Social Model v3.0

[Lord God Jinnai]

http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Social.shtml

Its finally up for those who want to check it out.

Previous thread and discussion:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=12290

Finally this thread may be useful to those wishing to code for this model as it deals with demographics.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=12283

[Lord God Jinnai]

I'll be quoting in this section parts from the actual model and replying to them afterword.

Ethnic Tolerance: It represents how you see other tribes and what kind of relationship you think exists between your tribe and others. A low ET means you feel your tribe is superior and the rest hardly qualify as human beings. A high ET means you respect other tribes and you're willing to live together with them.

That's a good idea, but 2 things I'd change. A low one would mean you feel superior, a moderate one you'd feel equal and respectful of other tribes and high one is you'd feel your inferior. The latter is historically accurace. It happened in Far East in several countries after the Europeans came. In some places it was so extreme that someone from outside praising their culture would be an affront to them because they felt they were inferior in every way.

The other is simply a 1/2 switch in that you feel that way about all other cultures or all cultures that are not similar to yours.

Aggressiveness: This defines how aggressive the culture is. A high score indicates a very warlike culture while a low score indicates peaceful.

A high score should denote a warlike culture, a moderate score a peaceful, or coexistance culture and a low score a submissive culture.

The model assumes the govt tries to encourage the idea of Nation and people's adoption of govt's nationality, but this is only possible as long as the concept of Nation is well refined. Assumes also it's harder to do it for far away territories and it's easier for people to embrace govt's nationality if the govt is representative.

My one big question is how to determine whether a conquered nation with high nationality considers it for the old one or the new one (generally its for the old one, but not always) and for how long because nationality can continue to be strong and slowly change to the conquers nation at the same time.

In this version both criticisms are incorporated via the "Philosophy" concept. Here, Philosophy will be a moral code (i.e. a set of cultural attributes) the ruler, as the govt's lead, may encourage in his people...For example, somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century a "Fascism" philosophy could be available with high aggressiveness and low ethnic tolerance. With a sufficiently high level of development of some other techs like Sociology, it'd be also possible for the player to create his own philosophy.

I think it would be a good idea if there were some kind of level indicator on their also for some things, like socialism, ie how far does it go...China is a good example of a partly social state.

Although this approach serves pretty well for social engineering, it's limited for the other aspect. Moral codes as a form of philosophy aren't necessarily restricted to a govt "implementing" them from top to bottom. The best in terms of realism would be to treat them more like religions, but this would greatly complicate the model because we'd have to model things like "philosophy spreading" and, more importantly, define rules to determine why a certain philosophy finds supporters and others don't. What is proposed here is therefore a compromise between realism and implementation.

I see no reason why we cannot use the already existing model for religions with very minor tweaks.

Finally, the family value is a way to introduce "religion branches", like Catholics and Protestants in christianity. Two religions in the same family have the same family value. The value itself is unimportant.

Hmm...i dunno....atleast 1 attribute should be differnt...otherwise when spreading is concerned if both are present at the same time there will be no easy way to determine which one is more likely to take hold.

These last questions/statements are too broad to contain in a quoted section, so i'll just ask them outright.

1> I still don't see how new EG can be created except if they are conquered (partly) by another nation or part of them move to a new area. I guess I'm wondering how a EG could split in two because of a religious differance or whatnot. And also when would the split occur?

2> Also why can't a ruler force 1 ER over his entire country if his control is high enough and/or try to spread it 'by the sword'? The is certainly historically accurate.

3> There should be somewhere to cope with the ability of ER to counter MER in what i call QER (Quasi-Ethic Religions). This is that the ER feels threated (ie loss of worshippers) to the new invading MER. To counteract this, the ER has a chance to change and adapt to this threat. QER would then get a boost in their popularity (the effect of countering the new religions ways so it seems more appealing while still keeping local traditions). This should only happen once. per religion (not familys, just religions). Thus when it happens, the data is stored in the QER what religion it modified itself to so that if it succeeds and the religion comes back again, it won't happen again. QER cannot spread like MER they adapt to. There is also upon the creation (or recreation) or the QER a switch to wether the parent MER feels its close enough to its religion not to go after it as being hertical to worship. If it was formerly a QER and was contacted by another MER and adapted, then the former MER should now consider it heretical, no matter what.

This solves the problem of religions adapting to fit local customs (which happened with every religion in history, except the first religions ever) and allows for the idea mentioned that many areas 'claimed' to be a major religion, but had many local practices that might be considered heretical.

[Mark_Everson]

Great Job Rodrigo! The model is getting quite refined. Is there an appendix with the math available yet?

Maybe I don't understand the model completely... but I second LGJs comments about the way you handle Nationality for two High-Nationality states where some territory changes hands. It almost seems to me like you need two Nationality numbers. One being the one you have now in the model, that is Nat for the country they're in, and a second for Another country. So the Bs taken over by the As can be shown to be hating the rule of the As but fervently wanting re-conquest by the Bs. Whereas if the Cs were about to take over they might not prefer them to the As.

[Yoav Sissman]

Where are the main changes to the model?

In the meanwhile just a few quick comment about LGJ's feedback:

A high score should denote a warlike culture, a moderate score a peaceful, or coexistance culture and a low score a submissive culture.

I I agree with roquijad on this; IMO submissive isn't the opposite side of warlike. Of course that each model team can use the aggressiveness score as they see fit.

I think it would be a good idea if there were some kind of level indicator on their also for some things, like socialism, ie how far does it go...China is a good example of a partly social state.

This is already a government policy factor, and as such is affected by the level of the people's Individualism.

As a matter of fact I think we have too many of those variables, and that Private Property and Social Policies should probably be combined into one factor.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by Yoav Sissman
Where are the main changes to the model?

At the bottom there should be a breif summory he made.

I I agree with roquijad on this; IMO submissive isn't the opposite side of warlike. Of course that each model team can use the aggressiveness score as they see fit.

Hmm then what factors would indicate this...you can't have an aggressive/submissive culture. And there are tons of historical evidences of submissive cultures.

his is already a government policy factor, and as such is affected by the level of the people's Individualism.

Well in that case, theres no probkem, so point dropped.

[KrikkitOne]

I assume that the Land Attachment can decrease due to migrations? since as it is it should increase to ~100 and not change. I figure the more of a population that tends to move from one square to another (and the more distantly they move) should describe the TV for Land Attachment (more movement=Less Land attachment)

[Yoav Sissman]

Only now I've read the entire new model (at first it seemed pretty similar to version 2).

Great Work!

About LJG's submissiveness remark:

If you are thinking in the direction of submissiveness in foreign affairs, then I don't think it really exists as an independent cultural attribute, but rather as result of peace loving (which will result in sacrificing more to keep the peace). So in a way lack of aggressiveness does imply submissiveness.

OTOH if you are thinking about cultural submissiveness, then IMHO that factor should be covered by the levels of traditionalism (appreciation of change), discrimination (appreciation of others), and some aspects of nationality and government influences.

[Lord God Jinnai]

What i meant probably got confused. By submissive i meant thinking themselves as less than others, perhaps less than human. Japan after reopening of trade and prior to the Meiji restoration is one of the best examples of a submissive culture. They viewed themselves as inferior to everyone and would be shamed if any westerner pariased any aspect of Japanese life during that time. They thought all Europeans and Americans were superior in every way to them, culturally, technollogically, economically, etc.

The differance between peaceful and submissve for governments is whether or not they're willing to sacrafice anything for peace.

[Mark_Everson]

Me:
I dislike the notion that religions are the sole purveyors of ethics. Can we not simply put in a "religion" called "philosophy" or "humanism" or some such? That could be a catchall that allowed non-religious states to nonetheless get some of the benefits that the model ascribes to religion.

Rodrigo:
that means you didn't like my new idea of "philosophy" in the new social model? (your criticism goes in the social model, so let's move this conversation to the social model thread)

Now my comment

I thought the many different philosophies like fascism etc. Is a good idea. But it doesn't go far enough IMO. In your discription, philosophies are a government tool, the people don't come at it of themselves as I understand it. I agree with you that we don't want a zillion philosophies all spreading like religions do. But my thought was that a single "secular humanism" handled like religion could help in modeling much of the modern world. However, I am not sure its necessary, its just a feeling. And I admit it would muddy the "Importance of Religion" attribute if Humanism were handled as a Religion.

[Mikael]

I second and encourage your thoughts there Mark. I'm not going to repeat what you said, but indeed much of the thinking in the current world isn't based on religion. Philosophy and humanism as you said played a big role in shaping our modern occidental society "code of ethics". Actually I believe that everything got more or less mixed up together, philosophy influencing religion(religion wasn't interpreted the same way in the Middle Ages as it is now), religion more or less influencing philosophy... Another troublesome point: philosophy has been around for a very, very long time (since the Ancient Greeks, Socrates...) yet it hasn't had any real effect on our society's way of thinking until the 16-18th centuries. How to model that? IMHO basic concepts such as philosophy should be "dormant" during the entire game, everywhere in the world. Yet their "influence" in certain parts would be triggered by certain factors, such as in this case:

-prosperity period. When people don't work, they have time to think.
-birth of a "special character" who revives the forgotten doctrine (might be Erasmus, Descartes, Kant,... in Europe f.e).
-contact with other civ that is impregnated by philosophy.
-after a long period of war and general unrest (such as the Middle Ages).
-changing of the cultural attributes of the civ. Some cultural attributes make philosophy more or less likely. A very aggressive civ for example won't see the emergence of philosophy in its boundaries unless they are "clamed down" one way or another. Also, cultures that are extremely attached to religion tend to have a hostile attitude towards philosophy.


Just my 2 cents. Was I clear? What do you think of these ideas?

[Mikael]

I forgot the second half of my thinking process.

It goes without saying that philosophy, when it appears inside your civ, doesn't stay there forever. When any of the aforementioned factors are reversed, philosophy should gradually start taking less and less importance until finally dying out (but then it might reappear later!).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Mikel i haveto disagree with your last statement...once a philosophy is introduced and accepted, it is almost impossible to get rid of entirely. Sure, it'll have its ups and downs, but forms of it remain. What most likely will happen is it will become so part of everyday life that people won't consider it a philosophy, but just common sense or everyday living ideas.

[Mikael]

But take for example a religious, despotic form of government that decides to forbid philosophy. In that case you'd have to more or less eradicate philosophy from your nation, as any preachers would be persecuted. Overtime philosophy would be forgotten. Of course another alternative would be that the people decide to overthrow the current regime because it is opposed to their philosophic ideas.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Do you know how hard that would be? I can think of only 1 time in history where it came close to eradicating all unwanted forms of philosohy, and even then it was not 100% complete. Government attempts to stamp out a religion or philosophy usally work to some degree, but never 100%. Sometimes they've even backfired and made it more liked.

[Mikael]

Well, I was thinking of some of the biggest, baddest, brain-washing regimes in History, like Nazi Germany, the USSR... If it happened in those countries then that means it might happen elsewhere. But you are right that 100% eradication should be pretty much impossible.