Nationalism in french EGs. With enough time, nationalism in french EGs will be so slow that new generations will feel they're germans rather than french and the french EGs will start to disappear.
On LGJ's religion branches: Religions that are part of the same family have the same family value. All the rest attributes can be different, including the attractiveness values.
LGJ:
quote:
1> I still don't see how new EG can be created except if they are conquered (partly) by another nation or part of them move to a new area. I guess I'm wondering how a EG could split in two because of a religious differance or whatnot. And also when would the split occur? |
a) If an existing EG feels attracted to another religion, then a "split" occurs (new EG created) if there's no EG with the same nationality and having the attractive religion.
b) If the govt encourages nationality X with sufficient power in a given province, then there should be as many EGs with nationality X as different religions currently are. If currently there're less than that number, the game will create them.
c) Migrations will create new EGs if there're no EGs in the destination with the same nationality and religion.
LGJ:
quote:
2> Also why can't a ruler force 1 ER over his entire country if his control is high enough and/or try to spread it 'by the sword'? The is certainly historically accurate. |
I don't understand the question.
On LGJ's QER: I think that's an unnecessary level of model detail.
Mark: No, there's no math available yet.
KrikkitOne:
quote:
I assume that the Land Attachment can decrease due to migrations? |
Exactly. I forgot to mention it in the model, but when migrations take place, Land Connection goes to zero (more radical than you proposed, but it could be implemented like you say when the migrations model is created).
On philosophy: I don't think philosophies are needed. They may be a nice addition, but I don't see any reason for considering they have to be there.
I disagree with the comments about humanism or other philosophical thoughts being the ethical frameworks of the modern world. All of us got our morals from our parents and they in time from theirs. These morals have their base mainly on religion, tradition (that in time is, again, influenced by religion and how it was practiced/interpreted in the past) and common sense (whatever that means). Religion may have lost prominence in modern times, but it hasn't been replaced by other forms of thinking when it comes to moral codes. We can't say humanism has replaced religion in modern times. Not in a demographically relevant magnitude, at least, because most of the people in the world today embrace some form of religion. Also, in most humanist philosophies references to God and the divine remain, showing religion is still the base of moral codes, just with new interpretations. Something like humanism had its biggest influence in the development of democratic and socialist ideas rather than "converting" people from religious beliefs to humanism.
With the exception of confucianism, I don't see people taking philosophies as codes of conduct. I don't see people defining themselves as "Kantian" or "Platonic". I think players would find it very weird if his EGs are "Aristotelic". In other words, people don't pick a philosophy as they do with religions. I don't think we should model philosophies as we're doing with religions.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
quote:
On LGJ's Ethnic Tolerance: I believe you're right, but I'm scared it'd be difficult to model. An EG should have to compare itself with the rest to determine if others are more powerful in order to simulate a feeling of inferiority. And that's a lot of comparisons (too expensive). |
Ok. That wasn't my most important concern, so it can be put on hold till we have more details as to just how complex and stenuous it'd be.
quote:
On LGJ and Mark's comments on Nationality: I don't see any problem. When french are conquered by the germans, they remain as french (that's because nationality in the model represent the nation the EG feels it belongs to and does not indicate the nation where it lives in or the nation it legally belongs to). Their high nationalism (that's in reference to their (french) nationailty) will make'em hate the german rule or any other foreign govt coming in. And they won't rebel against a french govt if it's able to liberate the territory. If the germans are able to retain power over France, as time passes the new generations don't feel nationalistic as their ancestors did, mainly because the new german rule encourages the german nationality (assuming germans apply little or null discrimination, thus encouraging nationality shift). This is simulated through a slowly decrease in Nationalism in french EGs. With enough time, nationalism in french EGs will be so slow that new generations will feel they're germans rather than french and the french EGs will start to disappear. |
Yea as mark said, you should make it easier to read and not so hidden.
quote:
LGJ:
I don't understand the question.
On LGJ's QER: I think that's an unnecessary level of model detail.
Mark: No, there's no math available yet. |
Fist off i was concerned about if as the ruler of my country with, for simplicity, there were 3 EG, 2 with their own ER (ER1 and ER2) and 1 with an MER. How could I, as the ruler (assuming i have virtually 100% Pol. Power) force ER1 as the national religon and do a forced conversion of ER2 and the MER? How could i, in a kinda religious zealous, attempt to spread ER1 beyond the area i control to other EGs? As soon as it spread beyond 1 EG would ER1 become an MER?
As to my second point, i think it is vital. the fact that every single religon beyond the very first ones has adapted in effect to stave off attempts to convert its population to the new religon is not at all represented here. Sorry if this sounds kinda rude, but you seem to be ignoring this extremly important part of the evoultion of religons. My proposal might be a little to bogged down (I really don't think so), but it is nessasry to give atleast a somewhat accuract example of how religions react when they come in contact with one another.
quote:
With the exception of confucianism, I don't see people taking philosophies as codes of conduct. I don't see people defining themselves as "Kantian" or "Platonic". I think players would find it very weird if his EGs are "Aristotelic". In other words, people don't pick a philosophy as they do with religions. I don't think we should model philosophies as we're doing with religions. |
Still Confuscianism was the foundation of most Far East countries...you'd be loosing a lot to take something like that out.
|
|
| |
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
  |
|
King
Ashes
|
Jan 2001
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
quote:
These morals have their base mainly on religion, tradition (that in time is, again, influenced by religion and how it was practiced/interpreted in the past) and common sense (whatever that means). Religion may have lost prominence in modern times, but it hasn't been replaced by other forms of thinking when it comes to moral codes. |
I disagree. The French revolution promoted laicism, and the humanism that was promoted around that time is at the core of the French moral codes, at least as much as the dominant religion (christianism). References to God were clearly absent in French humanism, because the clergy was hated by most humanists, and the revolution was as much against the clergy as against the nobles. Revolutionaries even tried to create a new religion (with a goddess and no god), but that didn't work. Still, French ethics and morals, notions like equality and freedom, are rooted as deeply in the humanism as they are in christianism. Considering the number of people who in France, would say they are christian if you insisted they tell you their religion, not one half go to church, and many haven't even been baptised, so maybe quote:
most of the people in the world today embrace some form of religion |
but that religion may not be as relevant as their philosophy as far as these people live everyday life.
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
|
Sep 2001
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
I think they would simply have a VERY Low Religious Affinity. Religion would have already made its impact on their culture, and their culture continues as it is without an impact from religion (only form other external forces) after al an EG still has "values" before and without religion, religion is just an extra influence.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Rio de Janeiro
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
Hey roquijad, I just read the new social model. A couple of things that come to mind:
-what happened to the migrations sub-model? If you really don't have time for it I could help you out if you want.
-I somewhat disagree when you separate the basic attributes from the moral code attributes. Presonally I believe all attributes should be somewhat influenced by religions and philosophies. For example, the religion importance attribute would be changed a big deal by philosophy, as well as nationalism. Corruption should be very heavily influenced by religion.
I don't have much time now, I'll post something more exhaustive later.
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
Tongeren, Belgium
|
Apr 2001
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrikkitOne
I think they would simply have a VERY Low Religious Affinity. Religion would have already made its impact on their culture, and their culture continues as it is without an impact from religion (only form other external forces) after al an EG still has "values" before and without religion, religion is just an extra influence. |
I agree. What else are philosophies than a wording and manifestation of culture? The 'importance of religion' attribute should indicate to what extent a religion influences attributes.
Religions should also change under the influence of dominant ethnic groups (though not too much). The rate determined by 'Ethnic Tolerance' and logically also traditionalism: traditionalist religions seek to preserve their current structure.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Santiago
|
Nov 1999
time: 02:38
| |
|
|
Sorry for being away so long.
Lordy: I understand now your ER1/ER2/ME scenario. When the govt has an official religion, the "faith points" for that religion increases, making it more attractive. FPs are also augmented the more religious infra (churches) of that religion exists. Finally, the Religious Discrimination govt policy decrease faith points of other beliefs (so it is a form of "by the sword" conversion). So, as a ruler you can encourage a given religion (be it ER or ME) through your control of govt, its policies and investements.
And no, an ER can never become a ME. And you cannot make ERs spread to other territories, because by definition they can't spread to other EGs.
quote:
As to my second point, i think it is vital. |
Well, we disagree. Don't get me wrong. I think your view is historically more accurate than my aproach. It's just that I don't think is mandatory to model it and we can take a simpler road.
quote:
Still Confuscianism was the foundation of most Far East countries...you'd be loosing a lot to take something like that out. |
Yes, and I don't want to lose it. That's why I introduced the idea of philosophies in the new model in the first place. With the system I propose Confucianism would be there, not exactly as in RL, but there after all. And w/o forcing other EGs to be "Platonic" or strange things like that. It's a compromise.
LDiCesare: I just feel humanism didn't start out of no-where. Even if a form of humanism rejects religion, it's not true its doctrine is free from religious influences. I'm atheist and I actually profoundly dislike catholicism (the dominant religion in my country), yet my morals are pretty similar to those of a catholic. Something tells me this is no coincidence....
Mikael:
1) It's true, the division of attributes has some flaws, but I feel I'm not losing nothing big, while this structure greatly helps model attributes evolution.
2) At some point in the discussions, long ago, I decided to leave migrations out of the model. There should be a migrations models to handle it. If you want to get into it, go for it. But I can't involve in that because I can't take responsability for more models. I of course can give you my opinions on the subject if you start modeling it, but no more..
Mark:
quote:
I at least would like to get the Society model stuff into D6 fairly soon, so getting the math going for all the model interactions is fairly high priority IMO. |
Ok. I don't know exactly when I'm gonna have the time to do it, but I can promise social model maths (just this model) for two more weekends or less.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
St. Louis
|
Sep 1999
time: 20:38
| |
|
|
quote:
And no, an ER can never become a ME. And you cannot make ERs spread to other territories, because by definition they can't spread to other EGs. |
That sux. But my follow up question is, can 2 differnt EG share the same ER because you force it within your own contry. This wouldn't be the same as am MER because it can't be spread beyond your domain of control.
quote:
Well, we disagree. Don't get me wrong. I think your view is historically more accurate than my aproach. It's just that I don't think is mandatory to model it and we can take a simpler road. |
I disagree, mainly because i think that eventually all ERs will be wiped out, and prob long before they were IRL. Anyway I still think you shouldn't completely dismiss it.
quote:
country), yet my morals are pretty similar to those of a catholic. Something tells me this is no coincidence.... |
To some extent it is. I for one live in a predomiatly Protistant/Catholic country | |
|
|
