Reworking the CIV "Philosophy"

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by squeeze truck

I just don't think a culture or a religion is a form of technology. India didn't "develop" polytheism, they were polytheistic as long as they were India. It's innate to their civilization. Ditto for Monotheism and the Jews; they were always that way.

Hmmmm... two points.

First, of course, Civ forces culture to be viewed as being "developed" just like technology -- and we wind up with Monotheism being an "improvement" over Polytheism. On one level, it's just game mechanics; perhaps, given a sufficiently complex tech tree, starting any one Civ as Monotheistic, Polytheistic, etc., would be possible, and each Civ would naturally follow it's own thereby innate path.

Second, however, as with so many questions about the game, the root question is, "What is being modelled?" I would submit that the two intertwined issues are technology and "culture" -- and I am here going to define and use "culture" in the very specific sense of "possessing shared assumptions about reality". You know, those things people in a society take for granted -- one deity or many or none; superiority or equality of various ethnic groups; etc. In game terms, this encompasses both political / philosophical (government types) and religious choices (very limited in the game).

At this level of abstraction, in the Civ model (and, interestingly enough, the properly comprehensive definition of "model", be it of a toy car or an econometric system, is very close to how I'm using the word "culture" -- to wit, a model is a set of assumptions about reality) "philosophy" and "religion" are really the same -- they're culture as applied to world view. For example, Maoism has often been compellingly described and defined as structurally indistinguishable from religion. (And, PLEASE!, before anyone launches on a diatribe about religion and communism being antithetical etc., I do try to choose my words carefully -- they are "structurally indistinguishable" in how Civ models reality, which is very different than being "the same as" in the real world!)

-So, the question is how, in game terms, "world view" translates into conrete, bricks-and-mortar / blood-and-iron issues. Mechanically, some aspects might be straightforward -- Cathedrals probably should not have ANY effect under a Communist regime -- indeed, declaring a Communist government should probably force a sell-off of every religious improvement, which would of course make maintaining a happy Civ populace extraordinarily challenging, to put it mildly (BTW, in the mod I'm working on, choosing a non-religious path compensates for this in ways we've seen before --colloseums with greater power increased by radio and the minor wonder of a national broadcasting sysem; etc.).

Likewise, Hoplites worked really well in narrow mountain passes; Roman manipular legions far better in open terrain. If the Greeks had overrun Anatolia pre-Alexander, they might never have developed hoplites (and let's not forget that Alexander the Great's military arm of decision, in Anatolia and beyond, was his heavy cavalry) so I believe, in game terms, developing Hoplites or Legions truly should be a choice -- both were the result of technologically equivalent societies developing different "UUs" as adaptations to their circumstances.

But that's all just the easy stuff: the Chinese had paper and water clocks and gunpowder by 1000 AD and yet never fielded the sort of gunpowder based armies used in Europe centuries later, etc. Was this due to (a) an "innate" cultural bias against integrating technology into their society (making them an "ingenious" but "impractical" Civ?); (b) a lack of competition due to not being amongst densely packed rivals, as was the case in Europe; or (c) something else entirely? -- that the form of governance sometimes called "Oriental Despotism" derives from peasants' passivity due to the prevalence of the debilitating schistosomiasis blood fluke in rice paddies?

-And, on a related note, the Jews certainly weren't always Monotheistic (something about a golden calf?) -- and one compelling theory about why Pharaonic Egypt's flirtation with monotheism fell flat on its face while Abraham's carried on is that the Jews had the advantage of an alphabet instead of hieroglyphic pictograms, and an alphabet is innately easier to use to express abstract concepts, such as an invisible and omnipresent deity.

All this having been said, I believe that one of the best potential strengths of the Civ "model" (or rather, how we modify it!) is that it CAN illustrate world views evolving / transforming over time; and, in this, "culture" and "technology" proceed very much hand-in-hand, in the game as in history -- the 18th Century Deists could hardly have imagined a "clockwork universe" without clockworks, now could they?

Or: how easy would it have been for a culture (again Pharaonic Egypt) which believed that only certain individuals had immortal souls, to develop democracy? (Let us not forget that Monotheism, in the form of Islam as rendered in the Arabic alphabet, was imposed upon Egypt by conquest.) So perhaps an "evolution" from Despotism to Democracy really does require Monotheism which really does require an alphabet.

For me, the intellectual joy in playing with the Civ model is NOT to express what I believe to be ideologically Right or True, but to discover if can be made to reveal great truths about the very shape of history -- while of course still being fun to play!

Yours way too late at night,

Oz

[Cossack]

This thread has some excellent ideas and i just wanted to my own thoughts on the tech.development subject. I'm not sure what people will think of this but it is an extension of something I wrote about in another thread to do with far to few units in the game.

I was thinking along the lines of the tech tree that you could also expend money to research improve your military units. The easiest example to illustrate this is the Second World War, take tanks, all countries improved their tanks from the twenties through to the end of the Second World War. The Russians had T-28's and others which went through to the T-34A-85C through to heavier tank designs such as the KV-series through to the Joseph Stalin tanks. The Germans similarly progressed from Panzer I to Panzer II, III, IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger.

If in CIV you could expend money to develop more advanced military units once the discovery of a tech allows that type of unit it would make the game much more interesting particularly towards the end of the game.

For example getting motorized transportation would be less of an advantage if you only got First World War quality tanks but with some prototype development you could advance to medium tanks and then advance to develop light and heavy tanks/armoured vehicles then you would slow your rate of tech research and switch this money to the development of prototypes.

Cavalry would be the same, you could have basic cavalry and the prototype develo lancers, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, then rifle based cavalry. The Roman legions also went under significant development/enhancement with time as did musketmen, knights (just go to the Tower of London) and cannons/artillery.

Just an idea, although I am aware the above is impossible in the current game may be an expansion pack or CIV IV will include it. Personally I have to admit that I am disappointed with CIV III Firaxis have corrected and improved some aspects of the original game but not expanded the game concepts significantly enough/ or converted many of the things in SMAC to CIV as I personally had expected they would have.

Got to admit I am tired with the fanatical supporters of the game who can't see the wood for the trees when it comes to the lack of features or bugs, they come up with excuses like in the space of year the Samurai could creep up and slaughter infantry at close quarters.

Absolute rubbish, combat has to be taken realistically and therefore a phalanx would be fighting were they were traditionally most effective, on open ground where it could maneuver easily and therefore infantry would massacre them before they even got close. These pointless agruments would be avoided if Firaxis provided some idea of the size etc. in terms of men/tanks/planes of each unit or had in place the HP/FP system.

At the moment I have to agree with Yin and some of the other so called whiners that the members of these forums are doing the beta testing of a game which has limited long-term appeal due to a lack of expansion of the game concepts in the first place. I wonder sometimes should it really have ever been released.

I consol myself with the fact that, although I don't agree with the business approach taken by Firaxis and Infogrammes, may be by buying the game and any expansion pack I may be helping to fund the development of a game truly great game that includes many intelligent features/ideas provided by members of this forum.

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I have come to the point with CIV III where I feel like I am totally wasting my life playing it as opposed to playing it and knowing I am wasting my life and still not being able to help myself. Sorry of this is a long post but I am happy if you are still with me at the end.

Cheers

The English Cossack

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by awesomedude


Holy... I thought this thread 'died' long ago. I do not really see in what way we are "both only partly right". It might be due to me being tired; I really don't feel like going back and checking out what I actually wrote earlier (it all came off the top of my head, I just enjoy a good discussion as it really enhances your argumentative abilities). As for the events in Toledo, I have no deep knowledge about them I must admit. Would you mind filling me in on what the works you mentioned above contained? I hope you didn't resort to any greater means of research to put me in my place ...

Not at all. The bit about the libraries of Toledo can be found in any good European history book, but I like a more direct route

Fire up your favorite mp3 download service (Morpheus, WinMX, etc) and download James Burke's "The day the universe changed" and "connections". Both are 4-part audio books and are a smashing good time to listen to.

I heard it in detail first from him.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Hmmmm... two points.

First, of course, Civ forces culture to be viewed as being "developed" just like technology -- and we wind up with Monotheism being an "improvement" over Polytheism. On one level, it's just game mechanics; perhaps, given a sufficiently complex tech tree, starting any one Civ as Monotheistic, Polytheistic, etc., would be possible, and each Civ would naturally follow it's own thereby innate path.

Second, however, as with so many questions about the game, the root question is, "What is being modelled?" I would submit that the two intertwined issues are technology and "culture" -- and I am here going to define and use "culture" in the very specific sense of "possessing shared assumptions about reality". You know, those things people in a society take for granted -- one deity or many or none; superiority or equality of various ethnic groups; etc. In game terms, this encompasses both political / philosophical (government types) and religious choices (very limited in the game).

At this level of abstraction, in the Civ model (and, interestingly enough, the properly comprehensive definition of "model", be it of a toy car or an econometric system, is very close to how I'm using the word "culture" -- to wit, a model is a set of assumptions about reality) "philosophy" and "religion" are really the same -- they're culture as applied to world view. For example, Maoism has often been compellingly described and defined as structurally indistinguishable from religion. (And, PLEASE!, before anyone launches on a diatribe about religion and communism being antithetical etc., I do try to choose my words carefully -- they are "structurally indistinguishable" in how Civ models reality, which is very different than being "the same as" in the real world!)

-So, the question is how, in game terms, "world view" translates into conrete, bricks-and-mortar / blood-and-iron issues. Mechanically, some aspects might be straightforward -- Cathedrals probably should not have ANY effect under a Communist regime -- indeed, declaring a Communist government should probably force a sell-off of every religious improvement, which would of course make maintaining a happy Civ populace extraordinarily challenging, to put it mildly (BTW, in the mod I'm working on, choosing a non-religious path compensates for this in ways we've seen before --colloseums with greater power increased by radio and the minor wonder of a national broadcasting sysem; etc.).

Likewise, Hoplites worked really well in narrow mountain passes; Roman manipular legions far better in open terrain. If the Greeks had overrun Anatolia pre-Alexander, they might never have developed hoplites (and let's not forget that Alexander the Great's military arm of decision, in Anatolia and beyond, was his heavy cavalry) so I believe, in game terms, developing Hoplites or Legions truly should be a choice -- both were the result of technologically equivalent societies developing different "UUs" as adaptations to their circumstances.

But that's all just the easy stuff: the Chinese had paper and water clocks and gunpowder by 1000 AD and yet never fielded the sort of gunpowder based armies used in Europe centuries later, etc. Was this due to (a) an "innate" cultural bias against integrating technology into their society (making them an "ingenious" but "impractical" Civ?); (b) a lack of competition due to not being amongst densely packed rivals, as was the case in Europe; or (c) something else entirely? -- that the form of governance sometimes called "Oriental Despotism" derives from peasants' passivity due to the prevalence of the debilitating schistosomiasis blood fluke in rice paddies?

-And, on a related note, the Jews certainly weren't always Monotheistic (something about a golden calf?) -- and one compelling theory about why Pharaonic Egypt's flirtation with monotheism fell flat on its face while Abraham's carried on is that the Jews had the advantage of an alphabet instead of hieroglyphic pictograms, and an alphabet is innately easier to use to express abstract concepts, such as an invisible and omnipresent deity.

All this having been said, I believe that one of the best potential strengths of the Civ "model" (or rather, how we modify it!) is that it CAN illustrate world views evolving / transforming over time; and, in this, "culture" and "technology" proceed very much hand-in-hand, in the game as in history -- the 18th Century Deists could hardly have imagined a "clockwork universe" without clockworks, now could they?

Or: how easy would it have been for a culture (again Pharaonic Egypt) which believed that only certain individuals had immortal souls, to develop democracy? (Let us not forget that Monotheism, in the form of Islam as rendered in the Arabic alphabet, was imposed upon Egypt by conquest.) So perhaps an "evolution" from Despotism to Democracy really does require Monotheism which really does require an alphabet.

For me, the intellectual joy in playing with the Civ model is NOT to express what I believe to be ideologically Right or True, but to discover if can be made to reveal great truths about the very shape of history -- while of course still being fun to play!

Yours way too late at night,

Oz

I am truly enjoying this thread.

Re: The Chinese. It is a common misconception that gunpowder was first put to good use in Europe. Certainly the Europeans brought it where it is today, however... IIRC, the first mass deployment of gunpowder technology was Korea. China and Korea (and Japan for that matter) had a nasty problem with Japanese pirates marauding coastal cities. Chinas solution was to pull all the people away from the coast. Korea deployed massive cannon batteries along it's coastline, which I understant worked rather well.

Re: Alphabet and monotheism.
The Hebrews most certainly were always Monotheistic. The incident with the golden calf was Hebrews being corrupted by Egyptian religion. If you recall, Abraham was monotheistic, and he was patriarch long before the Egyptian captivity.

Also, I don't agree that heiroglyphic (or ideographic) writing systems don't do well with abstract thought. I read classical Chinese, and I can tell you it is nothing but abstract concepts (ever read the Tao Te Ching?) I would agree that It could be resistant to foreign abstract concepts however. Also, doesn't Sanskrit use an alphabet? And Latin? Speakers of those languages were polytheistic.

Anyway, why would the most powerful empire on earth adopt the religion of slaves?

Hm. Seems like I have nothing to add to the discussion. I do like talking about culture though.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by squeeze truck
Also, I don't agree that heiroglyphic (or ideographic) writing systems don't do well with abstract thought. I read classical Chinese, and I can tell you it is nothing but abstract concepts (ever read the Tao Te Ching?) I would agree that It could be resistant to foreign abstract concepts however. Also, doesn't Sanskrit use an alphabet? And Latin? Speakers of those languages were polytheistic.

Anyway, why would the most powerful empire on earth adopt the religion of slaves?

Hm. Seems like I have nothing to add to the discussion.

Re: your last comment -- Quite the contrary!

Re: writing (and, as an aside, language: I believe it was Tom Stoppard who wrote, of English, "We are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style.") we are actually in agreement -- I view IDEOgrams and PICTOgrams as different (although some linguists do treat them the same).

In reality, of course, the issue can be rather more complex --"ideograms", "pictograms" and "phonograms" are distinguishable categories, yet (for example) Sumerian script utilized all three classes, differentiating them by the use of unpronounced symbols called "determinatives". ("Heiroglyph", BTW, simply means "priestly writing" -- revealing a religious monopoly of literacy -- and, technically, "heiroglyph" is only used for Egyptian pictograms; the later Egyptian "script", quicker to transcribe with brush and papyrus, is likewise referred to as "Heiratic".)

-- Although my point was not that an alphabet inevitably leads to monetheism, simply that, in the two earliest documented cases I'm aware of, the alphabet MIGHT have been a crucial element.

Re: power and the religion of slaves, we are again in agreement; my (admittedly abbreviated) point was that preconditions are almost certainly necessary for democracy, and that these are indeed well represented in the Civ model as "technologies".

Best Regards,

Oz

P.S. Vote/rate this thread!

-O.

[BlueO]

Another good way to model technology, is to add the concept of minor technologies. Under every major technology (ie, gunpowder, alphabets, wheels, motorized transportation, etc), there will be a list of minor techs the players can research to improve their major technology. The idea is to have so many minor technologies, no civilization will ever have them all. Thus, each civilization will be unique in their own ways. Peaceful civs can favor peaceful techs, while warmonging civs can favor military techs. In addition, all unique units will spring from minor techs, instead of being tied to any particular civs. So warmonging civs can research all the unique tech they want, if they got the research points for it.

Now, to prevent the civs from trading with one another and eventually getting all the techs, minor technologies aren't tradeable. They are ideals, philosophies, and concepts that a nation must develop on their own. For example, free speech. United States can't just say, Russia, here's 'Free Speech', enjoy! Russia will need to develope 'free speech' on their own. This applies for other concepts such as Blitzkreig, various 'military tactics' that improves unit stats, and culture thinges like Hollywood, high fashion industry, and whatever goofy ideas the people can come up with.

Keep in mind, major technologies are still tradeable. So civs can feel free to give each other gunpowder. But if a civ want to improve its musketman, they'll need to do some minor research into 'gundpowder', instead of researching into the next major tech.

[s3d]

To squeeze truck:
Re:Re Jews and monotheism.
I heared about quite controversial concept:
Genesis of Jews as a nation (well historical, not biblical) coincident in time with defeat of monoteism in Egipt (cult of Aton, introduced by Ehnaton (sp ?)). That is the ground for some (hmm researchers to suggest that monoteistic Aton-worshipper refugees from Egipt mixed with half-nomadic pre-jews and that mix became Jews themself.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Re: your last comment -- Quite the contrary!

Re: writing (and, as an aside, language: I believe it was Tom Stoppard who wrote, of English, "We are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style.") we are actually in agreement -- I view IDEOgrams and PICTOgrams as different (although some linguists do treat them the same).

In reality, of course, the issue can be rather more complex --"ideograms", "pictograms" and "phonograms" are distinguishable categories, yet (for example) Sumerian script utilized all three classes, differentiating them by the use of unpronounced symbols called "determinatives". ("Heiroglyph", BTW, simply means "priestly writing" -- revealing a religious monopoly of literacy -- and, technically, "heiroglyph" is only used for Egyptian pictograms; the later Egyptian "script", quicker to transcribe with brush and papyrus, is likewise referred to as "Heiratic".)

-- Although my point was not that an alphabet inevitably leads to monetheism, simply that, in the two earliest documented cases I'm aware of, the alphabet MIGHT have been a crucial element.

Re: power and the religion of slaves, we are again in agreement; my (admittedly abbreviated) point was that preconditions are almost certainly necessary for democracy, and that these are indeed well represented in the Civ model as "technologies".

Best Regards,

Oz

P.S. Vote/rate this thread!

-O.

Re: Heiratic.
I thought that by the time Coptic came about, that Egypt was long since conquered and the cult of Osiris, quite dead.
I suppose the Coptic Christian church had priests as well though...

Re: Democracy.
My personal belief is that Protestantism had more to do with modern egalitarian democracy than just about anything else.

In any case, even if a connection could be established, I don't think either belong in a tech tree.

PS, anyone know of any examples where a monotheistic culture converted to polytheism?

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by BlueO
Another good way to model technology, is to add the concept of minor technologies. Under every major technology (ie, gunpowder, alphabets, wheels, motorized transportation, etc), there will be a list of minor techs the players can research to improve their major technology. The idea is to have so many minor technologies, no civilization will ever have them all. Thus, each civilization will be unique in their own ways. Peaceful civs can favor peaceful techs, while warmonging civs can favor military techs. In addition, all unique units will spring from minor techs, instead of being tied to any particular civs. So warmonging civs can research all the unique tech they want, if they got the research points for it.

Now, to prevent the civs from trading with one another and eventually getting all the techs, minor technologies aren't tradeable. They are ideals, philosophies, and concepts that a nation must develop on their own. For example, free speech. United States can't just say, Russia, here's 'Free Speech', enjoy! Russia will need to develope 'free speech' on their own. This applies for other concepts such as Blitzkreig, various 'military tactics' that improves unit stats, and culture thinges like Hollywood, high fashion industry, and whatever goofy ideas the people can come up with.

Keep in mind, major technologies are still tradeable. So civs can feel free to give each other gunpowder. But if a civ want to improve its musketman, they'll need to do some minor research into 'gundpowder', instead of researching into the next major tech.

I like the minor techs idea. What I would like even more is if each major advance had, for example, six minor techs and each civ would be able to learn only two or three of them. Possibly chosen by the player, possibly predetermined by cultural attributes or current type of government.
The invention of "mass media" is attractive to all civs, but for different reasons. America worked it into the capitalist system in the form of annoying advertisements, the Soviet Bloc worked it into communism in the form of propaganda, and Iran seems to have made it part of the church (check out IRNA.org sometime). Three different cultures, three different effects.

Another thing I think needs to be modelled in the game is what techs a civilization is interested in learning, and what techs they're culturally ready for. Traditionally strong cultures have resisted innovation because their empires' power base rested on older ideas. Southern Europe, dominated by the Catholic church, resisted modern astronomy because it seemed to undermine Christianity. The theory of (micro) evolution really cheesed off the protestants, but was embraced by the Catholics. The science of cloning meets resistance in the US because it undermines the sacred American notion of individuality.

Then there is the question of of what sorts of "development" a civilization is interested in pursuing.

The Babylonians and Egyptians were very interested in Astronomy, but little else. -- And produced a very complex astrology that was useless to everyone but them.

The Chinese were much more interested in questions of government and ethics than scientific "progress". All the Chinese classics are ethics books.

Midieval Europe was interested in spiritual progress and was very antagonistic to the idea of studying the natural world.

If this is what is meant by different branches of the "tech tree", I like it. I would love to see a branch of the tree dedicated to nothing but ethics and containing some 30+ advances. (The main advantage of taking the government ethics route is significant reduction of corruption.)
Taking a spiritual course would generate massive ammounts of culture, enough to comletely overcome neighbors.

Also, I would like to see some forks hit an occasional dead end, kind of like the Babylonian astrology idea. Civs would continue to research the same sorts of techs for smaller and smaller payoffs because switching over to a new branch of study would require a significant retooling of the scientific establishment. Such a changeover should be expensive in research, shields, and time. Rather like changing governments I would imagine.

Whew. Have I rambled enough?

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by s3d
To squeeze truck:
Re:Re Jews and monotheism.
I heared about quite controversial concept:
Genesis of Jews as a nation (well historical, not biblical) coincident in time with defeat of monoteism in Egipt (cult of Aton, introduced by Ehnaton (sp ?)). That is the ground for some (hmm researchers to suggest that monoteistic Aton-worshipper refugees from Egipt mixed with half-nomadic pre-jews and that mix became Jews themself.

Pre-French were a bunch of Gauls, Celts, Franks, Goths and whatnot. Egyptians and Hebrews are both Semites, so why not?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by squeeze truck

Re: Heiratic.
I thought that by the time Coptic came about, that Egypt was long since conquered and the cult of Osiris, quite dead.
I suppose the Coptic Christian church had priests as well though...

Re: Democracy.
My personal belief is that Protestantism had more to do with modern egalitarian democracy than just about anything else.

Re: "Heiratic", correct -- the priests I refer to are the priests of Isis, Osiris, and all that gang.

Re: the egalitarian phenomenon we call "democracy", if you're correct, then it would make sense that a civilization would have to pass through Monotheism to -- something else equivalent to Protestantism? -- before achieving democracy. Within the Civ model, how else would you have such transitions occur without using the tech tree?

Best,

Oz

[Spatzimaus]

I love the idea of a "Dark Age", although the designers would have to provide us with that mechanism in a patched editor.

In my view, the reason the late game is boring isn't so much the stagnation of technology. It's that the AI is far too conservative. Players will attack other civs early on; by the time I enter the Industrial Era I've usually conquered two or three other civs. That pretty much automatically puts me in first place.
The AI, on the other hand, doesn't often do the knock-down-drag-out sort of wars needed for this. In one 16-man game, the world went until the 1900s having a grand total of six wars in the game (4 of which I started), and only one civ was destroyed as a result of someone else's attacks, while I destroyed five. This was on a huge Earth map, and by the time anyone ganged up on me I controlled all of Asia and most of Africa.
The AI needs to be more aggressive against other AI players, so that when you get to the Industrial Era you find another superpower on the other side of the world.

Then there are Wonders. Many of the Wonders from the Middle Ages are extremely powerful; never underestimate the Art of War, Sistine Chapel or J.S. Bach's Cathedral. The Industrial and Modern Eras, though, just don't have this. The few wonders they have are either plain (Theory of Evolution and Universal Suffrage), incredibly strong (Hoover Dam) or something you actually want to avoid building in many cases (U.N. and Manhattan Project)
This one you can solve: add some new Wonders. For example, I added new Small Wonders (Hollywood, the Internet, the Statue of Liberty, the Taj Mahal, and so on). Hollywood adds 6 culture per turn, makes 1 happy person in every city, and increases luxury by 50% in its home city. Then, I added a couple Great Wonders: the Theory of Relativity (acts like Theory of Evolution again but also adds 50% to research in its home city like a Library), the KGB (acts as a new Great Library for the later ages), that sort of thing.
These give people something to build other than the "yawn, okay, add Police Stations to every city's queue" type of thing. New Wonders give civs something to race for, and to use Leaders for.