I'll be quoting in this section parts from the actual model and replying to them afterword.
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.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.
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.
A high score should denote a warlike culture, a moderate score a peaceful, or coexistance culture and a low score a submissive culture.Aggressiveness: This defines how aggressive the culture is. A high score indicates a very warlike culture while a low score indicates peaceful.
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.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.
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.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 see no reason why we cannot use the already existing model for religions with very minor tweaks.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.
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.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.
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.