The Language Thread

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I couldn't disagree more if i tried (not that I'm trying).

I've already made the case quite thoroughly (snip)

Hey yellowdaddy. I have read the entire thread and don't see any substantial case for language having been made. You have mentioned a lot of little potential advantages, but nothing that more than a few percent of players would even notice IMO. Below is one set of your proposed game influences of language:

1. i think each language should be researched like a technology, and translators should be a resource like engineers or soldiers - discuss!

2. pan-nationalism (snip)

3. languages should provide bonuses or handicaps for negotiations, espionage, cultural conquest, pacifying an enemy.

4. language should be a fetaure of an EG which increases it's potential for insurgency/trerrism, and seperatism, and colluding with an enemy.

Number 1 seems overkill, money put into "diplomatic activities" can cover this.

2 is already planned to be covered by the etnicity model. Not perhaps as well as language would do it, but good enough. Same for 3. Same for 4.

So where is the persuasive case? Remember, everything we add complicates the game and the programming needed to make it happen. Nothing above seems to me to be sufficiently important to justify explicit inclusion of language. Remember, we are designing a Game, not a Real-World Simulator, so something being important in the RW is not sufficient reason to include it in Clash. In the fullness of time it may be worth doing language, but that is probably more a Clash 2.0 thing. That factor will tend to make peoples' responses to you on the topic pretty curt. Sorry, but that's just the way it goes. . .

[yellowdaddy]

Number 1 seems overkill, money put into "diplomatic activities" can cover this.

translator units are perhaps - what about some research cost for these generalised "diplomatic activities"? rather than instant communication between alien civs as happens in Civilisation. I want the tension and unpredictability of first encounters which could lead to wars, even between two AI civs, it eliminates predictability and adds to the game atmosphere.

I suspect you'll say no, but then I suspect you're thinking of the historical demos where all civs will already "know" each other, whereas i'm thinking of a Civ style "global dawn of man" scenario where you will have "first encounters".

2 is already planned to be covered by the etnicity model. Not perhaps as well as language would do it, but good enough. Same for 3. Same for 4.

4 has already been acknowledged by Laurant as a worthwhile category for distinguishing his Macedonians from his Greeks, have you seen that post in the riots model 2?

as for 2 and 3, I think I basically think that the ethnicity model needs amending. I regard my suggestions on that as beneficial "keyhole surgery". Essentially, I'd just like to see Language added to the Basic Attributes.
Corruption, Traditionalism and I.ofReligion should not be there.

They should be in the Moral Code Attributes.
The Moral Code Attributes should be renamed "Cultural Attributes".
Nationalism should encompass a sense of Ethnic ID (Low Nationalism = High Ethnic Pride perhaps)

Some might say that there's a danger of offending or irritating people by having "Corruption" (or in fact either of the other two) in their basic attributes - ethnic stereotypes... I find this somewhat incongruous given the stance on "race".

I'd also like to see the building of cultural wonders like "Alphabet" - this can have research, econmic, and cultural significance. If you're going to have "portable wonders" and natural ones (which seem to me to be prime examples of Eye-Candy), and the religion/philosophy spreading. I would regard the various alphabets as somewhere inbetween those two; as wonders which spread and compete for domination, with some of the effects of religion.

I can't remember seeing anything which specifically addressed the bits in "3."
When I put "pan-nationalism" I think I meant "pan-ethnocentrism" (Slavic unity FE, with Ethnic-Cleansing as a potential precipitating event).

"good enough" and "sufficiently important" are again, entirely subjective terms.
The only curt replies are from Gary. Gary I can understand (usually). LGJ seems to flit from one point to another contradictory one - Without wishing to wind him up, I have occasionally wondered what his first language is...

The remaining point is, if "Stormbeard" and "Max Sinister" want to code this, why discourage them? Have an open mind and see what comes of it, it can't hurt, can it.

[Mark_Everson]

First of all, I agree that everything I'm saying are just subjective judgements. Calls on how far to go in determining how real-world to make a game model are Always of that sort.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy

4 has already been acknowledged by Laurant as a worthwhile category for distinguishing his Macedonians from his Greeks, have you seen that post in the riots model 2?

I didn't see any ringing endorsement of Language from Laurent. The following seems to sum up his feelings:

Originally posted by Laurent
So to sum it all again: I want something (I'd call it culture for lack of better word) which lets me have families of cultures. Language is certainly part of culture, and race too, but neither is the whole of it. And I need a function which lets me tell whether two of these cultures are near or far one from another.

as for 2 and 3, I think I basically think that the ethnicity model needs amending. I regard my suggestions on that as beneficial "keyhole surgery". Essentially, I'd just like to see Language added to the Basic Attributes.
Corruption, Traditionalism and I.ofReligion should not be there.

The more culture-based ideas you are proposing should go in the social model thread so that they can be considered in context. I don't know what "I.ofReligion" means.

When I put "pan-nationalism" I think I meant "pan-ethnocentrism" (Slavic unity FE, with Ethnic-Cleansing as a potential precipitating event).

I want to see that also. You Don't need Language to do it! A concept of "culture families" would suffice. Therefore your desire for such a feature is not a justification for Language.

I understand that you are trying to get something into Clash that you think is important. I value the input, but disagree on the assessment that Language is particularly important to model in the game. You are of course free to spec out a language model and any other modifications to the Social model you care to. I just want to make sure you know that there is no guarantee your mods will make it into the game. As has been said, if a coder should show up that is as hot for it as you are, it may well happen. In terms of the overall discussions all I'll say is: Do not take silence for assent. I've already commented here more than I feel is a good investment of my time for overall progress of the project.

Cya,

Mark

[yellowdaddy]

i don't see how a zealous and passionate "ringing endorsement" or "persuasive case" is a pre-requisite for including something.

i'm making a calm, sensible case, which has had slow and considered thought put into it. i've presented it saliently and cleary and backed it up. none of the 4 of you who'd displayed absolute resistence (there are at least the same number who have displayed some enthusiasm) have really out-argued it really.

sorry, wrong thread "culture families"

Laurant:
Back to my initial Spartan scenario:
-If I have language I can make the distinction between Greeks and Macedonians on one side (all using dialects of Greek) and Persians on the other.
-This is not so useful as religion in my scenario is also shared among Greeks and Macedonians and different from Persians.
-Racial traits don't help much. There would be some difference if we modelled all the traits, but I can't think it's really relevant. I said elsewhere that I thought people would breed freely unless there was discrimination of another kind, and that this discrimination thing is what I need to model.
-Terrain could make a difference between Macedonians and other Greeks to some extent, as there are more forests in Macedon than in Sparta. Or maybe not and my geography is quite poor. Also Athens would be more coastal than Sparta, so this can help make a difference inside the Greek group.
-Technology: I could consider that Greeks shared philosophy that Macedonians didn't have at the times of Philip, but then did Sparta have philosophers the way Athens had some?

Other options:
-Social class setup: Quite different in Sparta and the rest of Greece? Or not? They had a strong nobility, but the divide slaves/others was probably the same everywhere.
-Having been part of a civ/subject to a preferred nationality for a while.
-Government/regime. Since I haven't finished regimes, I won't go further, but many French left French Republic for Russia during the French revolution of 1789, and some Russians left Russia for France during the Russian revolution of 1917 for instance (rather a monarchy than a republic / rather a republic than communism ways of thinking).

All in all, all the various points seem correct, but I tend to believe that the difference between Greeks and Macedonians was quite arbitrary. It could be modelled by technology or terrain... Having the following, I think I could make a better fit of "which civ am I going to revolt for?" when people are unhappy enough to take arms:
-1) Check if there's a civ whose name is my nationality at war against those I don't like.
-2) If none exists: List civs whose dominant Ethnic Group (EG) have the same language. If they don't discriminate against my religion, are at war with the opponent, then:
-3) Among the candidates, check which one most closely fits this EG's culture, as defined by the following: terrain type (coastal areas more likely to ally with Athens than Sparta), tech, social class setup, maybe also existing government.

As an option, I could go back to step 2 by softening the language filter once (language being not equal but related) if no fitting civ has been found.
If nothign works, create a subciv of my choice nationality at war with the opponent. If the nationality doesn't exist, then use the civ I'm revolting against as the choice civ (like civil war or feudal units).

I of Religion (importance of R) is on the Clash website, social model page - i was referring directly to the Attributes which define an EG.

I don't think that the concept of culture families is not really defined by anyone as yet

Culture families would certainly help me with Spartan rebels. I'd like to discuss more about it to get something fleshed out that's consistent with the rest of the model and all, but can't be coding it anytime soon...

- and it seems rather a tricky and comlpicated one to define. I'll wait to see what Laurant means specifically.
Using language is a lot simpler.

i don't think i'd use the word "important", I would say "simple", "effective", "useful" and even "atmospheric",
i've tried to think carefully about what function language can perform, and how it can be defined. there seem to be other features in the game which are similarly "unimportant" and "complicated", but i understand the purpose their presence is to add interest and atmosphere.

I don't think I've ever given the impression that I took silence as assent - quite the opposite.

maybe I don't quite understand the resistance to the idea.

perhaps that's because theres no response to my less irrelevant points - like the clear criticisms i've posted before your reply about the EG attributes.

[Gary Thomas]

I confess to being somewhat confused now.

An area of human behaviour can be included in the game at any of many levels.

As an example, smiling is quite important in human terms. To argue that it, therefore, should be included in the game is presumably valid. The issue then becomes how is it to be included.

In the case of smiling it would be included by making any character images smile in suitable diplomatic situations. So, smiling will have two components: a graphics component and a number derived from the civilization's reaction to the situation, indicating whether smiling occurs.

In a similar fashion, language, as such, has no impact on the game. In a scenario in which all parties speak the same language there is no effect. Where language becomes important is where differing languages cause misunderstanding and hence conflict between civilizations. Offhand, I cannot think of any instance where this has actually occurred in history. At most it might mean that there is a kind of distance measure between civilizations, making understanding more or less likely, but I feel that there are much greater influences on misunderstanding than language.

Even if language were to be included, it would merely be a single nemeric value, or small number of numeric values, within the cultural model.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

It occurs to me that I missed one impact of language in my last post.

This is where ethnic groups, within a civilization, speak different languages. This may lead to friction, with consequences in the riots model.

Again, I feel that language differences are a very minor component in inciting riotous behaviour. Such behaviour requires much more significant causes. There is also the factor that clashes between ethnic groups with the same language can be even more vicious than between people who do not understand each other.

So, here I believe that the impact of language, as such, is negligible.

Of course it is possible to claim that my comments are subjective. This is true, but it is also true of every other opinion in this thread (and most of the others in the whole forum). To produce objective evidence, it is necessary to cite cases. Any criticism of my comments, on the grounds that they are subjective, is pointless unless the criticism is supported by some kind of objective evidence. None has been presented here.

Of course I tend to skip over long-winded posts, and may have missed something...

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

After a comment in the scenarios thread, I feel that a comment on names is appropriate.

Names are used to refer to things, be they civilizations, cities, mountains, ethnic groups, or people. It is only in this restricted sense that they are used for communication. Accordingly I do not see them as part of language, in the sense intended in this thread.

They are certainly essential in a game such as Clash. There are several reasons for having realistic sounding names.

• They should be easier to remember than, say, numbers
• They add flavour to the game, at essentially no cost
• They can give an indication of the likely behaviour of the inhabitants
• There is a coder (me) prepared to implement a method of culturally flavoured names (I already have the code -- somewhere)
• It may give others some amusement to compile the base data for different name flavours, this is relatively easy and only affects scenarios, not the game itself

Cheers and kia kaha

[yellowdaddy]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

I'm glad you have seen some of the admittedly minor applications of language in the game.

I think you're not alone in seeing them.


I agree that the names part is the most useful application of language, and was in the first instance the main point of them.
I understand that in the nature of the game is to be an "engine" which can be dressed with myriad "chassis" to suit, and as such my initial post on the subject which included lists of ethno-linguistic groups and familys of groups is less important, however I would say that as we all live on Earth, I suspect that there will be enough players interested in playing a game with historically semi-accurate tribes and EGs.

What baffles me is the way the idea of using "language names" is so resisted when, Laurent frequently posts posts which ask for ways of showing the differences between EGs.
It strikes me as blindingly obvious that it's better to opt for "Boii" and "Aedui" rather than "Celtic EG 1" and "Celtic EG 2", and that it follows that if the aim is to veer towards historical accuracy, while avoiding an unweildy and varying range of names that we go for a fixed number - I chose 1 dividing into 6, each dividing into 6 again. To allow each initial group to have equal potential to spawn loads of others.

So in conclusion, I think I'm misunderstood..
I'm not going to argue about the significance of the effects of language. I don't dispute what you've said in your last couple of posts. And I take your point about smiling - and it might well be a popular feature, as it exists in Civ 3.

For me I see language as one of the obvious factors which differentiates one EG from another. It doesn't have to have any actual effect, it's just a definer, like a colour.
My face generator was received well, though it clearly attempts to split humanity into some racial categories - or rather groups of face parts are assigned to each EG, should an image of one of them be desired.
Like language they don't have to have any effect, they are essentially cosmetic, and designed to add atmosphere. They also act as ways of telling the difference between one tribe or EG, and another. Hence I regard it as:
a. fundamental - to the way EGs are defined or differentiated.
b. clarification - at the moment I don't know what the difference between one EG and another might be really.
c. simplification - the list of things that define EGs is rather vague, has inconsistencies and errors, and isn't really particulalry straightforward. I look at the solution as creating defining elements of an EG which are easy to assign a number to or categorise.


Language also has a role to play in providing names for things, which match expectations or are convincing.

The initial post did contain a reference to each language group having a fixed vocab for generating names for people and places.
eg;
Civitas
When EGs split and evolved a new language then the name could change:
Citta - Italian
Citate - Romanian
Citad - Romansch
Cidade - Portuguese
Ciudad - Spanish
Cite - French

I dunno how you feel about this, is it along the lines of what you were thinking of?
re:

"There is a coder (me) prepared to implement a method of culturally flavoured names (I already have the code -- somewhere)"

(please don't anyone argue the toss over the definitions of the words, you surely know what I mean)