Social Technologies

[roquijad]

This thread is meant to give us space to discuss the so-called "social techs". The idea is to solve how to handle certain "advances" that do not fit well in the tech system and are more related to social evolution.

The first question is what techs are "strange" to be handled in the regular tech system. One of them is religion, but for that we have an agreement so far which is "leave control to the social model alone". Another one is slavery/abolishing_slavery, where I believe we have agreement too: "leave control to govt and social models". What else? Are ideologies social techs? Why? What about art? Which makes me wonder... do we have a better definition for what a "social tech" is?

[Lord God Jinnai]

What is/isn't controlled in the tech model as far as I see it for 'social techs' is those that giving them 'more advanced forms' might lead to biasing like religion. Art is a prime example of this.

However social techs, incluing religion for a few stuff requires input from tech model. FE animation can't be learned at the beginning of the game, nor can be be learned ever if you never know how to producing the illusion of motion pictures. But animation isn't 'better' than its predisesor 'drawing' or 'painting' just like 'monotheism' isn't better than 'polytheism.' Its just a differnt form of expression and medium.

Some things are also linked equally with both models, equally being a relative term. Laws and Administration are good examples. These beome more complex and more effiecent as the levels progress. But, laws and the way things are administered vary from place to place. In some places it may be acceptable for an aristicrat to kill a peasant for stealing, but the peasant has little recourse for the same situation reversed. In other areas the punishment might not be so hard and the peasant might have more recourse. Also cetain idea, or ideologies as they are refered to, require certain levels of understanding to even be considered. After that their definition is usually crude and changes over time and becomes more complex.

Anyway since ideologies would be more appopriate over here can you copy your post from tech model here rodrigo? Also that list will haveto be expanded as it doesn't incorperate many of the modern types of government or sometimes, lack of it (such as rule by crimelords), etc.

[Richard Bruns]

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following hybrid concepts that would be social techs. I believe that these cannot be treated by the existing models alone:

Arts and Literature
Philosophy
Environmentalism
Ideologies
Government types
Clivalry/Way of the Blade
Crusade/Jihad
Literacy

Basically, things that cover the development of human thought should be social techs. For social techs, the knowledge of the subject advances (tech component) yet the impact depends on populatity and acceptance (social component).

[Richard Bruns]

After looking the social model thread, I realized that there was another definition for social techs: techs that the social, cultural, and religious leaders care about. I don't think anybody has ever been branded a heretic for building a better plow or making a stronger building, but people who introduce new social and philosophical concepts can easily get other people mad at them.

Religion should have a very small impact on the engineering type techs, but the social techs are affected by religion (or lack of it) in many complex and subtle ways. That is another reason for building a social tech system.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Alright, I've gone ahead and posted here some ideologies. Rather than have tons of ideologies such as "Capatalisic Demorcracy" i think we should stick to "pure" forms of the only as seperate ideologies, and allow the social classes to choose more than one, otherwise we could come up with hundreds and thousands of combinations. There may some exceptions though.

Despotism
Federalism
Confederatism(?)
Divie Rule
Monarchy
Constitutional Government
Oligarchy
Republic
Capitalistism
Democracy
Communism
Socialism
Fundamentalism
Anarchism
Fascism
Feudalism
Marxism
Nationalism
Utilitarianism

Some ones I don't have names for:
Rule by Crime Lords (Think Bosina w/o UN peackeers)
Rule by Bussiness (think Final Fantasy 7 FE)
Rule by Machines (You've probably seen or read what I'm talking about)
Military Rule
Rule by LC

Anyway there's probalby more than I have here. If fact I'm sure there is.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited August 15, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

I agree that economic preference and government preference should be stored seperately.

I think that there could be a few problems with LGJ's list:

Capitalism is tracked as a seperate ruling method. I din't understand this.

Constitutional Government shouldn't be seperate. Almost any form of government can have a constitution.

The main problem I see is that the identity of the ruler should not be an ideology type. The military, for example, could rule by any method it chose, including democracy (In the book Starship Troopers there is an example of this).

So to reduce complexity, we should split up the parts by defining the ruler seperately from the method of government. The ruler can be any social class, and there are a few other choices like Democracy.

The ruling method is the actual ideology that is being used. Ruling methods are things like Socialism, Fascism, etc.

And finally, the economic choice should be tracked seperately. Basically, this is a scale that goes from pure capitalism (0% planned) to a 100% planned economy.

This allows mixing and flexibility; for example, the scientific class could be in charge, governing by a fascist ideology, and planning 75% of the economy.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Moved to Gov. Thread
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited August 15, 2000).]

[roquijad]

Gentlemen:

You're discussing things that are already solved in the govt model. There's a good reason for having economic as well as political systems together, FE. Refer to the govt model. If you don't like the implementation we (I and Axi) took, please comment it in the govt model thread.

The list of ideologies is unimportant. We just have to figure out how they'll be discovered in general sense without concentrating in a particular list.

Some comments on Richard's list of social techs:

Arts: We can have a unique social tech called "art" or several techs like "sculpture", "literature", etc. I vote for just one. To avoid biases, I propose, as I did in the social model thread, to have the art tech interpreted as the AMOUNT of art produced by the civ. No references to styles, like "greco-recoman style" or such.

Philosophy: Again, I think we should interpret this tech as the amount of philosophy produced. This tech should help ideologies development.

Enviromentalism: As proposed by you in the social thread, ethnic groups and religion will have in a future version of the model a "Natural Affinity" attribute. The value for this attribute should depend, among other things, on polution generated in the civ. In time, the attribute should encourage the development of eclogical-friendly techs. I think is a good idea to have the "enviromentalism" tech depending on Natural Affinity and this tech in time should help developing techs like solar energy plants. sounds good?

Govt types: Ideologies ARE the govt types, so we only have to care about ideologies.

Chivalry/WOB: I presume here you're refering to things like Samurais. I believe we can have this tech (application, really) using on one side the "normal" tech "horseback riding" (or the equivalent you're using now) plus the Importance of Religion attribute from the social model. Sounds good?

Crusades/Holy wars: I've shown in the social model how people can be inclined or not to this type of activities. I don't think we need a tech for it.

Literacy: A future version of the social model will have an education level attribute. I don't think we need this tech.

-----------
One important thing we must solve soon is what cultural info the social tech system will use. Since a civ can be composed by several ethnic groups, it's not clear from which of them info must be taken to be the inputs for social techs. My proposal is to take the info from the "majorities" group. They're the "culture in charge" of the civ, to say it simply. Sounds reasonable?

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: Arts: We can have a unique social tech called "art" or several techs like "sculpture", "literature", etc. I vote for just one. To avoid biases, I propose, as I did in the social model thread, to have the art tech interpreted as the AMOUNT of art produced by the civ. No references to styles, like "greco-recoman style" or such.

I say do it the same as the rest of the tech model. Have "The Arts" as the foremost one and have braches for differnt ones from there. This allows for varying degrees of emphasis which is what can make a civ well known. FE Egypt is known for its architetural art in pyramids and such, not nearly so much as its drawings (not to be confused with pottery or heiroglyphics). Anyway your right that it shouldn't be decreed what type it is by this model. That will done in the 'flavor' section when starting the game.

quote: Philosophy: Again, I think we should interpret this tech as the amount of philosophy produced. This tech should help ideologies development.

I agree and should not be shown to inherantly go toward one style or another. That should be based on ethnic modifiers.

quote: Enviromentalism: As proposed by you in the social thread, ethnic groups and religion will have in a future version of the model a "Natural Affinity" attribute. The value for this attribute should depend, among other things, on polution generated in the civ. In time, the attribute should encourage the development of eclogical-friendly techs. I think is a good idea to have the "enviromentalism" tech depending on Natural Affinity and this tech in time should help developing techs like solar energy plants. sounds good?

Overall yes. One should be able to achieve it with low scores on Natural Affinity though.

quote: Chivalry/WOB: I presume here you're refering to things like Samurais. I believe we can have this tech (application, really) using on one side the "normal" tech "horseback riding" (or the equivalent you're using now) plus the Importance of Religion attribute from the social model. Sounds good?

Well the equivalent is land-based riding i believe, though it should be a helper tech since Samarai FE did not use horses.

quote: Crusades/Holy wars: I've shown in the social model how people can be inclined or not to this type of activities. I don't think we need a tech for it.

I'm with you on this.

quote: Literacy: A future version of the social model will have an education level attribute. I don't think we need this tech.

Alright we can postpone it for now, but it will need to be a tech of some type.

quote: One important thing we must solve soon is what cultural info the social tech system will use. Since a civ can be composed by several ethnic groups, it's not clear from which of them info must be taken to be the inputs for social techs. My proposal is to take the info from the "majorities" group. They're the "culture in charge" of the civ, to say it simply. Sounds reasonable?

No, for one big reason. Many 'minorities' thoughout history have come up with great inventions that would seem to be taken credit by majorities. We can modify minority output, ie making it not count as much, but if you have an entire agricultural society based on minorities working there and coming up with ways to improve thier lives you can't model that with just majorities.

[alms66]

On Literacy... It isn't needed as a tech at all, once you discover Writing, you can automatically read it. The place literacy comes in is with the education level attribute Rodrigo spoke of, to know how literate the populace is.

[Stuff2]

I suggest we leave art outside the system.
There is no need to involve art since the social effects from art always can be traced from other factors like religion and ideology. Art can be 'invisible included' in religion, ideology and happiness.

[Lord God Jinnai]

There are differnt types of art that come onling at differnt peridos. Also, what you say is true, but non of those need apply. In fact that may be the reason a government spends more to develope art is to increase those things or atleast some of them. It also displays pride in the country for really high levels. You can have high levels of the those modifiers and have almost no art.

[Richard Bruns]

roquijad:

Your treatment of my list of concepts seems good. I don't agree on a few of the details, but I trust that you know what you are doing so I won't argue. I'll see what you and LGJ come up with.

Just make sure that things like Chivalry are not available at the beginning of the game. They should only become available once the civ develops to a certain point. That is my main concern.

[Stuff2]

What i am saying is that art is always an expression of something else, art is used in all sorts of contexts and different purposes.
Art is used both for propaganda and antipropaganda, it's used for expression and entertainment. Art has always been and will always be a reality in a society. And beacouse of that there is no need to incorporate it as a system in a civgame since it has no effect that isn't depending on other factors than the Art itself. Maybe there could be an option to spend money on 'culture'. This will give a bit happier population and other people will think of your people a little less agressive.

[roquijad]

Richard:
If you don't want to get involved in the discussion, it's alright, but maybe this is THE moment for you to give arguments, now we're starting. Why don't you state your opinion in one post and then forget about it until things are finished?

Stuff2:
I completely agree with you. Things you mention also help sustain the argument of not worrying about art styles or types. But I'm sure you agree that the AMOUNT of art produced in a society is not always the same. And this is why I believe we need the tech, interpreting its "tech level" as the amount of art produced.

[Richard Bruns]

My views:

Social technologies are concepts that have two important features:

The knowledge of and experience with the thing grows over time, and its implementation becomes more effective given a steady support base.

The effects of the thing depend on its popularity and acceptance, and other social factors.

For example, consider the concept of the holy war. Over time, leaders get better and better at turning the faithful into zealous warriors. In early times, they were not even able to do implement holy wars. In the middle ages, they were only able to channel the existing agression from one enemy to another. But in this century, the Nazis were able to turn the SS into a cult that fanatically attempted to eliminate all of the Reich's enemies.

But the effectiveness of this also depends on public support. Calling a crusade will work best if almost everyone supports the religion; if the religion is unpopular it will do very little.

If you come up with a model that accurately models things like this, I will be happy. It might be as simple as defining the social techs as both a normal tech and a social attribute. Each part would use the existing systems, and the two parts would be combined to get th etotal effectiveness.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Stuff2:
Art level isn't the quality of the art nor the style since you will always have people saying that one is better than another. I wouldn't say Art is the quanity like rodrigo says, well atleast not the way it comes out, but how much it is apart of the people and civ. Some cultures are quite happy and have tons of art, while others are quite happy and have almost none, perferring in more practical matters. Also art is subdivided into differnt sections, at most 5. This is because art is also varied depending upon what type.

The art level will be very important for the wonders and achievements model also because having low art minded people tends to lower the chance of something becoming a wonder. I mean FE the Taj Mahal is a tomb, but so it every gravesite in the world you could say.

4 types of art:
Theatre: Plays and later motion picture
Music: Songs and dances.
Literature: Stories written and spoken, poems, etc.
Drawing/Painiting: Obvious
Animation: Obvious, needs app. tech and drawing/painting level. This is really needed to be seperate because you can do stuff with animation that can't be done with drawings (well not without making comic books 500 or so pages).

Well we might go ahead and put visual arts and performing arts and then put those as 3rd level categories.

Anyway each society has differnt concerns at to what type of art they want to emphasize. They might want all of them to advance, but generally they choose 1 or 2 to really pursue.

[roquijad]

I don't consider art as being so important that it needs a fine and detailed modeling. That's why I think we only need to get track of the amount of art the civ produces. It's in my mind the only relevant variable for this game.
[This message has been edited by roquijad (edited August 20, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

We need to atleast have some differance for the wonder/achievment model because it will reflect as to what your civ is most likely to create, ie Mona Lisa or the Taj Mahal. FE in a Muslim society it would be the latter since they are not allowed to paint anything (or draw) that is a creation of Allah.

Having these 3 should do:
Visual Arts
Architectural Arts (I know its really part of the latter, but for here we're saying its differnt)
Performing Arts (This is also ness since many tribal cultures might have high levels of this, but not ness of the other or atleast architectural arts).
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited August 20, 2000).]

[roquijad]

where were we, LGJ....?

I think it's reasonable to have Art as you proposed a few posts ago, that is, like the tech system: An "Art" tech with branches.

I'm concerned about the interpretation for the "tech level". I know you don't like much my idea of seeing it as an amount of art produced. But if not this, what then? You said in one of the posts that it could be interpreted as "how much it is apart of the people and civ". If so, I think it'd be really complicated to evaluate.

I think we need arts, specially for use in the wonders model, but I also believe we need a very crude and simple modeling. Too much work in a single variable would be like to much effort, I guess.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well i like it better as how much it is a part of the people's daily lives because its more representational of the enthic groups and civ as a whole then just how much art they produce. Those who have it more a part of their lives also tend in general to produce more art, though not ness large things like monuments. It also depends on the type of art. Having it based solely on how much art is produced would be imo a lot more open to abuse by the player because he could also request and drastic increase/decrease in the art produced. Perhpas it could represent the latter as a byporduct of the former?

[roquijad]

but how would you measure "how much art is part of daily lives" for an ethnic group? I mean, what variables from the ethnic groups would push the tech level (as you define it) to increase or decrease? I know you suggested once that we could use a "importance of art" variable, but that's only moving the problem somewhere else. The art tech would use this variable, but what value it should take in the social model? What things will make IoA go up or down?

It seems to me we'll be facing some real difficulties going that way...

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well can you give me all the current list of ethnic modifiers and which ones are used also for religions? This is because i know IoR is one, but only in certain religions.

[roquijad]

Ethnic modifiers? I suppose you mean ethnic attributes. If so, here they're:

Ethnic Tolerance
Religious Tolerance
Aggressiveness
Traditionalism
Nationalism
Land Connection
Asceticism
Importance of Religion
Individualism


TO BE ADDED IN A COMING VERSION
Natural Affinity
Educational Level
Tendency to Corruption

[Lord God Jinnai]

Ok, here's how i'd see it:
Ethnic Tolerance Doesn't affect. *
Religious Tolerance Doesn't affect. *
Aggressiveness Doesn't affect.
Traditionalism Tends to keep the number from changing, the higher traditionalism is, the less likely to change and less change in value will occur.
Nationalism This will tend to bring the Art levels in all the squares/provinces to about the same lavel in each category depneding on how high it is. I have no idea whether is will go to the highest, lowest or meet sowhere in the middle (even with 100 there will still be variances).
Land Connection Doesn't affect.
Asceticism High ascetiscm affects certain Art levels, those that have a lot to do with the material world such as sculptures and buildings. Low ascetiscim is the opposite. It affects things like music and theatre more.
Importance of Religion This affects it in 2 ways. If the religion is very art oriented, art levels increase in appropriate areas, if not the decline. This also affects the type of art produced, ie its more of a religious nature. I think its ness to deam this because often art or religious nature, like other things that are, are targeted for distrcution by opposition religions and those who just don't like them, whereas they might not do so for others.
Individualism Doesn't affect. **
Natural Affinity This increases certain types that have to do with nature (or not) depending on the levels. High levels, more on achitectural section. Low levels affect things that have more to do with nature like umm...can't think of anything right now, but i'm sure there's something. **
Educational Level Doesn't affect.
Tendency to Corruption

* These can affect it if an opposing group that the other hates and wants not to be like or whatnot.

** Specific applications, um, social techs and things dealing in the wonders and achievement models might be affected by these.

[Beör]

Hi there

I'm Beör, popping in from the Apolyton SMAC(X) section. I am fascinated by your idea of creating a game of this scale, and wish I had known of your efforts earlier. I do not pretend to be an expert or anything, but I have some general knowledge of European history in particular, which might lead to valuable input. I realise that a lot of the structure of the game is already molded in iron, but allow me to post a few suggestions. One problem facing me is the enourmous amount of information present in these forums and on your website, so forgive me if I provide redundant information or thread on already covered ground. It is also very difficult to find the right thread, since many of the models are intermingled.

Regarding social techs I tend to agree with roquijad that you should be very careful about including them. What matters is if they will affect game play in a way not covered by the Social, Government, Riots or Economic models (maybe more). Thus I find techs like philosophy, art etc are questionable, 'cause how would it affect the way the game is played?

On the other hand I find techs on the organistion of society could be important (forgive me if this has been covered in the tech model, which I have only glanced). As will be evident I have given more thoughts to some of these than to others.

Monasticism:
The monastic system was actually invented (was it Benedict of Murcia or Frans of Assisi?). In the middleages monasteries were important parts of Western European society. They were centers of learning and large landowners with considerable power in society. In many ways they were in opposition to the more or less nationalist churches of the early germanic states. Further development of the monastic system led to orders striving for poverty (now there's a novelty!) and simplicity of lifestyle (grey friars), militaristic orders (Teutonic Knights etc), orders providing health care (Hospital Knights) and missionary ordres fighting herecy and converting lost souls (Jesuits). In time the importance of monasticism have waned: In protestant countries much of the land was taken over by the kings, giving them the upper hand in the struggle for power he had with both the church and the aristocracy. In Catholic countries the importance was upheld longer, but with increasing secularisation (decreasing IR) monasteries are bound to be more and more marginalised. There are monasteries in the greek-orthodox church, but i don't know much about them. In the early eastern christianity of the Middleeast and North Africa, monasticism was not 'invented'. Here holy men tended to isolate themselves totally while contemplating rather than joining an organised society of munks. there are buddhist monasteries of which I don't know much, but as far as I know no similar concepts in Islam or Hinduism. I beleive there were Zoroasthric monks, but how they were organised i don't know. So monasticism could have potentially vast, but passing influence on society, while not being an inevitable part of the organisation of religion. It would seem that monasticism is a sort of dead end in the evolution of societal organisation, but I wonder if not some of the aspects of pure lifestyle, physical labour, tightly knit brotherhood could be found in FE socialism, the Parisian commune, and certainly in some religious sects (which under no circumstances shoul play any role in game play).
In game terms monasticism could help preserve knowledge, particularly prior to printing, take part in crucades, act as missionaries, and certainly play a role as a possessor of wealth and thus potential power.

The national church vs the international church
Much of European history from 700 to the reformation was a struggle between the pope and the emperor and local kings for the power to control the local church. Part of this is the fight over Investiture: Who should apoint new bishops. I would like to see this in a game. The Pope with a lot of cash and local 'infiltration' trying to control the church. This might take creating the church as a separate AI entity (an intruiging thought don't you think?), but since this could debalance the whole system, maybe it would be a better idea to have the Papacy be a kind of Wonder , maybe with a prerequisite of 'International Religious Organisation'.

The guild system
This system is probably as old as civilization itself. The implications of this system is an organisation of civil society based on profession rather than birth - although a certain inheritance of profession is likely. The cost is rigidity making inovation harder, and to some extent limit social mobility. Actually what I am saying is that Social Mobility could be a social tech leading to graduate lifting of the guild system, thereby increasing inovation and making people more happy and maybe more productive.

The patron-client system
I am not quite sure why I put this here, But the system has always intruiged me. Marius arming his clients and in fact having 60000 troops dug up in no time is fascinating. How this could impact game play I am not sure.

The political party system
In a way the modern equivalent of the patron-client system (maybe that is why I put that in) - they could represent varying levels of a tech called Hmmmm - I don't know. Probably beginning in England, and being further developed in France, at times taking guise as Estates, it forms the early basis for the development of Representative Systems like an Assembly of the Etates of the Realm or Parliament.

Multinational corporations
From the Hanseatic League and Fugger to Microsoft and modern international currency broking, how can we live without them

Labour unions
Unavoidable, but I am not sure how they could be incorporated in game play

Trust funds
Massive potential power, not yet unleashed.

The enclosure movement
The abandonment of the village as the main agricultural producing unit lead to vast production increases.

Co-operative societies
I am not sure if this is the correct term. What I mean is FE a group of farmers joining together in order to buy machines, fodder, everyday necessities, insurance etc, but also to produce refined products like dairy products instead of milk, meat products instead of livestock, beer instead of barley etc. This is in a way a necessary consequence of the enclosure movement and the movement from producing agricultural products primarily for consumption to producing them for sale on the market: As agricultural technology becomes more complex, it is no longer possible for a single production unit (farm) to produce goods for the market.

Emancipation
This is sort of a rural equivalent to the abolition of the guild system. It is therefore akin to Social Mobility, and could probably be handled there.

There are probably other possibilities, and I will try to elaborate on some of the above in due course, if you are interested.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Beör, welcome to Clash!

And thanks for taking some time to try and figure out the state of play in the models and figure out the right place to post.

As Richard said, several of your ideas are already planned. I had never even thought of monasticism as an important force in civilization in the context of Clash, but you're right.

If you are really interested in the project, please take the time to read about and criticize / comment on as many models as you care to. (Though of course not all at once ) While new things to add on to the models are valuable, spotting potential flaws in the foundations of the models we are going with is even more important IMO. The project has been 'inbred' with just six or seven real contributors to the discussion for quite a few months, so 'fresh eyes' looks at what we are doing are really good to have.

Have Fun!

Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 06, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

Beör:

Thanks for stopping by and posting. We can always use new ideas, especially when they are as good as yours. I'll respond to your comments in order and try to point you to the relevant information so you know more about what we are doing.

quote: Regarding social techs I tend to agree with roquijad that you should be very careful about including them. What matters is if they will affect game play in a way not covered by the Social, Government, Riots or Economic models (maybe more). Thus I find techs like philosophy, art etc are questionable, 'cause how would it affect the way the game is played?

As I see them, social techs are a way to combine the existing models. So if something is part of the Social, Economic, Military, and Technology models, we should treat it as a social tech. Even if one part of the tech could be entirely in the Social model and another is only Military, it would be a "social tech" so the models do not become disjointed.

Philosophy and Art do have an impact on the game. If your civ has a high Philosophy level, the other technologies will grow faster. Art can help determine how attractive a culture or religion is, so it could impacts the spread of ideas and the changes in society.

These kinds of things can be hard to understand at first because we have a tech system that is a radical departure from the standard way of doing things. To get an understanding of the technology system, you can go to the Research section of the web page. The stuff is a bit old, but it is a concise and easily accessable description and it is accurate enough to give a good background on our system.

Monasticism: Excellent. I agree entirely. Your description reminds me about my forgetfulness. Months ago, I had a few of the same ideas, but I forgot to include them and they never got put in the model. This kind of thing is exactly what the social tech model should be dealing with.

Actually, all of your ideas are things I would classify as social teachs, so this is the perfect thread to discuss them in. I'll say now that I think most of them can be used as applications on the tech tree.

International church: We already have a little of that, but it can be improved. The local Religious Class is covered in the social model, and I think we had planned on the international AI church. We also have the long term plan of leting the player control the international church. Look at the Who is the Player? thread for the most recent discussion about this, and check the social and government models on the webpage for info about how the Religious Class (RC) interacts with the government and society.

guilds: I'm not a social model expert, so I don't know what is being done with this. I do know that guilds and businesses will be modeled as independent entities, like the churches. The Business Class will have an impact on politics and society.

patron-client: I think some of the effects of this would be handled under the Foul Play in the governemnt. Its existence would probably be a social tech.

Political parties: This is a bit hard to deal with. Parties form when a group of people unite to pursue a common agenda, so this would mostly be a social model thing. But as you mentioned, they can only form after certain things have happened. This is another excallent social tech.

Multinational corportations: Yes, we will have them. They will be AI entities. I also proposed in the Who is the Player? thread that there be an option for players to control them. I think it would create excellent multiplayer games if we had businesses and country leaders as human players in the same game.

Labor Unions: These are an obvious counterpart to the businesses, but I'm not sure we have them. There are a lot of different possibilities and challenges here. They could not exist until the right technological and societal conditions were met, and their actions would be a part of the government model. This is another good social technology we should be thinking about. It would also be a good candidate for possible player control.

Trust Funds: I don't understand this. What should they be doing?

Enclosure: This, like the factory system, is a pure technological advance that has big societal consequences. It would be an Application on the main tech tree. Thanks for reminding me about this; it is another thing I knew academically that I hadn't thought to put in the game.

Co-ops: These would have many of the game characteristics of labor unions. Another excellent ides that I think we can include without much trouble.

Emancipation: We have been discussing this one for quite a while. We decided that it would be entirely covered by the government and social models. Technology only affects this indirectly. Techs impact social attitudes, which will affect poilicies like this one. This is another use for the Philosophy tech.

Once again, thanks for posting, Beör. If you stay with the project, your ideas and analysis will be a good contribution. The Social tech system is still being built, so this is an model that you can have a big influence on. Once you know more about the technology system and other game models, you can contact LGJ and Rodrigo (roquijad) and work on creating concrete plans for implementation of these things. I'm looking forward to them.

[roquijad]

Hi Beör and welcome!

You seem very interested in the social part of the game, which is also my favorite! If you want to help us in these matters, you showed up in a very good time. I hope you stay with us. Your post above and the one in the social model thread show you can be very valuable to the project.

I'm glad you read at least at a glance some of the models. That helps a lot.

So, what's the status?
Integration between models is increasing. I released a couple of months ago the very integrated Social, Government and Riots models that cover most of social-related stuff. The latter should be seen as a "Happiness model". After that, we started threads to link the govt model with the economic model and to link the social model with the tech model (this thread). This thread in particular was born because of a discussion we had in the social model about religions. Although the religion part is already decided to be completely under social model's control, we found there were some things we couldn't place "correclty" in the social or tech model alone and still model them well. We called them "social techs" and we decided they needed a system of their own. This new system doesn't exist at all. That's why I said your timing was perfect! We're just starting to think about it.

Most of your ideas belong here and they're really nice. I'll comment briefly each one of them:

International Church: You're right, but I personally feel the cost of adding a "Vatican" compared to the benefits in gameplay say we shouldn't do it. Adding a religious internat'l center means adding a political entity and its respective AI managing how civs' govts interact with it, while the benefit is recreating a very particular episode of a particular religion with a low impact on the course of history.

Guild System: I like this one.

Patron-Client: I don't know what you mean. Can you re-phrase?

Political Party: I think it's not necessary. The political games are not in essence affected if the actors are grouped in parties or whatever. A party is just the expression of politics in a democracy, so IMO it's only a matter of names here.

Multinational Companies: How "social" is this really? What should be the difference in gameplay if you have a lot of companies or just a few big ones?

Labor Unions: A big yes for this one. It has already a role in the govt model, but we should still talk about what implications it should have.

Trust Funds: Again, how "social" is this? Isn't it just an application of the Economy tech (therefore a normal tech)?

Enclosure: I don't know what is this.

Cooperative Societies: Like kibbuts? Are these relevant enough in history to be included?

Emancipation (of slaves?): So far, as Richard said, all that has to do with slavery is managed in the govt and social models. The argument is abolishing slavery was only a change of attitude in people and it didn't involved the development of anything (tech-like), so it should be modeled only through changes in the cultural profile.

Monasticism: This is the hardest. I very much like it, but its main problem is it implies the existence of social classes related to it. The govt model has shown to be not very flexible to accept more social classes, so we have to be careful with this. I'm currenlty working off-forums in a way to have a family of religous social classes instead of the unique Religious Class, so I think at the end we'll have this social tech. All I'm saying here is this tech in particular involves more complexity than the others and then we should move with care with it.


In general, these social techs you mention and other you can come up with are all attractive ideas, but it remains to be seen if we'll be able to create a system general enough that could handle all these things as different as they are. It's possible some social techs will have to be left aside even if we like them only because modeling them would imply "exception" equations.

If you have more ideas, name them!

Rodrigo

[Beör]

Thank you all for a most kind reception of my input (bows deeply)

Mark
Should I interpret your post as an invitation to become 'The Devils Advocate' ?

Richard and Rodrigo
I will have to return to y'all later with further info. For now I have posted a rather lengthy piece on migration in the Social thread.