Cultural Attributes (long) - Feedback Desired

[Glak]

I brought this up because it has to do with the start screen. In all of the civ games you get a variety of options such as new game, load a saved game, etc... however they are all for the single player games. Multiplayer is a single option. If I want to load a multiplayer game I naturally hit load but that doesn't work. So it should decided what type of game you are playing first. I think having several submenues it the way to go.

how will multiplayer be handled? Currently I know of two ways: the small game and the big game. Small games are the most common, typically 2-8 players are in one game and play it until the end, this is how RTS games work. Big games can involve many people (these rely on servers though) and they can allow for people to come and go. this is how RPG games (with a few exceptions) work.

I was thinking that both ways could be implemented, also sort of an improved version of the second. In my experience most people play their games according to a schedual. It would be nice if you could have a massive game that starts up at say 9:00pm and goes to 10:00pm every night. If you don't show the AI takes your turns. This way you would have the benefits of the 2-8 game type (everyone is in the game at the same time) and the benefits of the massive game type (more people can mean more fun)

Well school's out in a week so I won't be around much until I can get a good internet connection worked out at home.

[St Leo]

Correction: Arabs and Jewish Peoples lived happily together until some moron by the name of Balfour decided to give the Jewish part a National Home on land where both communities existed in harmony.:-)

------------------
Vote for the Absolute Monarchist Party!
St. Leo
www.sidgames.com/imperialism/

[Lumpkin]

I think the Tradition attribute should play a very important role in the way the society functions. It would probably be best for civs to achieve a balance here since I think a civ without any tradition would result in an extremely disaffected, individualistic populace resulting in lots of crime and lack of ambition. A highly traditional, conformist civ would be more stable but would lack innovation and creativity and efficiency since people would be stuck in the positions in which they were born.

I think the decline of religion, rapid urbanisation would both make a big difference in eroding tradition. A civilization formed by displaced slaves for instance would be dangerously lacking in tradition.

[Mark_Everson]

St Leo:
Good Point. I also used to curse Tito and thought things would be so much better when he was gone. Now its clear that without an authority (either govt or cultural) of some sort to keep hot-heads in line all the worst things can happen when different cultures share the same land.

Lumpkin:
Agree completely, tradition should be big and have the ramifications you mention. I have some other ideas too. For instance traditional agriculture is frequently heavily optimized for the Best way to farm locally with a given tech level. So changing to a more advanced technology won't necc. give you all the benfits you expect, because you're throwing away some of that hard-earned knowledge. This feature may be too complicated to put in Clash tho.

[Mikael]

Mark,
How are you going to model genocides or religious wars(in the same civ) in gameplay terms? Are those two going to result in general unhappiness, a diminution of your population, or will it be like two armies fighting against each other? Or probably a combination of all these factors.

Mikael

[Mark_Everson]

Probably a combination. Low-level events will probably just give penalties and unhappiness etc. A full-blown revolution whether its based on politics, religion, or ethnic hatred will be fought out with armies. They may be armies of peasants...

-Mark

[manurein]

Hi everyone.
Since this is my first post here, and since I'm afraid you will here about me again, let me introduce myself. I am Manu, I'm french, and I'm a software engineer (currently working on professional, specialized softwares; I've also worked in embedded software development and hardware design in the aerospace industry field). I've first heard about Clash a few days ago, when this forum appeared on the Apolyton site. I have decided I had to join the project, thus I contacted Mark who welcomed me.
Alright, now to the subject. First, through what I've read, I guess we all have a point convergent point of view : we do like the idea of civ-like games, but we don't like the implementations of this concept we've seen to date (although, in my case, I've played Civ and CivII, and even SMAC and CTP hours and hours...) I also think the main source of disappointment comes from two major flaws IMHO : total lack of realism, and way too much rigidity (I mean no fluentness). Also, the case of a pitiful AI is to be mentionned.

That was my introduction. I will now try to divide what I want to say between the different threads. Here about Culture.

Mark, I love your idea of cultural attributes. Of course, the specific attributes, the number of them, and their specific effect on the general behavior of the civ have to be fine tuned. What I have to say here is :

- IMHO, cutlural attributes are largely the result of the civ's history and environment. It is the result of environment in the same sense you said that Mongols should'nt be able to research Sea-related techs cause their environment did not include sea nor big lakes. I have not yet any idea of how to model this, but there may be something to do here. Also, it is the result of history. Let me give you two examples here. First, about France (you should have guessed it...). In the end Renaissance - early industrial ages, it was probably the first generator of new ideas, the enlightened people (the notion of enlightment was invented by french XVIII century philosophs, like Voltaire, Montaigne or Diderot. Those same guys were also the authors of the first universal encyclopediae). In this general intelectual atmosphere, the idea that the cultural wealth of a people was directly linked to how widely the accepted and integrated outside ideas (and new ideas in general also). This could be directly linked to your "bip bip" idea. I'm not sure it is the only explanation, but I'm certain it has a strong role in this : France was also the most lixed people in Europe. Due to its geographic position, France has been the end of most of the massiv conquests in Europe, as well as beiing the end of the original migrations that took people from India and Central Asia who become the first settlers in France. Then, we had (not in this order) the Roman conquests, the Norma conquests, the Huns conquests, the Arab conquests conquests... which all ended somewhere in what is now the french territory (and it was almsot the same in the times of enlightment). So, we have a civ that is historically the most mixed civ, and that is also the civ the most disposed to take and accept outside new ideas. Second example, about the insularity attribute. At first look, I've can see two civs that are reknown to be insular : England and China. In the case of England, this is a country that has not been conquered since more than 1000 years... The case of China is slightly different, since they have been partly occupied by Occidentals in the XIX century. But this was quite a short period compared to the very long history of the Chinese civilization, and they are the builders of the Great Wall... If you interpret this like me, you certainly see strong links between history and attributes. Since the history of a civ is just the precedent turns of the game, this should be feasible. Must think more...

- Second, I think attribute values could be slightly different between the classes. In deed, I don't think the "values" of the peasants and the nobles of the European Renaissance were the same... Btw, the different classes could have different sets of values. For example, the "servility", which represent the degree of acceptance of the servitude of the lowest classes could be interesting to make a more realistic model for inner politic. This attribute could be influenced by another attribute, in the religion class attribute set, which would measure how much measure how much servility is encouraged by the religious morale. This attribute could be in turn influenced by something else, I don't know what, which would represent the relationship between the powerful classes. Thus, the french situation before the revolution could be simulated, where the kingdom had three "states" : the first state, the most powerful, was the aristocracy (including the King); the second class, very powerful also, was the religious class. And then there was the third-state, including every others. The fact that the first and second states were complice in the dominance of the third-state explains the cohesion of the third-state (which included very rich merchants as well as almost-slaves peasants), the fact that this revolution was a "burgess" revolution, and the fact that religion was prohibited right after the revoltion, and then that the state and the religion were strongly seperated after religion was made legal again. I know all this could be out of focus, these are only ideas...

- About the religion. Concerning the religions whose histories I know a little bit (christian, protestant, muslim, jewish mainly), it seems that they have erected as a reaction from a people against a dominant - and often persecuting civilization. The Jews vs. the Egyptians, the Christians vs. the Jews and the Romans, the Muslims vs. the Jews and the Chrstians (I'm not sure of this one...) Well, I think modeling smthg around this coulg help make the evolution of religions in the game more smooth and natural.

- One last thing, about the hybrids and the AB-B or AB-A problem. I'm note of what I write... Maybe the problem should be treated like this : the result of AB-A type mixing should depend on three factors : the relationship between A and B, the distance between the A and B in the "visible area" (color of skin...) and the ratio of population between A and B. First, if A dominates and persecutes B like, say, the white men vs. the black men, AB should be treated by A like B, and probably AB should be rejected by B. So there is no diference for A nor for B between AB and AAB and ABBBB and .... . Second, if the distance between A and B is not huge, anf if A and B have not very bad relations, and if there is a lot more of A than B (or the inverse), then A should absorb B, AB, AAB, ABBB and the others after a time, making and slightly mutated A (but still labeled A, only attributes would have varieted).

OK, that's all, I'm sorry I'm so long...

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

[manurein]

Maybe the relationship between the different classes could be managed through a simplified diplomatic system. This would allow to simulate for example peasants riots vs. the nobles, where the king is considered the referee by bith partis - thus giving him an occasion to modify the strength ratio in its kingdom.

[Hrafnkell]

Hi Manu,

I already got that (diplo with the classes), although it is Very simple :-). The problem is of course to make a system that will also appeal to those who aren´t intereseted in spending a lot of time or thought on this. I´m still fitting all the pieces together for a coherant system, but if you (or anyone else) want to know what I got, feel free to contact me.

[Theben]

This is a modified idea from the "civ3" forum.

Your people all start out as a homogeneous cultural group. There are several "diplomatic" categories: You(the ruling class) vs. other rulers, your people vs. other rulers, your people vs. you, your people vs. other peoples, their people vs. their rulers, & their people vs. you; also a religion vs. religion scale. Generally each category is on a sliding scale from, say, 1-10, 1 being insanely hateful while 10 is harmonious bliss. At 1st contact these will generally fall into the 6-7 range. Markers include daggers, bloody daggers(to represent atrocities), doves, and doves with an olive branch(represents generous gifts). These last few will affect relations far into the future, otherwise the scale tips for standard actions(wars, treaties, trade, etc.) on a turn by turn basis. Things that affect one group(their people) will not affect others(rulers) quite the same; ex. genocide rarely affects the ruling class, so although the people will be very angry with you, the rulers will not be as angry; a gift of food or medicine(tech?) will please the population more while a gift of money will more likely please the ruler.

Societies cease being homogeneous over time w/o govt. intervention. Conquest & trade are the quickest methods; warfare w/o conquest, connection by roads between peaceful empires, types of terrain between cities, etc. also affect the rate. Conquered cities are assumed to have their old culture. Whenever a city grows by a population point (assuming Clash will be using citizens like civ1&2 in that the size of the city=# of "people") a formula will be needed to determine what the new pop's culture will be based on the above factors, plus how well the populations get along(a pop will rarely migrate to a land where they are not welcome!). The new pop will then assume all of the diplomatic categories of that culture. Governments can limit the flow of people to their lands and of their people to other lands; there should be some kind of penalty for this(perhaps a minor trade reduction?). Mixed pops may cause additional unrest in a city if the pops do not get along.

Differences in religion will be handled separately. Religion will function mainly as to how you will handle certain situations, and will be chosen by you when the pre-requisite tech is discovered(polytheism, monotheism in civII). For instance, you're a christian leader of the christian Franks. Burning a christian city of the Germans to the ground will not only upset the Germans, but every other christian leader and population, including yours. Now if you burn another city down that is pagan, muslim, etc., your people will not be as upset and if it is considered a 'hateful' culture by ANYone then it may even grant a bonus in relations to that group(with exception of a modern democratic society). In the case of a mixed city you could leave certain pops alive. Depending on how this is set up, I envision either (a) button(s) to push in the city screen or a command given to army groups to cause actions like SMAC. Some possible actions:

Forced conversions/cultural- Removes possible unrest due to differing cultures. Diplomatic penalties with other civs people, possibly minor penalty with rulers.

Forced conversion/religious- Removes possible unrest due to differing religions. Diplomatic penalty with all civs with that religion & their rulers.

genocide- Kills off citizens of the city. Can be tailored to only kill certain religious/cultural groups. Severe penalties with that civ & it's rulers, penalties/bonuses with other civs/rulers depending on their diplomatic status with the genocided civ and religion, possible penalties/bonuses with your own pop.

Suppress population following conquest- Unrest in city decreases considerably. Suppressed people of conquered cities do not begin to assimilate into your civ until suppression ends. Penalties to any similar cultural/religious group. City will probably lose 1-2 pop points as refugees flee from your armies.

Treat new population well after conquest- No extra penalties vs. their people, but penalties vs. their rulers. If you treat your people better than the newly conquered people's are used to, and treat them as well, less unrest will result and assimilation will be quicker, and your penalty vs. the other ruler would be greater. If your pop hates their pop and you treat them well after conquest, you may suffer a penalty with your own people.

Gifts- Depending on type of gift. Food to starving population will increase diplomatic bonuses between yourself/your people and their people considerably, and to their rulers somewhat. If you want to make it even more complicated allow the ruler to not tell where the food came from; then the bonus is between the ruler and subjects while you/your people have minor penalty vs. the other ruler.

Forced conversion/genocide after modern era AND civ is democratic causes additional penalties from demo population vs. the ruler committing the action.

Although I've added my own ideas, I'm also going to rain on this parade: This is starting to be very complex, and right now I'm having visions of someone figuring out the "best" way of socially engineering his/her populace & then EVERYone copies this method game after game. I imagine atrocities etc. will be very rare, especially after playing SMAC; people are not going to act "crazy" like a lot of rulers did, at least not without some sort of compensation from the game(which I tried to include above)! So this might add a lot of extra programming that won't be necessary.

[This message has been edited by Theben (edited May 16, 1999).]

[Mark_Everson]

Manu:

Glad to see you hard at work already .

On your point about the culture being a result of history and environment... I think you're right, but we need to keep in mind that the "history" in Clash is only a very pale shadow of the history in the real world. So I think trying to model Too much of the game culture based on the game history may be too constraining for us. Just an observation.

On insularity: I think we need to be careful in examples because IMO England was very open to technological ideas. My point here is that we need to define what the most important influences are within Clash and stick to them.

Religions: This is a somewhat touchy subject. I'm not sure I agree with your points about generation of religion as a reaction to dominance. I guess the best thing is to see what you come up with and then discuss it. A big decision we have to make is whether to have real world religions in there, or just have a way to parameterize new "pretend" religions. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this one.

On hybrids: I'm convinced by Peter's point about it getting too messy if you allow endless hybridization at different levels. I kind of like his idea about "dominance" (as in genetics) of certain cultural attributes. I guess my point is that AB shouldn't be able to hybridized with A or B for quite some time or the cultural system will blow up in size to an unmanageable extent. Perhaps you can think of a better way to handle it. Anyway those are my thoughts for what they're worth.

Theben:

That's an excellent set of ideas taking the concepts further than we have to date. A lot of the comments also effect the interface between culture and government which is something we are just starting to think about seriously.

With regard to the "raining on parade" comment. First, we certainly need to hear such things. Please continue to dump metaphorical buckets of water on us whenever you percieve it as useful . That said I *think* we are on good ground here...

IMO the idea that the current civ-like games are subject to the construction of rigid "recipies" is that they are too simple, and the game elements don't strongly interact. The general Idea for Clash is that if all these complicated interactions are included between culture, government and technology that no simple method will ever be generally usable. In essence the extra complicating factors will bring Clash from "science" to "art". The player can develop some rules of thumb for what works in particular types of situations, but that would be it. Now scenarios may be subject to the kind of behavior you're talking about, but that just goes with the territory. Again I *think* we're on a good path, but only playtesting will tell.

-Mark