Social Model v3.0

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
what makes you think i'm talking about more depth?

Because you are? You are proposing something beyond the culture model as it exists. Therefore it is more depth. I assume we need what is there of course, said assumption you are free to disagree with. . .

Having read the Social model pages, I don't think Culture is at all modelled satisfactorially. There's stuff there that's missing or just not quite right.
Essentially, the concept of Culture seems to be a vague and undefined one in this game, and yet it's mentioned regularly.
It seems to exist only in name, and to not actually constitute anything beyond a list of other concepts some defined, some undefined, and clumsily cobbled together.
What I've tried to do is define it in a simple and clear way.

I hear you. One must cut off at some point the things in the world that are modeled. We model the characteristics of societies at a Very detailed level compared to most games. For me that is sufficient. I think you might be able to do some of your more-detailed culture stuff using the tech model. But I'm not sure. Look into it if you're interested.

At least I've worked out where this post should be - in the "Culture Familes" thread!

Yeah, Excellent Dude b:

I don't think the rest of us are interested in discussing at length advanced things when there is so much to be done that has already been spec'ed out. That is certainly the case for me. I know this is frustrating for you, but please look at it from our position. We have spent Years discussing, and have an extraordinarily agressive world model in the game already.

At this point discussion takes away limited time from coding, debugging and scenario design. Since many things in Clash are flexible due to the excellent xml scenario-creation abilities coded by Gary and Laurent I think you will be able to achieve many of the detailed culture modeling things you want to do without the need for additional code. Why don't you look into it. The dataformat file in the testbed describes what you can do so far, and more is coming!

[yellowdaddy]

did i sound like i was nagging?! i'm not looking for instant responses, just tossing another bundle of thoughts on the fire.

i'm not suggesting you drop your shovels and start lace-making!

i don't think this is advanced, i think it's fundamental to the way part of the social model works.
i don't think i'm talking about adding more toppings to the social model pizza, more talking about whether it should be deep pan or thin and crispy and whether it shuold have a stuffed crust.
at the moment I think it's a bit lumpy and burnt with some of the topping off into a corner of the box, and i don't think i'd be giving the delivery boy a tip!
you've already got "culture" in the game, but it isn't quite right - the categories. I'm aware that none of you are likely to change it in a hurry, if at all, until/unless any flaws become more apparent, so ok, leave it 'til after D8 sometime.

culture as a plague... hmmm...

[Gary Thomas]

culture as a plague... hmmm...

It is.

Body piercing

MacDonalds

Celtic snatching a draw with Hearts

The Internet

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

Celtic snatching a draw with Hearts?

[Gary Thomas]

A particularly evil plague, when I am forced watch it in my local pub, 12,000 miles away.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

...now if you'd said Hearts snatching a draw with Rangers at Ibrox, it'd've bin music t' ma bleary eyes

[roquijad]

Yellowdaddy,

If what you're proposing is new ways to add humor to the game, I'm all for it, but I'm sure it can be coded later.

But, if you're proposing something that will have some clear effect on the game, as I presume you do, then I think this conversation has to split in two. On one side, adding dances, fashion, etc and allowing them to have an important impact on the game is, at least to my taste, to much. I wouldn't go that way.

On the other side, there's the thing about "culture families"; namely, having EGs that are somehow related to each other, given whatever definition of "cultural similarity". Or, in other words, having something like a "base culture" from which a lot different peoples derive.
IMO, there's no need to go that way either. I don't really see what's the importance in game terms that this group of people here have some ancient relation to that other people in the neighboring region. Here in latinamerica, from Mexico to Chile, we're all someway culturally related. But that hasn't stopped us from warring each other or make business with each other. The same can be said about different regions of Africa and, hey, it certainly can be said about Europe. Cultural affinity explians so little about what happened or didn't happen in world history, that I really prefer to let that aside.

Culture and culture evolution is a very interested topic and I guess that's why this forum keeps seeing people coming with endless new elements to add in the social model; languages, races, weird religions, arquitecture, dances, etc. Don't get me wrong. I think that's all valuable, but I really think we need just the basics for a game. So far, strategy games barely consider culture. What our model should do, if it works as planned, is giving a whole new world and experiences that's already light years ahead from any other game. It will provide religions, appearing and disappearing of ethnicities, cultural characteristics that actually change over time (with an impact on how your game behaves) and through those things, slavery, nationalistic rebellions, religious discrimination, etc.

I do believe we've gone a lot further than an average player would expect. And since the people we are aiming to are strategy players, I think most of them would be more than satisfied with this. In fact, I'm sure some of them will actually turn off some of the features the current model provides, just to play a simpler, quicker and easier-to-win game.

If you ask me, I say let's code what we have now and later we'll see if we want to carry this another step forward with languages, fashion, etc.

[Lord God Jinnai]

IMO, there's no need to go that way either. I don't really see what's the importance in game terms that this group of people here have some ancient relation to that other people in the neighboring region. Here in latinamerica, from Mexico to Chile, we're all someway culturally related. But that hasn't stopped us from warring each other or make business with each other. The same can be said about different regions of Africa and, hey, it certainly can be said about Europe. Cultural affinity explians so little about what happened or didn't happen in world history, that I really prefer to let that aside.

You're right but cultural affinity can help bond people together. FE: Greek city-states would all have their own culture that had an affinity to each other, but the EG aren't the same and perhaps the religion isn't. But they'd bond together more effectively in times of crisis, such as an invasion, or in drawing on allies for wars within themselves "well i feel more in common with my spartan bretheren than my atherian bretheren" kinda deal (though policitcs could also play a role), it also could make spreading of religions easer and technology dillution.

[yellowdaddy]

Hi Roquijiad.

[big Rip Van Winkle yawn..!]

incidentally, the idea of "Cultural Families" was probably Laurant's, it wasn't mine... I don't know if I even fully understand it yet.

i've seen "alms66" posting about researching cultural things.

you definitely need a bit of humour and randomness to spoil the dryness of acheiving purely military and political ends... i find it rather dull to conquer the world, it's not the thrill of the kill, it's the pace of the chase.

let me (skip over Marks stubbing out attempt and) reach back and find out what I was prattling on about:

I thought I was addressing the ambiguities of the term "culture", and in part responding to Laurant's recent posts about the Spartan's revolting, and "Culture Families".

We all seem to be happy with the idea of "Culture Families", I'm trying to help define them and how they might work in simple and coding-friendly terms. Right now the term seems to me to be a bit floaty and unspecific

right, there's a start... I didn't get the whole idea of "Cultural Families" - I mean, what does that mean?!

Mark seems to have seen what I thought of as pinning the tail on the donkey as those nasty words "deep" and "complicated"... and directs me to the Tech model... has he missed something or have I?


and then there was..

The thing about quote:quote:
Dance/Art/Cuisine/Clothing style
is not to go into any depth or detail, they just become wonders, as does "building" your own "alphabet".
Just as you might "research" writing in Civ to be able to build or do other things.
A big difference being that you don't have to build them, you can import/buy them.

funny - they seem to be talking about these in the tech model now.

this bit I liked:

You can then take each EG, and give a "0" or "1" as to whether they "have" each "aspect" of Greek "culture". and then give them a score 0/12 - 12/12.

I also remember not being too keen on the "wonders model", though I can't remember why.

[LDiCesare]

I added the following panel to the code.
It's available for square, province and civilisation. The lower end of the panle is reserved for text output. It shows the details of social events for the sqare/province/civ. It may be too big for the civ and will need testing. Does it look like the correct/enough information in order to understand what's happening?

[yellowdaddy]

looks nice

[LDiCesare]

My main question is how to show the social classes breakdown:
When I show aristocracy/workers/warriors, I show the social classes, but each of them has a weight in terms of political power which is a part of the various blocks (e.g. military can get voices from both warriors and aristocracy social classes).
Should I add a political power blocks breakdown per social class or a global one? I don't want the interface to be too cluttered. (Three pies is already a big number imo.)

[yellowdaddy]

I wonder if a variation on the pie chart for each might help?

Each segment can have the same angle to show percentage share
as now, but the segments could have different area, to
illustrate their power - like cutting a slice from cakes of
varying diameters and putting them all together to make a
kind of crenellated pie chart?

I think it's called a circumplex pie chart similar to one here:
http://www.infosoftglobal.com/FusionCharts/Custom.asp
and here:
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/admin/staf...ers/Image2.gif

[LDiCesare]

I'm not wondering how to show the info in terms of graphics but in terms of user interaction. Circumpex charts tend to have constant angles, and I can't see what I'd measure in terms of radius. I wonder whether to show:
1)Social classes as in my snapshot
or
2)Political power blocks instead.
I don't like the latter much because it lacks flavor, so I think I'd better show a breakdown per political power block of the various social classes that compose it. I could put that in the ruler panel where each power block is already shown, on one side of its preferences?

[yellowdaddy]

from what I remember of the potential deliniations of political factions i wonder whether it could be shown entirely satisfactorially in a pie chart.
the other thing is it's more to do with the government and dynasties isn't it?
I mean, I'm sure the classes, religions and ethnicities have bearing on the political factions, but it seems to me that there would be overlap, and so i think a box which displayed the political data - the ruling dynasty and factions to have a link to the social page you've shown, rather than be a part of it.

so yeah, something to do with the ruler page sounds sensible.

(btw - i'm surprised to see a Frenchie spelling "flavour" without a "u"!)

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
My main question is how to show the social classes breakdown:
When I show aristocracy/workers/warriors, I show the social classes, but each of them has a weight in terms of political power which is a part of the various blocks (e.g. military can get voices from both warriors and aristocracy social classes).
Should I add a political power blocks breakdown per social class or a global one? I don't want the interface to be too cluttered. (Three pies is already a big number imo.)

Hi Laurent, it looks good so far! I think you should show the global power block breakdown only for now. I expect at some point a further detailed breakdown showing political power blocks breakdown per social class will be desired. But that should be a whole separate gui element and doesn't seem to be needed at this time.

[yellowdaddy]

Shifted over from Government Model to stop people whinging...

Why I think Slavery is maybe not the right word:

1. It is surely a researched "technology", not something you start the game with in 10,000 BC.

2. It becomes obsolete as a nation industrialises. The countries in the modern era which still have slavery lack fully developed Social and Economic Infrastructures - slavery is displaced by Indenture, and as the taxation and financial systems and services become more sophisticated slavery becomes anachronistic and unprofitable.

3. The other issue is "types of slavery"; you have traditional ancient world slaves which are commonly understood, then you have: human trafficking, and prostitutes; people who are kinds of slaves because of who they are: women, children, racial groups, religious groups, social castes, economic classes.

What does the position on the slavery slider mean? is it the amount of slavery, or the extent of the slavery? is it the level of oppression?

Are the citizens of North Korea slaves? (ie. would the slavery slider be up at 90+%?), I can see how it makes sense under an ancient feudal government, but what about 20th century regimes?

I would be interested in seeing some example tables for different states we know, to see what they look like in game terms, that'd help illustrate the way this preferences box works.

You might opt for "Personal Freedom".
Could try "Liberty" perhaps? "Egality" (something the French should know about!); you could be more positive, and call it "Emancipation"!
-----------

The Executive is surely both the decision making collective noun, and can be used to descrive the leader's position.
-----------

Clergy is a good term, as it's not attatched to any religion. Philosophy and Religion are probably best treated as one thing in the game, the lines between them can be blurred, particularly in far east "religions".

----------

Human = The People... I still don't get what you mean precisely - what's all this about the "Capitalists" then? - I would naturally be inclined to go for the termThe Public regardless. It just feels more appropriate.

I'm sure no-one'll agree with me, as they rarely ever seem to!

[LDiCesare]

(I thought I had answered this some time ago but apparently I didn't).
1-I don't think slavery is a tech that one researches. Exploitation of man by man is very old.
2-I'm not sure about indenture. If you're talking about apprenticeship, it doesn't replace slavery. Apprentices and slaves coexisted for a long time. If you're talking about indentured servants, that is people who are bound to serve without payment for a period of time because they agreed to, then, under French law it would be slavery, and it can be modelled as a low but not null slavery slider.

Back to my coding: I haven't done a lot of progress, due to vacations and then fever, but also because I have little idea as how to show the things I want to show:
I display ethnicities, religions in a square/province/civ, but that doesn't give the riotting probability.
The only way I thought of was to show for each social group the various discontent factors. However, I as a player would never use that because I'd have to check something like ten social groups every time I'd like to see what may go wrong.
I'd rather have something like a prediction of possible troubles unless policies are changed. This would not necessarily be accurate, but showing that there is a bout X% chance that people will riot here or there because of this or that would probably do?
Does anyone have an idea of a way of showing all discontents in a way that doesn't require micromanagement?

[LDiCesare]

(Double - post)

[yellowdaddy]

Doesn't Sim City have something like that? (of course, I'm thinking of Sim City 1!)

and others like "Balance of Power 1990", a cold war "MAD" game of goepolitical prestige chess, where you have the heads of four advisors who give their opinions on all your policy ideas.
The game's only about 150k so can't be a big deal to do that.


Slavery.

I thought this was a ruler screen, and that we were talking about institutionalised slavery - if it's institutionalised then is should surely be a researchable tech.

I get the impression you're talking about effectively "social slavery", like the pecking order in a pack of animals, when you say "slavery's been around a long time". I don't disagree, but i thought this was about it being a systemic part of a civilised society - defined by precise laws, like in Ancient civs and Feudalism, not vague notions of random gimpdom.

It seems incongruous, and a bit too much like excessive and unnecessary detail if you're talking about "the general amount of slavery in society".
It's too vague - I don't know what the slider means. It seems rather pointless to me on the basis of what i've read of your description so far...

I repeat (and please read my post again for context!):

What does the position on the slavery slider mean? is it the amount of slavery, or the extent of the slavery? is it the level of oppression?

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Back to my coding: I haven't done a lot of progress, due to vacations and then fever

Hi Laurent, good to hear about the vacation, but sorry on the illness.

I'd rather have something like a prediction of possible troubles unless policies are changed. This would not necessarily be accurate, but showing that there is a bout X% chance that people will riot here or there because of this or that would probably do?

This way sounds best to me too.

Does anyone have an idea of a way of showing all discontents in a way that doesn't require micromanagement?

Nothing brilliant! I suspect that once some playtesters see it, there will be some suggestions of what data they'd like to see.

The only thing I would add is that if there's a way to show the one policy change that could reduce the X% chance significantly, that would be worth reporting to the player. However that may not be easy to calculate.

[LDiCesare]

The only thing I would add is that if there's a way to show the one policy change that could reduce the X% chance significantly, that would be worth reporting to the player. However that may not be easy to calculate.

We'll have to do it for the ai anyway, so I can try. If the players think it's useless, then the ai will be crap too, so it should be a good way to have playtesters help make the ai better. Now I'll try coding it.

[LDiCesare]

I finished coding a panel which shows various pies on the top, and a panel split between possible riots and suggested policies to get rid of the riots. With buttons that let you apply them or revert to your previous policies.
The ai also adapts its policies based on unrest feedback. This may lead it to lower taxes inconsiderately however, so I may have to check that out.
I also corrected a possible crash when a unit would like to riot but found no civ to join. It'll spawn its own civ. This shouldn't happen in any scenario uness you try really hard to mess things in order to cause three quarters of your civ to revolt, so I don't think it matters too much if the civ is not in good shape, since it shows that civs can reappear after having disappeared.

[yellowdaddy]

I display ethnicities, religions in a square/province/civ, but that doesn't give the riotting probability.
I display ethnicities, religions in a square/province/civ, but that doesn't give the riotting probability.
The only way I thought of was to show for each social group the various discontent factors. However, I as a player would never use that because I'd have to check something like ten social groups every time I'd like to see what may go wrong.
I'd rather have something like a prediction of possible troubles unless policies are changed. This would not necessarily be accurate, but showing that there is a bout X% chance that people will riot here or there because of this or that would probably do?
Does anyone have an idea of a way of showing all discontents in a way that doesn't require micromanagement?

firstly - how are the ethnicities and religions displayed on the map?
is that like a coloured overlay like on a CIA map?
Or is it a mini pie-chart that pops up when you hold your mouse over a square?

I don't think many people would need to see a list of factors, I'd just go for a glowing or flashing (slow for low tension, fast for high tension of the bit of icon that represents what you want...)(mind you Mark says he doesn't like flashing icons) alternatively a colour border which goes from green to amber to red??!! no animation req'd.
keep it simple I suppose.

[LDiCesare]

I don't display on the map. You select either civ, province or square, and get a panel with a piechart inside.
I added a panel with a prediction of trouble. You get a list of each ethnicity per square, and the probability that it riots. It usually is either empty or overwhelmingly big. Then on the right of it, you have the policies that the ai suggests in order to get rid of (most) of the problem.
Following the policies proposed by the ai is not optimal, since it may lower taxes when you'd rather lower something else for instance, but it gives an idea what you can do about your problems. And you can apply these policies with one button. But I'm not sure all these things should fit in the same window...

[yellowdaddy]

it reminds me very much of an old (but still good) game called Balance of Power.



try it, see if it inspires anything...
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?gameid=91

I think a nice visual solution is best.
So you might have a pie chart to show 3 ethnicities in a square.
Do you need to give each ethnicity a colour? Or can you use the colour to impart other information?
If you have a limit on the maximum number of EGs, religions in a square, say 10 (?) then you probably will need to use colours to differentiate them on a mini pie chart.

I don't think detailed info on what the cause of the riot is, is necessary or desirable. You just need an indicator of a riot, which you can click on to get more detail - a Sim City style list of percentages of discontentment and issues.

I suppose these are possible options to show there's insurgency without using animation:
- Make the segments of the pie chart expand and contract according to insurgency levels;
- Give each segment an indicator graphic in the middle of it, or connected to it, like a smily;
- Make the pie-charts 3d, with segments expaning up or down;

I like smilies.

You might want to have 2 pie charts side by side - one to show the big picture, and the other the detail. So you could click on a segment of the "overview" pie chart, and get a range of factors in the "details" pie chart (i suppose it could just as well be a block graph) with smilies on each of the 10 (social group) sectors displaying the public mood or insurgency?


on the advisors:

In Balance of Power you get 4 advisors on the panel who give varying advice, it's not very sophisticated, but like in CIV three you could make each one of these 4 advisers (you could have 3 so they never agree) have their own area of interest to give a more complex set of advice.

[LDiCesare]

I agree that displaying data as an overlay on the map would be good. Unfortunately I am too lazy to do it now, and I think there's a lot of info to show. If I use a single color code, it will be hard to show that there is a minority of ethnicity X in a square. With a control panel it should be possible to show various overlays (majority ethnicity, majority religion, etc. but also proportion of each ethnicity, religion, etc...).
I use a pie chart which generates new colors as needed. It roughly cycles from mostly red, mostly green, mostly blue and then mostly red again, etc. You won't get the same hue before a few hundred colors in the pie, so that's not a problem as noone could see that many anyway.

[Mark_Everson]

I just wanted to say here that all the hard work in terms of diagnostics and getting the social model going have paid off very well in the social scenario. It is fun to play, and gets the message across about the juggling act that the ruler must perform for a multicultural and multiethnic civ. I can't wait until all the preferences have real game effects, which will make the strategic political choices that the player makes very important and challenging.

Thanks for putting together the scenario Laurent, and also thanks to alms for adding the player guidance at the beginning.

[alms66]

Let's discuss this comment that I made in the 7.9 discussion thread here, shall we?:

When rebel units form & I “repair” the cause that brought them forth (I'm assuming the cause is that listed under the riots entry in the events panel on the turn the unit was created), I expect to see the units disband back into the population eventually, though I never have.

Personally I feel that if the rebels' original reason for rebelling is 'fixed' then at least some of the rebels should lay down their arms.

[LDiCesare]

In the social model, there are 3 kinds of units that can be formed by riots:

Revolutionary Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. Revolutionary units try to conquer the civ's capital. If they succeed, the ruler and govt are replaced. See below for more details on that. See also below how a "total" revolution can be triggered.

Guerrilla Forces Formation: In the province the event was called, a (people's) military unit is created and passed to AI control. The objective of guerrilla units is to liberate the province from the civ's control. If they achieve it, the province is annexed to a civ with matching nationality or, if such civ doesn't exist, a new civ is created.
(...)
Rebel Duke: A military/nobility leader in a province decides to decrease central govt's influence over the province. It's like a less radical form of independence declaration, where the local leaders just want more autonomy, but still find valuable belonging to the civ. The Province's Autonomy Level in the province is increased and associated Feudal Units are created (see Govt Model). See more of Feudal Units below.

A bit farther in the model, there's a more detailed explanation:

The model defines 4 types of internal military opponents: guerrilla, revolutionaries, rebels and feudal units. The distinction is relevant to get the right results in different situations and historic frameworks.

Guerrilla: The AI must drive the units looking to conquer the province where it was generated. Must store the nationality that produced it, so if it's successful, the game engine will know what nationality the new civ formed will have.

Revolutionaries: The AI must drive the unit looking to conquer the civ's capital. Must store the regime that produced it, so if it's successful, the game engine will know what new regime is implemented in the new govt.

Rebels: The AI uses the unit depending on the Civ's Unrest Status. If "normal", looks to conquer the capital, just like the revolutionaries, but if "under civil war" switches to "conquer as many provinces as possible". Needs to store the social class that produced it so, if successful in capturing the capital or forming a new civ, the game engine will know what mentality the new govt must have.

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

Since guerilla, revolutionaries and rebels are harder to model, I went with the feudal units only. This means they don't move much, but they represent people having seized power and arms, and they probably have little or no reason to relinquish power that they have seized. They won't receive reinforcements if people are happy, but I think it would be too easy if they disappeared just when you changed policies.

One thing that I think is a problem is that there are too many units formed. The model is based on provinces, but with ethnic groups in squares, and there's a slight hole here to know if this should be checked province-wide or per square. I check per square because it's easier to compute, but that leads to many units being created, which can be a pain. The equations for the events occurring are also a bit different from the original ones because of some existing comments in the code stating that didn't work as expected. All this results in 2 things:
-When riots occur, they are most often very severe. Only the most severe riots cause units to appear.
-Riots create many, probably too many, units.
I'd rather lower the number of created units and let them stay there. I don't wantthem to disappear because I think it would be "cheap". It could effectively be used as a tactics to get rid of opponents: Cause riots in your province, rebels appear, but since they don't like your enemies either, they'll fight the invaders as well as your own troops. This could be fixed by diplomacy by letting the rebels ally themselves with exterior threats, but diplomacy's a long way from that.
Another thing which could be done is to use diplomacy to appease the rebels: When the cause for riots disappear, you could go and tell them "see, all is fine now", and probably pay them a bit and they'd settle.
But I don't think they should disappear automatically and would let things as they are now for D8 unless more people want it changed.