Social Model v3.0

[LDiCesare]

Inevitably, it all comes down to economics (e.g.: Scotland would become poorer if it was separated from the UK) provinces will not cecede if it not in their economic interests to do so.

Yes, but we must consider that the province overall may become poorer if the majority of people who riot may become richer. Thus discrimination alone can lead to riots, unless staying under colonial control brings more wealth than breaking away?

If you want a one-worder, "Bureaucracy"

Bureaucracy rings very different meanings from Local Government in my opinion. The word bears feelings that are not positive at all, and means power being held, rather than being applied. LocalGovernment would be a good word to me, it's just 15 characters.

[yellowdaddy]

Please can you explain PWF and PCI?

PWF is to do with Civil/Human Rights, yes?

I think all things, even Ethnic Discrimination can have their rebellious feelings quelled by sustained good economic growth (rather than "a better economy"), and an economic cost/benefit equation - how revolt/cecession might affect trade and industry in their province.

Ethnic Discrimination surely existed within ancient civilisations, does it automatically lead to revolt?

---

and surely, "education" can also mean "propaganda"?

---

NRF SDF - It's seperatism; what you're talking about is "intensity of seperatism" like a multiplier of a variable?

call it SF for Seperatism Feeling and
SD for Seperation Desire
SI for Seperatism Intensity.

You have SD 1 2 3
and then SI x1 x2 x3
a scale of 1-9: 1-3 = protest; 3-6 = insurgency; 6-9 = civil war
so you could have a strong SD with a low SI = desire for autonomy
SD 3 SI 1 = SF 3, so you'd have public marches for autonomy.
SD 2 SI 3 = SF 6, a guerrilla war for independence.

something like this?

---

Local Government - in the UK we also use the term Local Council, or The Council.
You might have to wade through the phrontisery.info or a latin dictionary - it's clearly the "government" part that's the obstacle in this name.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well considering what you call "natioalism" is just a broader term of what would be called "regionalism" "tribalism" etc in that it ecompasses a lerger enitity, i don't see why it shouldn't be in at all times.

As said, its the feeling of belonging to one group of peoples and when faced with an obstacle who those people bind with in an attempt to overcome it.

[yellowdaddy]

?

Nationalism is a religion tied to ethnicity and geography, with hero myths. (though you can have a religion tied only to ethnicity: Zoroastrianism; or maybe only to land: pagan religions?), so yes it is tribalism on a macroscale.

A nation has its origin in the family:
family -> tribe -> ethnicity -> nationality

When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).
In order to have a seperatist or "nationalist/regionalist/tribalist" movement, you need some of the educated wealthy classes to feel threatened (could be by an internal threat from outside, or an external threat), to use the sympathetic less educated less wealthy classes to form a movement.

So it's a combination of (in a simple scenario) economic growth suddenly failing creating discontent among the plebians, and an external (political) threat to the position of the patricians.
In a more complex scenario, you'd have immigrants creating an intial split in attitudes along class lines, requiring a more sophisticated threat to the political power of the bourgeoisie (economic/political domination by an extranational neighbour, or intranational centralisation), who then use the proletariat to protect their powerbase.

If social classes are a game feature, Seperatism Feelings should show class features.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
Nationalism is a religion tied to ethnicity and geography, with hero myths. (though you can have a religion tied only to ethnicity: Zoroastrianism; or maybe only to land: pagan religions?), so yes it is tribalism on a macroscale.

I agree about myths, but not religion. Pre-Comunist china did not have anything like a universal enthnicity or religion, but the myth and legend about the Mandate of Heaven was shared by almost everyone and would support whoever had it against invaders or usurpers reguardless of whther they were from the Xie, or Wu.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).
In order to have a seperatist or "nationalist/regionalist/tribalist" movement, you need some of the educated wealthy classes to feel threatened (could be by an internal threat from outside, or an external threat), to use the sympathetic less educated less wealthy classes to form a movement.

So it's a combination of (in a simple scenario) economic growth suddenly failing creating discontent among the plebians, and an external (political) threat to the position of the patricians.
In a more complex scenario, you'd have immigrants creating an intial split in attitudes along class lines, requiring a more sophisticated threat to the political power of the bourgeoisie (economic/political domination by an extranational neighbour, or intranational centralisation), who then use the proletariat to protect their powerbase.

If social classes are a game feature, Seperatism Feelings should show class features.

I don't think you need to have a more wealthy indivisuals. Its possible if they get a critical mass and a particular charismatic and intiellgent person of the underclass is found he could rally enough support around him without wealthy indivisual and could get resources through gurellia tactics and mass looting of more the more well-to-do.

[yellowdaddy]

I agree about myths, but not religion. Pre-Comunist china did not have anything like a universal enthnicity or religion, but the myth and legend about the Mandate of Heaven was shared by almost everyone and would support whoever had it against invaders or usurpers reguardless of whther they were from the Xie, or Wu.

Either I don't understand what you mean, or you don't understand what I mean.

I don't see how your comments about Pre-Communist China disprove that Nationalism is a form of religion.

I stated that Communism (in China) is a religion. I'm talking about structure mainly, but belief as well.
Religion is simply a form of politics which tries to derive legitimacy by trying to conflate it's political structure and agenda with superstition and spirituality.

I'm not arguing that allegiance to the Chinese Imperial Cult requires ethnic homogeneity.
However, Imperialism is a different form of Nationalism (ergo a different form of religion), one based upon a dominant ethnic group imposing it's culture on subservient neighbours or others, and either overtly or covertly denigrating them to being second-class citizens who must strive to become like the dominant ethnic group by adopting its culture and language, beliefs and values.
You can see this in the Roman Empire, the British Empire (and UK), USSR (and Russia), Burma, Yugoslavia.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't think you need to have a more wealthy indivisuals. Its possible if they get a critical mass and a particular charismatic and intiellgent person of the underclass is found he could rally enough support around him without wealthy indivisual and could get resources through gurellia tactics and mass looting of more the more well-to-do.

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

These geezers have more than just brains and charisma, they have some education - either formal or informal:

Revolutionaries ashamed of their privilege
Mao - wealthy rural family, studied history at university
Castro - wealthy rural family, studied law at university
Guevara - wealthy family, studied medicine at university
Trotsky - wealthy rural family, studied maths
Washington - wealthy rural family, studied land surveying

Revolutionaries rejected by the system
Ho Chi Minh - a good student as a child, early death of father, well read polyglot and pastry chef while in the UK and France as a youth
Hitler - a good student as a child, early death of father, well-read in youth?, denied admission to art academy, left country
Lenin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied law at university, expelled
Stalin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion at seminary, expelled
Khomeini - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion, expelled from country

[LDiCesare]

Please can you explain PWF and PCI?

PWF: Poor Welfare Feeling. This is, in the model terms, poor welfare and poor economy. PCI is PEr Capita Income, or revenue. So PWF doesn't have to do with civil or human rights but welfare.

I think all things, even Ethnic Discrimination can have their rebellious feelings quelled by sustained good economic growth (rather than "a better economy"), and an economic cost/benefit equation - how revolt/cecession might affect trade and industry in their province.

A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

Ethnic Discrimination surely existed within ancient civilisations, does it automatically lead to revolt?

No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

and surely, "education" can also mean "propaganda"?

Propaganda should also be in. I must read the model again to see how Rodrigo had proposed to handle it.

5QUOTE]
NRF SDF - It's seperatism; what you're talking about is "intensity of seperatism" like a multiplier of a variable?
(...)
a scale of 1-9: 1-3 = protest; 3-6 = insurgency; 6-9 = civil war[/QUOTE]
I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).
So the intensity here is towards autonomy or separatism, not towards protesting or riotting.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Either I don't understand what you mean, or you don't understand what I mean.

I don't see how your comments about Pre-Communist China disprove that Nationalism is a form of religion.

I stated that Communism (in China) is a religion. I'm talking about structure mainly, but belief as well.
Religion is simply a form of politics which tries to derive legitimacy by trying to conflate it's political structure and agenda with superstition and spirituality.

I'm not arguing that allegiance to the Chinese Imperial Cult requires ethnic homogeneity.
However, Imperialism is a different form of Nationalism (ergo a different form of religion), one based upon a dominant ethnic group imposing it's culture on subservient neighbours or others, and either overtly or covertly denigrating them to being second-class citizens who must strive to become like the dominant ethnic group by adopting its culture and language, beliefs and values.
You can see this in the Roman Empire, the British Empire (and UK), USSR (and Russia), Burma, Yugoslavia.

Ok. But still someplace like china did not for most of the time i'm talking about have a dominant ethinic group imposing its will on lesser ones. A culture, yes, but not an EG.

True the ruling dynasty was of a particular EG, but the culture often imposed more onto the ruling dynasty if it wanted to stay than in power, thus china was capable of assimilating multiple egs into its population.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

Or a particularly fanatical (and probably somewhat off-balance personality). He then doesn't need education. His military expertise could come from battle hardened war vertans of the lower class, political power comes from his charisma and message (as well as his might) and money comes from looting, ambushing, etc.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy These geezers have more than just brains and charisma, they have some education - either formal or informal:

Revolutionaries ashamed of their privilege
Mao - wealthy rural family, studied history at university
Castro - wealthy rural family, studied law at university
Guevara - wealthy family, studied medicine at university
Trotsky - wealthy rural family, studied maths
Washington - wealthy rural family, studied land surveying

Revolutionaries rejected by the system
Ho Chi Minh - a good student as a child, early death of father, well read polyglot and pastry chef while in the UK and France as a youth
Hitler - a good student as a child, early death of father, well-read in youth?, denied admission to art academy, left country
Lenin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied law at university, expelled
Stalin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion at seminary, expelled
Khomeini - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion, expelled from country

All these are modern ones. Even washington is fairly modern considering the scope of even this game's history.

[Lord God Jinnai]

]A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

That's another matter because a wealthy jew, as you mentioned, wouldn't stay rich (and eventually alive) for long.

However, if you had an elitist society where while a jew might be disciminated against moreso, but if he becomes rich, he's not to any major degree, and this can happen to anyone, then thngs might be different.

Again the key thing in your example is that those jews could not keep their wealth, power or even lives, thus kinda arguing past the whole argument because its a situation that is the complete opposite of what was mentioned.


No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).
So the intensity here is towards autonomy or separatism, not towards protesting or riotting.

you forgot #3, the group wants to take control over and rule over the entire civ

[LDiCesare]

you forgot #3, the group wants to take control over and rule over the entire civ

It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

[yellowdaddy]

1.

PWF: Poor Welfare Feeling... So PWF doesn't have to do with civil or human rights but welfare.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "welfare".

--------------------------------------------------------
2.

A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

As far as I am aware many Jews stayed put until they experienced both extreme loss of legal/civil rights and property rights (wealth).

I think the key issue in a revolution is that it's not linked simply to wealth and/or welfare, but expectation being matched by growth - this is exactly why you don't have revolutions in so many places (that I shouldn't need to list) we all know about in the world.

I think what you might get in a protracted state of Ethn.Disc. (say if the Nazis had maintained an apartheid-style status quo without progressing to the "final solution", is a slow exodus of refugees as has happened in Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma.
This could be summed up as "Defection" which acts like a pressure release and helps maintain the status quo.

---------------------------------------------------
4.

No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

OK.

When I say revolt, I don't mean a "revolution event", I mean any level of insurgency from low level street postering and peaceful gatherings to out and out bloody revolution.

In ancient civilisations, I suppose because they exist in very stratified structured worlds where "individual freedom" is not enough to incite a revolt, factors like religion and access to resources are going to factor highest.

I suppose in an ancient setting most such events are going to be traditional religious struggles. I don't know of any examples of direct racial discrimination in the ancient world - maybe indirect by assigning all non-Roman citizens (thus including non-white) to being slaves, subjects of vassal states, barbarians or enemies.

----------------------------------------------------
5.

I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).

"Seperatism Intensity"?

So the difference between autonomy and independence is that independence is a dichotomous choice, and autonomy is a bit more variable isn't it?

Independence means you've created a new nationalism/national identity.

Autonomy is more complex.
I suppose in Scotland's case you've got language, history and culture to an extent, but I think it's political disconnection and negative economic experiences (i.e. expectations not being met) that foster desires for autonomy - it's ultimately a response to economic difficulties, but I think having an ethnic identity {language, values (expressed in a distinct legal system), and history of separateness} that define the differnence between the Scottish response and the response in say Yorkshire to similar problems at similar times.

If we look at the Confederate states, again I think you have economic threat which precipitates their declaration of independence, and a different set of values expressed through a legal system (and you might say the slightly different "Deep South" accent to the Union, is a language differentiator).

---------------------------------------------
6.

Ok. But still someplace like china did not for most of the time i'm talking about have a dominant ethinic group imposing its will on lesser ones. A culture, yes, but not an EG.

True the ruling dynasty was of a particular EG, but the culture often imposed more onto the ruling dynasty if it wanted to stay than in power, thus china was capable of assimilating multiple egs into its population.

China had a dominant EG, the Han, the non Chinese dynasties: the Mongolian Yuan, the Manchurian Qing were Sinicised and intermarried (a policy which was already centuries old), and became culturally and eventually ethnically Han. The Han did impose its culture on "lesser ones" and absorbed them into it's EG (which is why Chinese from the northeast look so different from those of the southeast).

You can't say the last Emporer was actually a real ethnic Manchurian - by his generation he'd probably had almost all the Manchurian bred out of him. The Manchurians themselves were almost completely absorbed into the Han during the dynasty anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------
7.

Or a particularly fanatical (and probably somewhat off-balance personality). He then doesn't need education. His military expertise could come from battle hardened war vertans of the lower class, political power comes from his charisma and message (as well as his might) and money comes from looting, ambushing, etc.

I know of no evidence that supports what you seem to be saying.
You seem to be describing a (Temujin) Chingis Khan-type figure; I would argue that Chingis Khan was informally educated, certainly intellectual: aware of and influenced by Chinese ways; in keeping with the formula for a revolutionary he was also:
Son of a tribal chief, experienced the early death of his father, and was rejected by the system,

If you have any examples, please show them.

-----------------------------------------------------
8.

All these are modern ones. Even washington is fairly modern considering the scope of even this game's history.

Maybe so, but find me some ancient ones who don't fit the pattern

----------------------------------------------------
9.

It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

I think seperatism is related to revolutionism, bearing in mind that there are parities between allegience to a national identity and allegience to an ideology or religion (which are the same thing anyway.)
Revolutionism is seperatism from the political system (like a rejection of religion, and ergo a rejection of nationalism/national identity; but this reborn in a new image - almost "healed" of a disease), replacing it with a new "better" system, simultaneously discarding and rehabilitating the national identity (religion). (Almost like a schism as happens in religions).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I think seperatism is related to revolutionism, bearing in mind that there are parities between allegience to a national identity and allegience to an ideology or religion (which are the same thing anyway.)
Revolutionism is seperatism from the political system (like a rejection of religion, and ergo a rejection of nationalism/national identity; but this reborn in a new image - almost "healed" of a disease), replacing it with a new "better" system, simultaneously discarding and rehabilitating the national identity (religion). (Almost like a schism as happens in religions).

Also remember that seperatism can easily if the group feels it has enough power, convert to Imperialism. After all, said group that was feeling oppressed now has a good chance to opress the oppressers and such a thing is often hard to resist.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I know of no evidence that supports what you seem to be saying.
You seem to be describing a (Temujin) Chingis Khan-type figure; I would argue that Chingis Khan was informally educated, certainly intellectual: aware of and influenced by Chinese ways; in keeping with the formula for a revolutionary he was also:
Son of a tribal chief, experienced the early death of his father, and was rejected by the system,

If you have any examples, please show them.

All of that belies the most important part i was disputing in your statement:

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you;...

Temujin had the backing of some nobility, but he had to force most of them to come under his yoke and replaced all of those who opposed him.

Oda Nobunaga, is also an example. He, of course, had the backing of Tokagowa, but was a small clan. Except for him, not many would have heard of the Oda clan. Tokagowa wasn't exactly that major either. Hojo and Mori were definatly more powerful and well known at the time before the unification was pretty much assured.

Lenon, although he fit the other criteria you've set, did not rely on the nobility or businesses for his power. In fact his is the first successful example of what has been termed as "Popular Monarchism" atleast in the begginning. In fact the Czars, other nobility and powerful businesses were directly in conflict with him.

Finally, while ultimately unsuccessful, the Yellow Turban Rebellion would best describe an example of what i meant. Zhang Jue was not born in nobility nor in any family of major prestige or wealth. He was intelligent, and had access to the books he needed, but ultimately had no backing from any of the govenors, generals or royal family. He did have some support from other taoists, but obviously his main support was from the peasantry.

True, the Yellow Turban Rebllion was ultimately a failure, but that was due more to corruption and betrayal, something possible in any type of revolt, uprising or coup. Zhang Jue won many victories in the battlefield even against superior forces, he was able to gain support of the peasantry and once his rebellion. As said, it was just a bad time that caused him to so quickly rather than the ineptness of not having any major rich supporters.

[yellowdaddy]

Temujin had the backing of some nobility, but he had to force most of them to come under his yoke and replaced all of those who opposed him.

I want to examine the use of the word "force".
You seem to want to imply that Temujin and Oda's rise to power worked in a similar way, and I agree:
In Oda's case, nobles joined him because of survival instincts in the cultural context.
It works like a pack of wolves does, where even strong wolves will fall in behind a pack leader because of fear of being isolated, and thus vulnerable.
Circumstances force them to back the revolutionary leader, they have a carrot and a stick; I don't see the difference with this and events in any other revolution, I argue that the mechanics of mob rule, and of a bandwagon, and thus revolution work very much like this, though no fire will exist without fuel (economic discontentment), heat (political oppression) and oxygen (intellectual leaders).

Revolutionaries are intelligent, imaginitive, and charismastic people who can use the fears and desires of uneducated masses, and educated (middle) classes, by divide and conquer of factions within a revolutionary movement, and by centralising power within themselves.
Their power comes from being able to divide any group of any size into a majority and a minority, and then turn any majority against any minority, even if members of each overlap in different "division and conquest events."

Since this game incorporates characters and dynasties, this dynamic seems rather critical in the functioning and behaviour of characters and dynasties (whether Charlie and his House of Stewart or Mao and his CCP).

------------------

This seems to agree with part of my argument that a revolutionary's success depends upon support from elite groups as well as (or riding on the coattails of) a peasent uprising.

My argument:

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

The Yellow Turbans Revolt (& Taipingdao: early form of socialism?!)

Finally, while ultimately unsuccessful, the Yellow Turban Rebellion would best describe an example of what i meant. Zhang Jue was not born in nobility nor in any family of major prestige or wealth. He was intelligent, and had access to the books he needed, but ultimately had no backing from any of the govenors, generals or royal family. He did have some support from other taoists, but obviously his main support was from the peasantry.

I argued that a revolutionary is a product of an educated society, not a thug or a bandit.
Zhang Jiao (= Zhang Jue) ’£Šp (and his brothers) complies with this criteria of being an educated/intellectual person.

I did not argue that a revolutionary must come from the elite (e.g: nobility), all the revolutionaries I cited are essentially middle-class. I argued that a revolutionary must have an intellectual/educated awareness equal to or greater than members of the elite class.

When I talk about support of the patricians/bourgeouise/wealthy class, I mean support from the middle classes, not the aristocracy or ruling class - otherwise we might want to classify that as a coup.

I would argue that Zhang Jiao as a Daoist scholar, aware of medicinal herbs (a bit like a European witch or druid) comes from a middle-class background because I believe education is synonymous with "middle-class"ness - I can't find any evidence that provides any credible information about his class background.

True, the Yellow Turban Rebllion was ultimately a failure, but that was due more to corruption and betrayal, something possible in any type of revolt, uprising or coup. Zhang Jue won many victories in the battlefield even against superior forces, he was able to gain support of the peasantry and once his rebellion. As said, it was just a bad time that caused him to so quickly rather than the ineptness of not having any major rich supporters.

As I argued, bribery will take the steam out of any revolution.
Ironic for a revolution which started as an economic revolt against corruption and decadence, a breakdown in the structures of the state - property rightsrevolt against corruption by landowners and eunuchs; but a topos (recurring event) in Chinese history.
Re "Critical mass of wealthy (i.e. middle) class" - there were mass student demonstrations in the national university against the eunuchs!

"a bad time"? The Yellow Turbans were crushed by superior forces of General Dong Zhuo precisely because they had no backing from any sections of the elite - like a military commander able to raise experienced well-equipped forces.
The peasantry on their own are not powerful and educated enough to succeed without powerful and educated leaders organising them.

----------------------------

Lenin

Lenon, although he fit the other criteria you've set, did not rely on the nobility or businesses for his power. In fact his is the first successful example of what has been termed as "Popular Monarchism" atleast in the begginning. In fact the Czars, other nobility and powerful businesses were directly in conflict with him.

Lenin, apart from having well-trained troops (Red Guard) and an efficient propaganda machine, was funded by German money approved by Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg (descendent of a wealthy banking family) and the German High Command, because it was seen as an effective way of removing Russia from the war, allowing the Germans to focus all their efforts on the Western Front.

Again, you've confused the idea of "wealthy classes" with "nobility" and "businesses" - there are too few of them, and their power is too dependent on a discredited structure), the key class (the "ignition" class!) is the middle-class, often students.
Russia is different because:
1. we have a class in-between the middle-class and the majority peasant class, which is the new working-class. I argue that this new working-class became educated and politicised by middle-class students and their peers. The main focus of their resentment was the effects of military defeat, and poor treatment of soldiers.
You have a mass influx of peasant labour into urban factories (overworked and underpaid for the war effort, + overcrowding), who's discontentment is harnessed by the (foreign) educated(middle)-class who've seen the advances in Western Europe.
[sounds like China today!]
2. Foreign intervention - Germans funding the revolutionaries to end the Russian involvement in the war, followed by foreign-backed troops stimulating nationalist solidarity and resistence.

In short, the revolution is a consequence of war (the heat part of the equation) meeting fuel (the oppressed inlux of peasant labour) and oxygen (the foreign-educated middle classes - like Lenin).

The Marxist and eventual RSDP formation was an urban phenomenon driven by students, and thus by the middle classes and working classes, and was a movement against a corrupt and decadent aristocracy.
It's important to note that in Russia at this time, the working classes and peasantry (who make up an illiterate oppressed majority) are two different classes.
My idea of a critical mass of middle class is not a majority, but probably (at a guess) about 1/3, possibly a quarter of the class if you're lucky.
Will you argue Rasputin doesn't fit into my proposed criteria as well?
-----------------------------

Oda Nobunaga

Oda Nobunaga, is also an example. He, of course, had the backing of Tokagowa, but was a small clan. Except for him, not many would have heard of the Oda clan. Tokagowa wasn't exactly that major either. Hojo and Mori were definatly more powerful and well known at the time before the unification was pretty much assured.

This seems to support my argument. Backing from a critical mass of the educated/wealthy class, and a critical mass is not a majority, but a significant or large minority.
Oda's certainly educated and arguably middle-class. Father died before he reached adulthood (and then his father-figure Hirate).
The key to Oda's success was ambushing and killing Imagawa, and subsequently acquiring the allegience of Matsudaira out of respect (because Matsudaira's Mikawa province had already been taken over by Imagawa).
Oda won by using intellect - critically weakening stronger clans by targeting the most important point. (just like when you are confronted by a group, you always smack the biggest first, because if he falls, the rest run!).

So in summary, your examples support my argument.

Also remember that seperatism can easily if the group feels it has enough power, convert to Imperialism. After all, said group that was feeling oppressed now has a good chance to opress the oppressers and such a thing is often hard to resist.

Can you provide an example?
You mean like Israelis oppressing Palestinians because the Jews were oppressed in Europe?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "a bad time"? The Yellow Turbans were crushed by superior forces of General Dong Zhuo precisely because they had no backing from any sections of the elite - like a military commander able to raise experienced well-equipped forces.
The peasantry on their own are not powerful and educated enough to succeed without powerful and educated leaders organising them.

Yes, a bad time. Before this the central goverment had a lot of control over its forces, after this event, it lost a lot of that control.

Had something similar sparked an event and Zhang Jiao (i'll use pin-yin) led an uprising after this or someone similar, they might have had a better chance, even without military backing.

But they chose to cause a revolution at a bad time when the central goverment still had a lot of control and no matter the number of victories Zhang Jiao could score he was outclassed in the skill of his troops and his replacements.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Russia is different because:
1. we have a class in-between the middle-class and the majority peasant class, which is the new working-class. I argue that this new working-class became educated and politicised by middle-class students and their peers. The main focus of their resentment was the effects of military defeat, and poor treatment of soldiers.
You have a mass influx of peasant labour into urban factories (overworked and underpaid for the war effort, + overcrowding), who's discontentment is harnessed by the (foreign) educated(middle)-class who've seen the advances in Western Europe.
[sounds like China today!]

Which i'm not sure if the game mechanics of Clash will represent this because its such a rare class that really only exists in rapidly developing economies for a short period of time.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy So in summary, your examples support my argument.

Well since it seemed you broaded what you meant from the entirety of your statement. True you did not say aristorcay or what amounted to "critical mass," but you implied it was a large number and in most older socieities wealthy=aritstocracy or a kind of psedo-aristorcacy of uber-powerful merchants/businessmen.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Can you provide an example?
You mean like Israelis oppressing Palestinians because the Jews were oppressed in Europe?

You need look no further than your daily news, Iraq. The Shiite majority, which was repressed even before Sadam, would like very much to either break away, but since that's not likely, they want to repress the Sunni minority as much as possible now that they are a majority. True much is being done to mitigate this by constant pressure from the US, but without the US pressure, do you really think that would happen? The Kurdish population since if they can't form a sperate state for themselevs also seeks to surpress the Sunni population and keep as much automomy as possible as well.

Isreal is not quite the same because they would be seen as repressing another group other than those that that oppressed them.

Then we go back in history some to the formation of Iran, not modern day Iran, but its formation from overthrowing Qara Kyunlu. Not only did seek an indepedant Shiite state then expanded their nation and suprressed many of those who had suppressed them before and weren't Shiite.

Finally and best example is the Rajputs of Inida who have been throughout its history a repressed people. During the 14th-15th centurites they were able to create numerous priciaplities that were independant rule and once those were created they began to repress the Hindu population that repressed them earlier. Then once India was able to control its own internal policy after the Mughuls and British rule they began to once again repress them.

[yellowdaddy]

Well since it seemed you broaded what you meant from the entirety of your statement. True you did not say aristorcay or what amounted to "critical mass," but you implied it was a large number and in most older socieities wealthy=aritstocracy or a kind of psedo-aristorcacy of uber-powerful merchants/businessmen.

I haven't broadened it out. You turned "educated wealthy classes " into "nobility".
You didn't seem to have finished the second sentence, but I imagine you mean that the upper classes had fewer numbers of people in them in ancient times.
I argue that size does not matter, but what you do with it does ( ), and the leadership and support it has determines what you (can) do with it.

Returning to what I said:

When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).

Note the term:

educated wealthy classes

This does not mean "wealthy classes" or equate to "nobility".
It means middle-classes, you appear to take as meaning upper-classes.

For clarity, I'm going to rename the classes. I believe the game should have three classes:

1. The Rentier Class = Aristocracy, Upper Class, Nobility,
These own land and assets, and essentially produce nothing.

2. The Professional Class = Middle Classes.
These paritally own land and assets, and are engaged in the professional service sector (Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Teachers, Witch doctors, Priests, Alchemists, Astrologers, Jesters, Artists, Military Officers, Bureaucrats, Students)

3. The Operative Class = Working Class, Peasants, Plebs, Commoners, Peons, Serfs, Slaves, Indentured Labour etc...
These obviously comprise the majority, and either work on the land or in service of the Rentier Class, and sometimes work for the Professional Class to produce essential goods, and services (and so includes military operatives: soldiers and sailors etc..); or are skilled craftsmen who freely provide goods and services.

Of course there are ambiguities, when you have skilled craftsmen, or merchants/businessmen who become wealthy, but asking for 5 classes is perhaps a bit too much.

My argument is that seperatism of any kind (including a revolution) requires more than just a mass of discontented members of the Operative Class; the tipping point only comes with a sizeable chunk of the Professional Class utilising the discontented masses.
I also argue that a while a revolutionary figure can come from the Operative Class, they must be an intellectual who posesses the same (or greater) level of awareness (which comes from some form of education) as those who belong to the Professional Class.

So in response to Zhang Jiao, in the criteria set out above, the success of his uprising is a function of (relies upon) the critical mass (30%+?) [or more accurately degree and type] of support from members of the Professional Class.

The fact that he had some initial success (,I argue,) relates to the level of insurgency within the Professional Class, namely the 30,000 students who protested at the National University.

The fact that the revolt failed, then, evidences the argument that the diminishing and lack of a sustained growth in support [or even sustaining the critical mass of support] among the Professional Class relates to the failure of the revolt.

Before this the central goverment had a lot of control over its forces, after this event, it lost a lot of that control.

Had something similar sparked an event and Zhang Jiao ... led an uprising after this or someone similar, they might have had a better chance, even without military backing.

But they chose to cause a revolution at a bad time when the central goverment still had a lot of control and no matter the number of victories Zhang Jiao could score he was outclassed in the skill of his troops and his replacements.

This seems rather nonsensical to me.
Before what? Before he was crushed by Dong Zhuo? Before the revolt started? What do mean?
The revolt wouldn't start after this event, the revolt is a response to a set of circumstances that did not exist after it had happened!?! (paeadox?!)
"might have had a better chance" ?! "might" does not inspire much confidence in your belief in your own argument... anything might happen, the probability can be deduced by analysing the facts.
"chose"?!
He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big - see Iraq.

You need look no further than your daily news, Iraq. The Shiite majority, which was repressed even before Sadam, would like very much to either break away, but since that's not likely, they want to repress the Sunni minority as much as possible now that they are a majority. True much is being done to mitigate this by constant pressure from the US, but without the US pressure, do you really think that would happen? The Kurdish population since if they can't form a sperate state for themselevs also seeks to surpress the Sunni population and keep as much automomy as possible as well.

I don't think there exists any evidence to support any of that.
"Repress" seems such a subjective term.

What does that have to do with seperatism evolving into imperialism anyway?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy This seems rather nonsensical to me.
Before what? Before he was crushed by Dong Zhuo? Before the revolt started? What do mean?

Sorry i meant had someone else revolted and he taken advantage of it afterwords.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy The revolt wouldn't start after this event, the revolt is a response to a set of circumstances that did not exist after it had happened!?! (paeadox?!)

Little changed for the lives of the peasants, those who made up almost the entirirty of his forces. The only differance was instead of the Imperial Family opressing them, it was likely more a local warlord or govenor.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "might have had a better chance" ?! "might" does not inspire much confidence in your belief in your own argument... anything might happen, the probability can be deduced by analysing the facts.

I can't say for a fact that he would have succeeded, but neither can you say for a fact he wouldn't have succeeded in a more de-centralized turmoil-ish time period similar to that which followed.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy ""chose"?!
He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big

not really. When there is not a serious technologial edge and you have atleast a descent leader (which Zhang Jiao proved he was by defeating Dong Zhuo in a few battles despite the inferiror nature of his forces, numbers can seriously make a differance. And even uneducated peasants that survive a battle can learn something from it and become better. After all, knowledge had to come from someone who iwas uneducated at sometime, somewhere, so why can't the process repeat itself?

Also during such a time i described above their is more of a chance to survive because not nearly 100% of the military might wouldn't have been centered upon his forces at one time.

So he could have achieved it imo as likely as anyone else, in such a period. And eventually, by sheer force atleast some people may have come to his aid.

But in the end it doesn't matter. I'm not sure you guys are working up a model that could handle anything like that seen in Rot3K.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by yellowdaddy - see Iraq.[/quote[Ahh Iraq...yes lets talk about how different Iraq is.

1st, we are using militaries with two vastly different technolfical, and therefore strategic, capabilities. This wasn't the case really for Zhang Jiao. His technological inferiritories on and off the battlefield didn't prevent too much aptability differential as compared to the US/Britian and Insurgants.

Then we get to level of cooperation. All the US/British (and other) forces are allied in a common goal and work symbitotically toward that goal. The Iraqi insurgants have yet to become thus united in any level of such symbiosis which hampers their capabilties. For Zhang Jiao it was until end an us. vs. them only. Their was internal corruption, but it wasn't like those corrupted were now working for multiple goals now, it was like they just switched sides.

Then their is a differance in goals. For the US/British, they must stabalize Iraq as a democracy to see their goals. Anything less and its not a success. For the insurgants, all they haveto do is destabalize Iraq. Thus their goal is much easier to achieve. For Zhang Jiao his goal was to eventually become Emperor, a very daunting goal for an uprising.

Finally the tactics used in iraq, by both armies differ and both of their tactics differ from those used in ancient China. The gurellia tactics of the insurgants did not exist almost anywhere in the world until near modern times to the level of sophistication seen. I can only think of one exception and its in an isolated area. The tactics used by the US/Britian is also more heavily reliant on specialized suads or units and even moreso on airpower to keep indiviusal soldiers alive. Also urban style warfare war rare before modern times and when it did happen, cities were destroyed in their entirety (think Kyoto during the Onin War).

This iraq as an example of how insurgants would lose because of lack of critical mass isn't a good example.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy 3. The Operative Class = Working Class, Peasants, Plebs, Commoners, Peons, Serfs, Slaves, Indentured Labour etc.

Weren't slaves suppose to be their own class?

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Of course there are ambiguities, when you have skilled craftsmen, or merchants/businessmen who become wealthy, but asking for 5 classes is perhaps a bit too much.

I dunno...that seems too few since those wealthy merchants and such were more powerful than rulers of some nations and today the same with some CEOs.

[yellowdaddy]

their is more of a chance to survive because not nearly 100% of the military might wouldn't have been

I'd much rather you wrote in Japanese...

without cluttering up this with quotes.

I don't agree with your assessment of the differences in technology of the forces.
You seem to get your evidence from the novel or computer game of the Three Kingdoms.

More to the point, you are digressing from the crux of the argument, and just trying to say anything can happen without actually presenting evidence and arguments to support an idea of what is likely to happen.
We are not discussing facts, (because facts don't really exist), the issue is probability, based on what evidence exists from the past.
There are clearly observable patterns, which appear to comprise the majority, and thus have the highest probability.
The probability is that Zhang Jiao's revolt would fail because history shows that revolts without significant Professional Class support, habitually tend to fail; and so he did.

Experience of battle does not equate to intellectual development or education: they might get better at fighting/surviving, but not at thinking.

Iraq

He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big - see Iraq.

you're talking about insurgents, I thought I was talking about the Iraqi army? Nevertheless...

Before the insurgents: The crappy army
Most intellectuals have fled Iraq, army officers were peasants.
Saddam saw fit to ensure that only those loyal to him were educated, the rest, liquidated. The army transformed into a flock of sheep.
You have an army of peasants who have no will to fight, who are led by unintellectual peasant officers.

Technology: Tactics can defeat technology (software v hardware)
You essentially argue that technology is why they "lost."
Technology is no barrier to those Fedayyin with the fanaticism to fight, and the intellectual vision to use ingenious tactics against an apparently superior enemy.

Co-operation: The insurgents are united around a common goal.
As for the insurgents - there are three categories: Seperatist Kurds, Expulsionist Shi'ites, and foreign fanatics + sunni/ba'athist extremists.
It's the latter category that I discuss.

Goals: They are the same.
The Iraqi insurgent goals are to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.
The Yellow Turban goals were to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.

Tactics: The tactics are not relevent.

This iraq as an example of how insurgants would lose because of lack of critical mass isn't a good example.

Not a great example, true; but it still works more or less the same way.

[LDiCesare]

So the difference between autonomy and independence is that independence is a dichotomous choice, and autonomy is a bit more variable isn't it?

Yes.
In fact my main point is I have several kinds of desires, which include:
-Creating/joining a new civ.
-Increasing autonomy inside the same civ
-Changing the regime
-Changing the ruler inside the same regime
-Changing the policies inside the same regime
All these desires come from various feelings.
For instance, ethnic discrimination could make you create a new civ, but bad policies feeling would not.

Poor Welfare Feeling

From the model, this is:
Poor Welfare Feeling (PWF): Discontent mainly because of bad economic situation (poverty), but also includes the welfare produced by the level of civil rights and the administration effectiveness (see more on administration in the govt model).

You can compare that with:
Revolutionary Feeling (RF): The feeling that a dramatic change in regime is needed in the govt because its very essence and structure are "wrong".

If I get your point correctly, PWF is necessary for any of the other feelings to actually turn into something concrete. Even if you think the monarchy is corrupt, you don't mind unless you're actually not getting as much, economically, as you'd expect. Note that the move (revolting, separating, whatever) may actually make things worse, but people want a change and don't know in advance how things will fare.

The equation in the technical part of the model for PWF is directly linked to Per Capita Income modification diminished by the province's Administration Effectiveness Level, so it's a factor if revenue has been decreasing over the last turns plus a term based on poor administration (which represents waste of public money/corruption).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy There are clearly observable patterns, which appear to comprise the majority, and thus have the highest probability.
The probability is that Zhang Jiao's revolt would fail because history shows that revolts without significant Professional Class support, habitually tend to fail; and so he did.

Those patterns you speak all deal with simple us vs. them situations. I haven't really seen any examples given of more complex situations.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Technology: Tactics can defeat technology (software v hardware)
You essentially argue that technology is why they "lost."
Technology is no barrier to those Fedayyin with the fanaticism to fight, and the intellectual vision to use ingenious tactics against an apparently superior enemy.

So, you're telling me that Inida could have fought back during the british invasion and won with good tactics?

Technology whens its close to the same level, isn't that much of a barrier, but if youre fighting with swords and bows, theirs no way you could ever hope to defeat an army with tanks and bombers.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Co-operation: The insurgents are united around a common goal.
As for the insurgents - there are three categories: Seperatist Kurds, Expulsionist Shi'ites, and foreign fanatics + sunni/ba'athist extremists.
It's the latter category that I discuss.

They have a common goal, that doesn't automatically equate that they are united around it.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Goals: They are the same.
The Iraqi insurgent goals are to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.
The Yellow Turban goals were to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.

Well for some. However atleast one of your above groups, the Kurshish seperatist, have a much narrower and less ambitious and therefore more achieveable goal.

[yellowdaddy]

For instance, ethnic discrimination could make you create a new civ, but bad policies feeling would not.

That seems to imply that groups of citizens or provinces who want to form new civs must develop (into) distinct EGs first? I suppose that could make sense.

So:
How are they defined as being different EGs? How different must they be?

It'd have to be more than one attribute. Even language and religion doesn't seem enough to make Wales and Scotland want break away (but it does induce or indicate a degree of seperatist feeling).

I appreciate that economic growth and slump can't precipitate seperatism (it has to have some cultural impetus, but it could feature as a factor that can add to the feeling.

Did the USA start like that? Or is that a different category?
How did the seperatist feeling happen in the USA? Economics and Political (Religious) freedom played a part, but did they develop a sense of seperate "ethnic" identity from Britain? (discuss!)

If I get your point correctly, PWF is necessary for any of the other feelings to actually turn into something concrete. Even if you think the monarchy is corrupt, you don't mind unless you're actually not getting as much, economically, as you'd expect.

The evidence I cited demonstrates that poverty by itself does not lead to revolt. Yes, wealth can suppress revolt among the Professional Class, but you can make the Operative Class as poor and oppressed as you like as long as you have the economic means to instill fear and hopelessness into them.

The evidence shows that economic growth accompanied with expectation of continued growth, followed then by a sudden recession or correction, will precipitate revolt. The nature and severity of that revolt is magnified by an oppressed mass of Operative Class led by Intellectual Revolutionaries of the Professional Class who are backed by some (I think at least a third) of the Professional Class. A revolting (!) mass of the Professional Class seem usually motivated by corruption and concomitant wealth gap (which might resemble a world population graph rather than a more diagonal pyramid). I expect also that the poverty of the Operative Class must be directly affecting the Professional Class negatively (crime, begging, visible squalour).

When you look at a country like Thailand, you might wonder why they don't revolt?

They have:
extreme Rentier Class corruption
growing Professional Class (not affected by the O-Class enough)
poor (and getting poorer) Operative Class (but not oppressed enough)
economic downturn (not enough yet) (though they did have the 97 crisis)

I think police and military corruption must play a part in keeping fear levels among the O-Class high enough to forestall revolt.

As a very agrarian state, food security is high, which helps.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those patterns you speak all deal with simple us vs. them situations. I haven't really seen any examples given of more complex situations.

Iraq?
The only more complex examples behave like this: multipolar "us v them" "subplots;" but when you break it down, "us and them" just about sums them all up.

So, you're telling me that Inida could have fought back during the british invasion and won with good tactics?

Absolutely - the Afghans did it against the Russians (and now the Chechens are); the Vietnamese against the Americans (and now Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are).

Technology whens its close to the same level, isn't that much of a barrier, but if youre fighting with swords and bows, theirs no way you could ever hope to defeat an army with tanks and bombers.

"Primitive" technologies and skills can prove highly effective against high-tech militaries who have a high level of dependence upon their machines and the supplies (fuel, ammunition, human support supplies).
This is especially true when low-tech forces are fighting in terrain they have a lot of familiarity with, and when they have high levels of "religious"-type motivation.
Low-tech forces can attack supplies and morale, and even win in information warfare.

Software can defeat Hardware, just as Stone beats Scissors (I presume you know the game I allude to?).

They have a common goal, that doesn't automatically equate that they are united around it.

They seem united in so far as one group has every incentive to allow others to cause mayhem.
Why would one group stop another from destroying a target that they would want to destroy themselves?
It seems cheaper to let the Group B carry out activites that suit the objectives of Group A, and then for Group A to try and claim responsibility?

Well for some. However atleast one of your above groups, the Kurshish seperatist, have a much narrower and less ambitious and therefore more achieveable goal.

The Kurds' goal seems more ambitious to me - they want to create a state from parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria; however, they seem to be playing a long game to get support and investment from the West, which will put them in a stronger position in the long run. If they (the Iraqi Kurds) tried to secede now they would invite attack from Turkey and damage relations with the USA.

[LDiCesare]

So:
How are they defined as being different EGs? How different must they be?

It'd have to be more than one attribute. Even language and religion doesn't seem enough to make Wales and Scotland want break away (but it does induce or indicate a degree of seperatist feeling).

An EG currently has a nationality, which is the nation they want to be part of, and a religion. We can add language (and other stuff if needed). The question is: How does the nationality change in order to create a new one?
I do not know. And thus right now in the code I am not changing the nationality.
I don't know how expectations of economic growth are/can be modelled either, so at least as a first phase, expecting to grow or not decrease would be enough. I might also consider the first derivate (expect to sustain the same growth) later.

[yellowdaddy]

I don't know how expectations of economic growth are/can be modelled either, so at least as a first phase, expecting to grow or not decrease would be enough. I might also consider the first derivate (expect to sustain the same growth) later.

Do you have a feature like "population morale"?
How about a "pH scale" of optimism/pessimism?
You could link it to a set of indicators:
economic growth, inflation,
levels of internal and external conflict/peace,
your PWF etc...

you've got a set of variables there that can be used to calculate the population's mood in terms of optimism and pessimism.

In a way, it seems a bit 2-dimensional to have morale measured as "content" "discontent" etc..., it works better as a vector rather than a scalar value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From your description, i.e. that PWF = poverty + poor civil rights + corruption, I think that PWF seems unnecessary.

Can the above "Mood Vector" replace it, with Level of Poverty and Level of Rights, and Admin Effectiveness as variables in the "Mood Vector" Equation?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does the nationality change in order to create a new one?

Clearly we must look at a range of known examples of how seperatism happens.

The word "distance" (from the centre of the state) seems appropriate to define how "nationality" changes.
Factors like:
migration, which creates "geographical distance" between group and centre (including terrain rather than simple distance);
cultural change, which also precipitates "values distance" from the centre;
linguistic evolution, which precipitates "identity distance" from the centre;
economic de-dependence, which is "economic distance" (lack of dependence) from the centre.


geographical factors precipitated by migration:
terrain isolation (Inuit, Amerindians...)
separation by sea (Madagascans, Americans...)

Migration seems to precipitate:
1. Gradual linguistic change (about 200 years for a regional accent, 500 years for a non-mutually intelligible spoken language). This can be separation by miles of sea, or just living in different vallies which are not easily accessible to one another.

2. Economic change - they are no longer entirely dependent upon the centre for trade (especially import).

3. Cultural change will be evolutional too, unless an offshoot comes into contact with a(nother) religion.

summary:
Populations' identity evolves automatically (but slowly) as you expand your civilisation.
The larger and more disparate your population, the more likely the most "distant" parts ("distant" from the capital) will evolve.
You could neutralise this with centralising or federalising policies, depending on various things like tech-level, infrastructure, the prestige of your capital city...

I put "Distant" in inverted commas because, "distance" (or displacement) is not necessarily geographical. It's the conflation of who the given province trades with most, who it's people identify with in terms of values (i.e. religion), and to a much lesser extent language (only relevant in terms of nationalism and/or if you have a number of independent states with similar languages, or multi-ethnic/linguistic states).

Religious or Values distance is likely to always play a major role in seperatism (though less so as you approach the modern era); economic dependence on the centre may neutralise it - as well as education of course.

[LDiCesare]

I don't think poor welfare is unnecessary. It's an element of the bigger vector which includes discrimination feeling, nationalistic feeling etc which all make the content/discontent value.
In the end, I'll have to translate the vector into a straight figure to know the probability of a given event/riot occurring. Summing together some terms that have the same consequences makes things easier.
Levels of conflict are also handled in the model, but not coded yet as I'd have to code the civil war part too and I must converge on the existing stuff before.

I think your separatism variables are sensible.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Iraq?
The only more complex examples behave like this: multipolar "us v them" "subplots;" but when you break it down, "us and them" just about sums them all up.

But those "subplots" really change the dynamics of the situation more than you want to admit.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Absolutely - the Afghans did it against the Russians (and now the Chechens are); the Vietnamese against the Americans (and now Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are).

Howver both examples (as well as the rest you site) use technolgy differentials no where in line with those seen by the british and most of Inida. Plus both of your examples have people backing them. China for Vitenam and America for Afghanistan which also had much more comprable technology to give as support. Had they not given any way to increase the technological capcity of the resitance, things would be different.

For British in india when they did meet resitance their weaponry was so far advanced beyond what even the trained military had that even when they did meet the tough resitance in the north and guriella tactics in the south, they were able to defeat them handily. The only way they might have survied was with similar level of technology because they had the resources to pull to successfully mount a resitance given everything else, but the technology was just so vastly different that even in the south where gurella tactics were used, they posed no threat.

Software can defeat Hardware, just as Stone beats Scissors (I presume you know the game I allude to?).

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "Primitive" technologies and skills can prove highly effective against high-tech militaries who have a high level of dependence upon their machines and the supplies (fuel, ammunition, human support supplies).
This is especially true when low-tech forces are fighting in terrain they have a lot of familiarity with, and when they have high levels of "religious"-type motivation.
Low-tech forces can attack supplies and morale, and even win in information warfare.

Only to an extent. You can, as with Hannibal, win all the battles you want, but you'll still lose the war with such a vast differental in technology. The only hope you have is to wear down the morale of the people back at home so they'll want to leave, but if they don't give a damn about these minor things, it won't matter how much damage you do. You'll ventually lose.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy They seem united in so far as one group has every incentive to allow others to cause mayhem.
Why would one group stop another from destroying a target that they would want to destroy themselves?
It seems cheaper to let the Group B carry out activites that suit the objectives of Group A, and then for Group A to try and claim responsibility?

That's not unity though. That's just a truce. Unity would be actually working together for the common goal which as of yet hasn't really happened much.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy The Kurds' goal seems more ambitious to me - they want to create a state from parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria; however, they seem to be playing a long game to get support and investment from the West, which will put them in a stronger position in the long run. If they (the Iraqi Kurds) tried to secede now they would invite attack from Turkey and damage relations with the USA.

It may invite an attack from turkey, but it doubful they'll do too much there. They want to keep the region stable too as its in their best interest. But there's more to it as well. A kudish state forming in iraq while it might mean more trouble short-term for Turkey with their own kurdish population could be a boon to it as many kurds could mirgrate there putting less pressure on other regions. But it could also backfire before then and those areas also want to join. In either case though, turkey would prefer more stabalizing route.

But none of that changes the fact that the kurdish population has a much narrower goal and therefore more achievebal goal because if the iraqi government succeeds, they can try to peacefully split off later on and if it fails, they can shurg their shoulders and walk away declaring themselves independant then and their.

[yellowdaddy]

I don't think poor welfare is unnecessary. It's an element of the bigger vector which includes discrimination feeling, nationalistic feeling etc which all make the content/discontent value.

I don't really understand or know all of the factors that constitute your content/discontent value.

The question about how expectation could be modelled, I think it must be related to growth in a general sense.

growth in: wealth & trade; education & rights; national prestige (through conquest/increased territory & alliances) & allegience (i.e. anti-seperatism); I dunno if you need anything else?

You can measure W/T (Wealth & Trade) relatively straightforwardly - through amounts of money;

E/R (Education & Rights) seems tricky; I suppose you could link it to research (in the old Civ model)? Perhaps the numbers of Education/Legal institutions and professionals in the workforce?

P/A (Prestige & Allegience) - maybe link it to (as mentioned) increases in territory and population/city size, as well as trigger events like signing of (political) treaties of any kind (each with different prestige effects (ceasefire - alliance) - obviously a surrender treaty has a negative prestige effect).

So you've got these three values which can be factored together to produce a scalar Expectation Value, you then might relate it to the previous values (to a limited extent) to produce a vector - so that the public mood follows events rather than being synchronous with them (which seems more natural).

All these three scalar values could range from e.g.: -5 to +5, and likewise with the averaged and resulting Expectation scalar value.
The difference between the current and previous value acts like a growth rate.

eg:
Year 1:
W/T +2
E/R +5
P/A +5
Expectation Scalar: +4

Year 2:
W/T -3
E/R +5
P/A +4
Exp Sca: +2

Year 2 Expectaton Vector: -2
People's mood is becoming more pessimistic as country X experiences a sudden slump in Wealth & Trade. However Education & Rights are very high, as is Prestige & Allegience, which help mitigate the effects of a serious economic setback.

In this example country X looks likely to experience a drop in consumer confidence/spending, which requires the government to intervene by lowering interest rates (or the Roman equivalent!), or perhaps launch a military campaign it can win lest the economy weakens further...

hows does that sound?

------------------

But those "subplots" really change the dynamics of the situation more than you want to admit.

Where do you get the "want to admit" bit from? I try to look at evidence, and draw conclusions from it; if you've got credible evidence that proves the model I propose doesn't work, then produce it.

The British defeated the Indians because they lacked any sort of political unity, national identity or common goal (at least until Gandhi). We bribed them and divided them and dominated them with tiny forces.
Then Gandhi came along without any technology - just education from abroad, and instilled those three things into the Indian middle classes and thus ousted the British a lot sooner than planned to go.

You can, as with Hannibal, win all the battles you want, but you'll still lose the war with such a vast differental in technology.

You think Hannibal and the Romans were vastly different in technology levels?!

Apart from Hannibal not being the leader of a seperatist movement (and thus another complete digression from the debate), he lost because of morale - the defection of the Numidian Cavalry at the Battle of Zama - Cavalry played the decisive role in Hannibal's defeat, not any "vast differential in technology" - if anything the Carthaginians had an advantage with superior numbers and elephants.

Try beating amazonian tribesmen with poisonous blowdarts with Apache helicopters and M16s in the middle of the Amazon!
Or suicide bombers with spy satellites and smart missiles.
And try reading before citing these flimsy examples.

That's not unity though. That's just a truce. Unity would be actually working together for the common goal which as of yet hasn't really happened much.

You can't accurately describe it as a truce or formal unity; but it is unity of purpose and objective. Anyway you mentioned a specific kind of unity not just "unity" in a vague, general sense, didn't you?

It may invite an attack from turkey, but it doubful they'll do too much there. They want to keep the region stable too as its in their best interest. But there's more to it as well. A kudish state forming in iraq while it might mean more trouble short-term for Turkey with their own kurdish population could be a boon to it as many kurds could mirgrate there putting less pressure on other regions. But it could also backfire before then and those areas also want to join. In either case though, turkey would prefer more stabalizing route.

Right. The first part you appear to repeat what I already said, but reword it in a way that sounds like it contradicts me.
Kurds will not migrate from Turkey or elswhere into a Kurdish state in Iraq, there are masses of Turkish troops on the border to prevent that, the PKK is not about to leave what it regards as the Kurdish homeland.

But none of that changes the fact that the kurdish population has a much narrower goal and therefore more achievebal goal because if the iraqi government succeeds, they can try to peacefully split off later on and if it fails, they can shurg their shoulders and walk away declaring themselves independant then and their.

The Kurds do not have a "narrower goal", you simply don't seem aware of the ramifications of Kurdish Iraq trying to become independent whether as a tiny statelet or part of a unified pan-kurdish whole.
More to the point, fail to see the connection to the original argument.

More to the point, debating fine points doesn't really add anything to the design of a model for this game. We need to replicate what usually happens most of the time as recorded in credible history sources to come up with a workable model for the game that produces plausible results and effects - the game cannot include every possible permutation, the line has to be drawn somewhere, having said that what we include in the game must surely replicate reality in a simple, fun and interesting way?

[LDiCesare]

I'll put the link to the riots model here again for reference, since all the definitions are inside: http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Riots.shtml section IV.
This describes all the factors set in the model.
You're basically saying that no riot will happen unless Poor Welfare Feeling exists, which is what I need Mark to code PCI for .
I still don't know how to include education to lower the risk of nationalistic rebellion feeling, but haven't spent much time to think it since I spent more time on the ai.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Laurent:

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Poor Welfare Feeling exists, which is what I need Mark to code PCI for

I did that a Long time ago, and am sure I posted or emailed you about it. The fix is in commit 196, and I expect that you already have it.

added Economy.getPCI() method. Per capita income (PCI) is 4 for a subsistence economy and can get into the 100s for a modern economy.

Let me know what else you need, or if the implementation turns out to have problems.

Looks like your making good progress! Please let me know when the next milestone is for playtesting.

[LDiCesare]

Sorry Mark, I must have seen it but forgot it (I had been busy with vovan's changes to the imports so I overlooked your change ). I'm busy with the ai (plugging it, weeding out the non implemented parts, checking why a unit vanishes from sight when I assign it to another command, needing some better optimisation of the placement of units). I'll plug the PCI now...

[yellowdaddy]

You're basically saying that no riot will happen unless Poor Welfare Feeling exists

I think I split PWF; combine RF, RRF, BAF, SDF, NRF & ADF as components of "Seperatism" and add P/A (Prestige and Allegience).

Why?
Revolution Feeling = Seperatism from political system
Replace Ruler Feeling = Seperatism from political leader
Bad Policies Feeling = Separatism from political leadership
Anti-Discrimination Feeling = Separatism from political system & leadership
Self-Determination Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership
National Rebellion Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership

It doesn't mean they cease to exist - I agree with them, but I think they are all forms of Seperatism, and so I group them together - perhaps as like a "graphic equaliser" (!) of Seperatism.
NRF, SDF, RF, RRF and BDF seem akin to Prestige & Allegience (of and to the state).

PWF - I think it feels better if you split it into
Economic Welfare; and
Education & Rights Welfare

Same system different variables:
Key:
W/T = Wealth & Trade
E/R = Education & Rights
P/A = Prestige & Allegience

Year 1:
W/T +5
E/R -1
P/A +5
Expectation Scalar: +4.5

Year 2:
W/T +4
E/R -3
P/A +4
Exp. Sca.: +1.7

Exp. Vector = -2.8

Expectation is falling (i.e. a Bear market!) Education and Rights have gone from bad to worse, but the Economy and Loyalty is still high, but not enough to curb public protest. (?)

I don't know if this works, or feels right.
I've read, however, from what I regard as a very credible source (cited earlier), that poverty alone doesn't cause a riot.

I think you can still get riots if the state oppresses people, but it's got to come from an economic effect - such as oppression damaging entrepreneurial growth and productivity.

I still don't know how to include education to lower the risk of nationalistic rebellion feeling

It looks like a tricky one. When I categorise NRF as a kind of Seperatism, it raises interesting questions.

"Seperatism from the political leadership"

Nationalistic Rebellion Feeling (NRF): Discontent because the ethnic group the social class belongs to is ruled by another civ (a civ with another nationality). The EG feels "invaded", so it wants to form a civ of its own or join the civ of the same nationality if it already exists.

This seems to state that a form of ethnic strife precipitates NRF (which makes it seem like ADF).
I come at it from an economics POV - "why are they discontent" - because the ruling EG has more economic power, which stems from their political power.
Thus, NRF = "injustice feeling".

How would you use Education to neutralise this sense of injustice? Propaganda?!
Perhaps it makes more sense if you make "Education & Rights" always as a pair : -
You increase the Education of the whole population (oppressors and oppressed = Operative Class and Professional Class) and Rights automatically increase. As Rights increase, NRF decreases... like a see-saw or scales or fulcrum (or whatever).
It looks like calculus really!
[As E&R tends to infinity, NRF tends to 0]

You can have a "Education & Rights" level, as a component of Tech Level? Affecting speed of research (and thus speed of Economic growth...).

Certainly it looks to me like a gaping hole on your "Computing PAFs" list.

[LDiCesare]

I disagree with calling all other sentiments as separatisms:

Revolution Feeling = Seperatism from political system. Doesn't make sense for me. Once separated from its population, the old political system no longer exists, so it is not separatism but change. Most other feelings fall in the same category.
Replace Ruler Feeling = Seperatism from political leader. Not really separatism either. (I'd say this one is not really a very important feeling to model, though.)
Bad Policies Feeling = Separatism from political leadership. That's not separatism, that's wanting changes in policies.
Anti-Discrimination Feeling = Separatism from political system & leadership. Can lead to separatism, but not necessarily, as it can lead to demands of a change in policy.
Self-Determination Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership. Ok for this one.
National Rebellion Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership. Ok for this one.

How did you compute your 4.5 and 1.7 values in your example?

I do not want to switch completely to a system like the one you are describing without having thoroughly tested roquijad's model first. I'll probably be using your idea of using econ effects as a necessary trigger. I still have not found out a way to get education/propaganda/rights in the equation to lower nationalistic rebellion feeling. (I don't want that getting a good economics be the only way of reducing unrest.)