Social Model v.2

[Mark_Everson]

Just a bunch of thoughts before I disappear on vacation...

I still think we need a corruption number for the cultures themselves. I think that the guy you heard speak may be quite right about "production corruption", but there is also corruption in the political system, the legal system, and many other social institutions. I don't think solving all these is just a matter of throwing money into institutions. If the institutions are broken all the money in the world will not help! You mentioned that political corruption is part of the "de facto influences" in the government model. I think this captures part of it, but more of what I am looking at is that corruption is a source of friction resisting any movement in a good direction. Please consider putting corruption in as a cultural attribute, and if it can be shown that it is redundant with administrative spending within the model, then we can take it out again if necessary. But I feel very strongly it will be necessary.

In terms of the tech level of a culture being important, which we discussed above, I think the most important affect is that the strength of one culture to influence and other increases dramatically with its technology level. Basically, no matter who the barbarians are, when they take over a civilization, if you look 100 years later, you can usually hardly see the previous barbarian culture at all. Even though they were on top! It's because the barbarians don't have traditions to go long with much of the circumstances that occur in the higher-tech society. They frequently take on the court rituals of the higher-tech society, because they had no courts... Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think this is a very strong trend over world history. I think it needs to be included when cultures mix together into a hybrid culture.

I think I and E can be modeled ok in the way Rodrigo proposes (probably one variable suffices). However, I would also include corruption in the mix. (Why innovate when graft is more profitable, and less risky ) We need to keep some lid on the attributes, and using combinations is a good way to do that IMO. Richard, I think this will work out fine, although I may be deluded

Language: Agreed, lets ditch the languages for now...

More than one religion: Ok, leave simple is my vote. Easy to change if we decide otherwise later.

Expansionist and Aggressiveness: I think these are more a function of Government than culture, as someone pointed out a while ago in a thread far, far away.

Asceticism: I had always pictured this as Relative rather than absolute. I think one can at least call oneself an ascetic if one lives with expenditures typical of PCI = 50 in a society with PCI = 200. PCI = 50 still has a lot of material goods, just relatively less than the PCI would indicate.
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 21, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

What exactly do u mean by more than one religion? what part exactly?

[roquijad]

LGJ and Richard:
(I understand you two are the tech guys... correct me if I'm wrong)
I've always been opposed to the idea of "social tech advances", at least in general terms. They just doesn't make sense to me. Something I hate about MPS' civ2 is when you discover something like "monotheism". What's that supposed to mean? that all your people suddenly turned to a monotheistic cult? aggg! Modeling social stuff is quite complex and my model is far from being the great answer, but I believe any social tech advance should be there only to model those effects we can't include in the social model. This is not only from the perspective of having better true-to-life modeling, but also because we easily can fall in prejudices and try to force the game to reach pre-stated results. The whole thing about religions is a good example. We've seen our countries' govts from deeply related to christianity to secular States, so we could say there's a social tech like "Secular States" and through it forcing civs to become secular no matter what. Fundamentalistic govts can only be seen as less advanced civs under this approach, which I believe is wrong.
The problem with techs is they assume something is better than what you had earlier. Techs "advance". This is great for things like metallurgy or math, but with social stuff is IMHO just arrogant. I've tried to leave prejudices aside when creating the three models. This is why there're no arbitrary bonuses or penalities for different cultures or for different govt styles. So, to sum up, I support Richard's idea to adjust the tech model to the social model and not the other way around. And this comittment should prevail for whatever social and tech models we could possibly have, present ones or others.

If this suggestion is supported, I think we need to re-evaluate what social techs still are ness. in the tech model, and that's a job I think we need to do together.
------------
Mark:
Well, on corruption we have a disagreement. I'd love to see what other think on the matter. I'll add it as a cultural attribute for now.
As for including it in I and E, I don't think so. Why cheating would decrease innovation? When cheating you're actually creating new ways to do things! I know your greatest concern is determining what makes an economy really work from the productive perspective and the tech development perspective, but I guess you're relying too much on the corruption variable. I think that before continuing a discussion about the relationship between culture and corruption we should really have a discussion about what makes an economy work.

On tech-culture: Yes, everytime nomadic tribes invaded settled civs they ended up embracing the conquered culture... I think I finally understood what you wanted. My question is: what made them change their barbaric culture? was it the fact that they were less advanced as you propose? was a lack of own identity (low nationalism) leading to a easy cultural break down? was it the mere fact that they were nomads and the settled lifestyle appeared attractive once faced so closely?
I agree on the effect you mention, now the question is what exactly provokes the cultural adjustment.

Rodrigo

[Lord God Jinnai]

Cultural technologies: I think that the tech model should be willing to change in response to the new social modelling of various things. For example, consider the Religion technology. I think that it is pretty silly to have such a thing; we only had it because other civ games have it. I think that can change. Rather than modeling religion as some tech level, we should be able to adapt to the new and much more detailed social model.

I don't think it makes sense to say that one religion or philosophy is more advanced than another because a civ has thrown RP's in its direction and it has a higher tech level. This isn't really fair and doesn't address the complexity of the situation like the social model does.
-----
OK. Your right and wrong at the same time. Yes the social model should be very important to religion. I never intended otherwise. However, there is such a thing as more advanced religions than others. How we go through this can change that's fine. Right now though the model doesn't take care of the advancement of religion, just the spread of it (except for advancement into GWR). The way i've worked out the social advances part of the tech model already does so that's why i'm saying this.

And as far as religions and philosophy go there are some that could be considered equal, and I've already come up with idea for that. But there are lesser advanced ones than that. This is agreed upon by all social scientistis.

Rather than having applications depend on a religion tech level, we can have them depend on the religion attributes in the social model. So rather than having the Chivalry or Way of the Blade application/effect be given at "Religion Level 35", we can give it when the religion attributes are at a certain level and other conditions are met. This might be a bit harder to do, but I think it would give much better results.
------
Well in addition to Religion 35 or whatever such thing is needed, certain levels of enthic attributes are needed. I was planning on this all along. However i can see no other way to advance a progression of society like that w/o such. Whether social advances should be seperated from the tech model and simply use a similar method i don't have a prob with, but under the circumstances then all one would need is the app. enthic attributes and religion type and that is not concurrent with history. There needs to be a path of progression which isn't incorperated here.

Cultural technology does not fit into the linear deterministic system we have designed for the growth of scientific and technical knowledge. I think we are doing Clash a disservice my modeling it the same way. Cultural technology should be treated differently, ideally by combining the social and tech models.
-----
Exactly my point. I have already thought of that and how to get around it. But there is some linear progression even in social advances, just not as much.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited June 21, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

I've always been opposed to the idea of "social tech advances", at least in general terms. They just doesn't make sense to me. Something I hate about MPS' civ2 is when you discover something like "monotheism". What's that supposed to mean? that all your people suddenly turned to a monotheistic cult? aggg! Modeling social stuff is quite complex and my model is far from being the great answer, but I believe any social tech advance should be there only to model those effects we can't include in the social model. This is not only from the perspective of having better true-to-life modeling, but also because we easily can fall in prejudices and try to force the game to reach pre-stated results. The whole thing about religions is a good example. We've seen our countries' govts from deeply related to christianity to secular States, so we could say there's a social tech like "Secular States" and through it forcing civs to become secular no matter what. Fundamentalistic govts can only be seen as less advanced civs under this approach, which I believe is wrong.
The problem with techs is they assume something is better than what you had earlier. Techs "advance". This is great for things like metallurgy or math, but with social stuff is IMHO just arrogant. I've tried to leave prejudices aside when creating the three models. This is why there're no arbitrary bonuses or penalities for different cultures or for different govt styles. So, to sum up, I support Richard's idea to adjust the tech model to the social model and not the other way around. And this comittment should prevail for whatever social and tech models we could possibly have, present ones or others.
------
I support ur idea in priciple, however, your ignoring fundimental facts of societial progression. I will take religion since it seems to be discuessed the most. In the begginning of societies religions were all what are termed "Nature God" religions. This is because man wanted some way to explain the world around it. Thus religion was borne. As time progressed and people come to understand more of reality they expanded their gods and ideas. The most advanced of the polytheistic religions were the Greeks (Hinduism isn't really, but for clash purposes we can call it that and thus it is more complex). Up to this point historians agree that the progression is pretty much advanced in a realative linear fashion. After this is when it varies depending on culture. 4 main things themes appear. In the west, its entirely monotheistic, with more complexities as things go along (although social scientistics will also argue that Christianity is polytheistic, but i won't argue that here). Anyway there is also more advanced polytheistic religions, like hinduism. There is a third kind, monastic where there is a belief in a spiritual place, but no god per say, just an existance. Budhism is the best example and finnaly there is a combination monastic/nature worship practiced in the far east mainly and to some extent in the americas earlier on. OK the new types would be set so that a certain level of social advancement must be met before people could have say monotheism. In addition they must meat the ethnic requirments for each ethnic group. Monotheism wouldn't be allowed to form in a far east society FE and mostastic vise versa. If not the culture continues onward on its present course. If we don't have these social levels implimented then people can automatically start out with monotheism which is entire inaccurate and would be like allowing a civ to start out with steel working. Also having becauses cultures are based on a act-react basis we cannot simply "force" religious types to slowly emerge at certain times and places.


If this suggestion is supported, I think we need to re-evaluate what social techs still are ness. in the tech model, and that's a job I think we need to do together.
------------
I think before we accept this, another working alterative should be set up. If it can work for every instance that the social advanced can handle with the aid of the enthic modifiers as good or better I'm all for it and would like to help since I am really into this.


Well, on corruption we have a disagreement. I'd love to see what other think on the matter. I'll add it as a cultural attribute for now.
As for including it in I and E, I don't think so. Why cheating would decrease innovation? When cheating you're actually creating new ways to do things! I know your greatest concern is determining what makes an economy really work from the productive perspective and the tech development perspective, but I guess you're relying too much on the corruption variable. I think that before continuing a discussion about the relationship between culture and corruption we should really have a discussion about what makes an economy work.
------
As far as having it as a variable i think its good, but the use mark and rich descibed imo isn't good enough to warrant its use.


On tech-culture: Yes, everytime nomadic tribes invaded settled civs they ended up embracing the conquered culture... I think I finally understood what you wanted. My question is: what made them change their barbaric culture? was it the fact that they were less advanced as you propose? was a lack of own identity (low nationalism) leading to a easy cultural break down? was it the mere fact that they were nomads and the settled lifestyle appeared attractive once faced so closely?
------
Probably depends on the culture. And don't think they were always simply "absorbed." They could bring ideas too. FE Hinduism was brought to India by the "barbarians" or rather its primitive version. These effects would be social usually, but can be technological. In fact many of the earliest barbaric tribes were respoble for a lot of the military technological advancements in other civs. FE the armor and a use for the wheel were given to the egyptians this way (as chariots), the Hitties brought iron, and the first ever wars as we know them came first from these barbarians.

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ:
---
OK the new types would be set so that a certain level of social advancement must be met before people could have say monotheism. . . . If we don't have these social levels implimented then people can automatically start out with monotheism which is entire inaccurate and would be like allowing a civ to start out with steel working.
---
This is simply wrong. The Jews had monotheism in 2000 BC. Clash could start as late as 1000 BC. I don't see how you can equate monotheism with steel working. Monotheism does not allow you to make or do anything advanced; it is simply a different way of looking at the world.

I think that there are only two good ways of dealing with religion. One way, which is used in the social model, models different religions and their characteristics but makes no value judgements. This allows religion spread to be accurately modeled and should be reasonably inoffensive.

However, LGJ had a point: The social model does not model the evolution of religious thought and the technology model does.

The other way to medel religion, which I was using earlier, is to leave specific religions out of the picture and have a tech that sums up your civ's religion. Higher values mean that the religion, whatever it is, is better meeting the spiritual needs of the people. Under this system, all religions are equal and they have the same effects. There is not even a hint of discrimination or stereotype.

We were never planning on discovering polytheism one day and suddenly being able to ride elephants as a result. This kind of silliness is what made me abandon the old system of tech growth and come up with the continuous tech level model we are using now.

The only differences we had planned on would be cosmetic. For example, the civ would get the "Spiritual Soldier" template application at Religion level 35. In a western culture it would be called Chivalry and in an eastern society it would be called Way of the Blade. The effect of the tech would be exactly the same, but it is appropriate to whatever culture you have so the Japanese are not forced to research Monotheism like thay are in Civ 2.

This way of modeling religion is somewhat simplistic, but it is fair and in the absence of anything better it seemed like a good way to model the progression of religious thought.

As I set before, a combination/compromise should be the way to go. I'll give one example of a way we could be able to combine the two models:

Each GRW is defined as a family of religions rather than a single religion. For example, one GRW would be "Western Monotheism." Each of these GRW's has characteristics like the current GRW's, but these characteristics are malleable. Furthermore, the GRW attributes change based on conditions within an individual civilization. This means that the attributes in one civ can be different than the attributes in amother civ; the GRW can have a different flavor in each civilization.

In addition to the different attributes, the GRW in a civ has a level, similar to a tech level. This level represents many things, including:

1) The GRW's ability to meet the spiritual needs of the people.
2) The logic and clarity of the GRW's doctrine.
3) The amount of literature and art devoted to that GRW.

This tech level increases due to tagged RP's generated by the religious establishment and sometimes by the people that support the religion. Helper techs are Philosophy and the various art techs.

A GRW with a high level will be more popular and spread faster. It will also provide more benefits to the civilization, in the form of lower corruption and crime.

Note that the level of the GRW is different in every civilization.

This combination should allow both spread and advancement to be modeled. I think it is a reasonable way of doing things. It should be non-offenseve because it makes it clear that we are dealing with the local application of the religion and not the core beliefs of the religion.

What does everyone think about this?

[Lord God Jinnai]

This is simply wrong. The Jews had monotheism in 2000 BC. Clash could start as late as 1000 BC. I don't see how you can equate monotheism with steel working. Monotheism does not allow you to make or do anything advanced; it is simply a different way of looking at the world.
-----
Here's the thing. The latest clash will start out in a standard game is 4000 BCE. Most likely 5000 BCE. That means pretty much 2-3000 years when monotheism is unkown. Your right that it is a diff way at looking at things, but its something that society hadb't advanced to the point of. So except for scenrios no culture should be allowed to start out with it.


The other way to medel religion, which I was using earlier, is to leave specific religions out of the picture and have a tech that sums up your civ's religion. Higher values mean that the religion, whatever it is, is better meeting the spiritual needs of the people. Under this system, all religions are equal and they have the same effects. There is not even a hint of discrimination or stereotype.

We were never planning on discovering polytheism one day and suddenly being able to ride elephants as a result. This kind of silliness is what made me abandon the old system of tech growth and come up with the continuous tech level model we are using now.

The only differences we had planned on would be cosmetic. For example, the civ would get the "Spiritual Soldier" template application at Religion level 35. In a western culture it would be called Chivalry and in an eastern society it would be called Way of the Blade. The effect of the tech would be exactly the same, but it is appropriate to whatever culture you have so the Japanese are not forced to research Monotheism like thay are in Civ 2.

This way of modeling religion is somewhat simplistic, but it is fair and in the absence of anything better it seemed like a good way to model the progression of religious thought.

As I set before, a combination/compromise should be the way to go. I'll give one example of a way we could be able to combine the two models:

Each GRW is defined as a family of religions rather than a single religion. For example, one GRW would be "Western Monotheism." Each of these GRW's has characteristics like the current GRW's, but these characteristics are malleable. Furthermore, the GRW attributes change based on conditions within an individual civilization. This means that the attributes in one civ can be different than the attributes in amother civ; the GRW can have a different flavor in each civilization.

In addition to the different attributes, the GRW in a civ has a level, similar to a tech level. This level represents many things, including:

1) The GRW's ability to meet the spiritual needs of the people.
2) The logic and clarity of the GRW's doctrine.
3) The amount of literature and art devoted to that GRW.

This tech level increases due to tagged RP's generated by the religious establishment and sometimes by the people that support the religion. Helper techs are Philosophy and the various art techs.

A GRW with a high level will be more popular and spread faster. It will also provide more benefits to the civilization, in the form of lower corruption and crime.

Note that the level of the GRW is different in every civilization.

This combination should allow both spread and advancement to be modeled. I think it is a reasonable way of doing things. It should be non-offenseve because it makes it clear that we are dealing with the local application of the religion and not the core beliefs of the religion.
------
OK the only thing i see that may need work is to allow non-GWR shouldn't change from their basic type (ie monotherisitic) but can have a couple of branches like i said. PR can change alot, well atleast some as time goes on. The moral codes and that could shift for each one, though much less for GWR.

[Lord God Jinnai]

double post
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited June 23, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

I've been working on a way to use social advances w/o the tech model. So far i've done well with religions and can probably use a similar version for philosophy. Fine arts may be a slight challenge, but i think i can handle it. The problem is the final social basic tech, Psychology.

Anyway I've figured out a way reviewing the old social thread and the way religions were handled their. I think changing some things around for how they advance (not spread since for the most part i like the GWR idea better than the former idea...its simpler and in some ways more realistic). I read a post that rodrigo made that seemed to be able to handle for the most part the advancement of religion. That is base it on the level of abstractness. There are some flaws with this though since higher abastactness doesn't ness. mean a more advanced religion. I think adding another variable could help, but i don't know yet. This will only affect how social advanced evolve over time. Note that even if this system is used, certain areas will still require certain types of techs before being advanced upon (FE in fine arts u can't start out with animation). I could use some ideas for variables for the others. I think fine arts will probably have to have atleast 2-3 advancement variables, one for visual arts, another for performing and a final for musical (though we could possibly get by with combining the last 2...i don't know).

Anyway I'm not posting it now cuz i wan't to know if i should continue with this social advancement sub-model first.

Another note, there will be more variable for religion. The 2 (well 3 if u count starting location) you have aren't enough).

Another note on religion, I think you should consider something like was mentioned about plurality practiced in eastern cultures. I think not doing that discriminates against them saying that a person must be at most 1 religion and i thought we were trying not to do that here like was done with the civ games.

Also on another note with religion, you say the only religions that can spread beyond the natural boudries are GWR. I think that's wrong in a few cases. FE if i have forced conversions by the sword i should be able to spread my chosen PR where i control beyond its natural boundries.

Also on the same note, say i chose a religion as the only religion legal or none (like the fomrer USSR), would i see the actual amount of unoficial worship or the assumed number that i'm wanting for my civ?

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ: Seems interesting. Go ahead and post a more complete version of your ideas.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well i should have the social advances sub-model proposal done within a week. rodrigo or axi, if either of u want to see it before i post it let me know.

[roquijad]

First, if it's not too much to ask, LGJ, I'd prefer you to not post your sub model yet. I'd like to see us getting to at least some sort of agreement about the general social-tech picture before start discussing about a particular "social-tech sub model".

I in general agree with Richard's idea about modeling the whole social stuff half in the social model and half in the tech model. As I said, there're some things that can be incredibly complex to model in the social model context, like the "Spiritual Soldier", so they for sure should go in the tech model. If LGJ agrees too, I think the core of our problem would be then where to draw the line between models. Here are some things related to this matter:

1) I don't want to see "monotheism", "meta-life approach" or any such thing in either model. These should only be flavoring names applied arbitrarily to a just born GRW. Why? because they serve no use in gameplay terms and could only lead us to offensive problems. The very essence of each GRW should be there in characteristics WITH A CLEAR EFFECT ON THE GAME.

2) Religion should not be a tech advance in any way. As said by Richard, when new religions appear, they're just new ways to see the world and therefore it's not a good idea to tag some of them as more advanced than others, which is the main assumption we'd made if included in the tech model.

3) GRW characteristics and moral codes should not change. Two good reasons. First, modeling cost. Modeling that would be as complex as modeling a culture and the question about how each characteristic should behave is not easy to solve. Second, religions indeed have changed almost nothing in thousands of years. I know this can be an opinion you may find wrong, so I'm gonna try to convince you: When we look at religion practices and people's views about religious matters, we can for sure say things have changed notoriously, but this does not mean religion doctrine has changed. Take christianity for instance. All its doctrine has changed about nothing in these 2000 years. Today, it's the same story and beliefs first christians had. Even more, the church still is based in the words of the bible, which is the same book they have used all these centuries. There's a very good example regarding "the universe". Do you know when christianity officially accepted the earth not being in the centre of the universe? Less than a decade ago! Society has accepted Galileo's ideas for centuries so far. This shows how slow changes in doctrine are. The same happens with other religions. What do changes is people's view about religion, but not religion itself. People start to believe in non-religious things like Galileo's ideas or Darwin's ideas, while religion doctrine stays the same. That's why for the same cult you can find from very liberal practicers to fanatics. Fanatics are actually those believers taking doctrine in a rather unflexible way. The social model allows people to be less influenced by religion as techs advance using the "Importance of Religion" variable, so, FE, in a modern west country people would find in religion other roles compared to ancient times.

4) What I've being trying to say all along is "don't look at the religion form (natural, sky-based, monotheistic, polithesitic, meta-life, etc), but look at its effects on population and its spreading capabilities". Focus and meditate on this single phrase. My view is religion form is irrelevant IN GAMEPLAY TERMS because if people is monotheistic it makes no difference at all compared to being meta-life supporters. What really matters is what religion does to people and how many people it can reach. As defined in the model, what religion does is to change cultural attributes, making them ad hoc to religion attributes, as if people would be trying to behave according to religion's doctrine. And about spreading capabilities, that's where GRW come in. A GRW is nothing but a religion that can go beyond a particular ethnic group (not beyond a province, civ, nation, border, etc), while a primitive religion is someway attached to a nationality (ethnic group), so others cannot embrace it. An example of primitive religion is aztec beliefs, because in that cult there're elements like "God X protects the aztecs" and consecuently no other tribe feels interested in it (or at least not in a important level). Maybe the name "primitive religion" is not the best and should be called "ethnically attached religion" or such.
5) quote: "However, LGJ had a point: The social model does not model the evolution of religious thought and the technology model does." Again, "evolution" is a value judgement, so I can't suscribe to this view. However, I understand LGJ's worries about not having monotheistic beliefs in year 5000 BC or such. The social model allows some thousands of years before a GRW appears using a very simple method. Even though this can be managed in the tech model instead, I think it will make things only more complicated and we can also loose modeling flexibility given what's said in the next paragraph.
6) An important issue in the tech vs social discussion is tech model works at the civ level, while the social model works at the ethnic group level. So, when social techs advance in a civ, it's unclear what ethnic groups in the civ are affected by this. Consider the problems this leads to regarding religion, FE.
7) quote: "In addition to the different attributes, the GRW in a civ has a level, similar to a tech level. This level represents many things, including: 1) The GRW's ability to meet the spiritual needs of the people. 2) The logic and clarity of the GRW's doctrine. 3) The amount of literature and art devoted to that GRW." How can you possibly give a level to "spiritual needs satisfaction"? Are native american cults less satisfacory than christianity? This only leads to offensive problems. "Logic an clarity of doctrine"? Again, which religion has more logic? Concerning literature and art, I don't see what use it could have in gameplay terms. And also, I wouldn't consider more advanced a religion for which people dedicates a lot of literature and art to. This quote shows the core of the problem when using the tech model in social things: the assumption of something being better than others. I know we won't be able to completely escape from this problem, but what we can do is letting the social model handle as many things as it can and then putting in the tech model all other things we just couldn't put in the social model.
A couple of answers to LGJ:
1) "Also on another note with religion, you say the only religions that can spread beyond the natural boudries are GWR" No, as I've said, religion boundaries are NOT geographic, are social. That is, on the ethnic group level. GRW can go beyond the ethnic group that originally started it. In a civ only a few ethnic groups can have a GRW. One GRW can be found in several ethnic groups in several civs.
2) "Also on the same note, say i chose a religion as the only religion legal or none (like the fomrer USSR), would i see the actual amount of unoficial worship or the assumed number that i'm wanting for my civ?" The player cannot change people's beliefs with a simple govt policy. The USSR example is not currenly handled. A govt can have one religion as official or none (secular). Maybe we can add this feature later. When the govt discriminates, it makes minorities out of believers of non-official religion. The "conversion by sword" is a feature we can add too, and I feel this one is interesting for the game.

[Richard Bruns]

I would prefer that no names be given to any religion. That was the approach taken in the tech model. The social model is the one that gives names and characteristics to the religions.

I never said that any religion was better or more advanced than any other. Every GRW would start with the same tech level. This level changes with the popularity and official support of the religion. Also, I never said that the level made a religion "better." The level is there to create the religion based applications like Chivalry. Once a religion reaches a certain level of popular support and longevity, these applications will be given to the civ.

Again, a high tech level is not meant to imply that a religion is better. It means that the religion is a bigger part of people's lives and a bigger part of the civilization.

"Evolution" is not a value judgement. I simply meant it to mean, "change over time."

I'm sorry; I made a hasty decision. I should not have written that I didn't see any problems with the social model. While I still think that most of the social model is good, I didn't look closely at the religion part of the model and I assumed it would be as good as the rest of the model. After considering it more closely, I now think that there are some problems woth the religion modeling.

I do not like the way that the social model makes all religions static. This problem is compounded by the assumption that every follower of the religion follows the doctrine exactly. By Rodrigo's definition, this makes every religious person in Clash a fanatic. I think that this is a very bad thing to imply.

I agree that the emphasis of the model should be on the effects on the population and the world, not an arbitrary definition of the religion.

Rodrigo:
---
When we look at religion practices and people's views about religious matters, we can for sure say things have changed notoriously, but this does not mean religion doctrine has changed.
---
My view is religion form is irrelevant IN GAMEPLAY TERMS . . . What really matters is what religion does to people and how many people it can reach.
---

Doctrine is simply one aspect of a religion's form. What religion does to people and how many people it can reach will depend on religion practices and people's views and not the form or doctrine of the religion.

The effects of a religion that are relevant to gameplay will be constantly changing. I happen to be more familiar with European history, so I will use the Catholic Church as an example: The current pope has a very different effect on the world than the popes in the middle ages. He does entirely different things. For example, he works for peace in the middle east while his predecessors sent people over there to make war.

For another example, consider the Japanese in this century. Only 55 years ago, their society and religion encouraged pilots to crash their airplanes into enemy ships. Nowadays, Japan is one of the most peaceful Asian countries.

We cannot use a model that assumes that the religious leaders and followers in 2000 will act the same way as they did in 1200 or even 1945.

While the doctrine may not change much, most relevant effects of the religion will change signifigantly. The religion attributes, defined as the way perople act and how they influence the civ, must change over time.

If it would be too much trouble to model changing attributes, then I think we should leave them out and return to the tech assumption that all religions have identical effects. Unchanging attributes would be worse than no attributes.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited June 27, 2000).]

[roquijad]

Richard:
"I never said that any religion was better or more advanced than any other."
I know you didn't mean it. I'm sure none of us has a fanatic/fundamentalistic view about any particular religion. In my case, I'm atheist. My problem is you don't have to say a religion is better than other, it's simply assumed (intentionally or not) when you put religions in the tech system. This is because tech system has a structure of things becoming better and better. When you say Metallurgy-85%, it's obvious and inherent to the model that it means it's better than Metallurgy-75%. I'm affraid this can take us in the wrong way in the case of religions.
------
"Again, a high tech level is not meant to imply that a religion is better. It means that the religion is a bigger part of people's lives and a bigger part of the civilization."
This is strange, you see... In the tech system all techs advance, but if you include religion as a tech advance, you'd be forced to make it back down, because religions are not today the big part of people's lives they were in ancient times, at least for western societies. If you include now the idea that nowadays religions have "grown" (in any sense) compared to older times, the meaning of the "religion tech advance" becomes unclear.
------
"I do not like the way that the social model makes all religions static. This problem is compounded by the assumption that every follower of the religion follows the doctrine exactly. By Rodrigo's definition, this makes every religious person in Clash a fanatic. I think that this is a very bad thing to imply."
The social model doesn't assume fanatism for followers. It doesn't either make people follow the religion exactly. That's the main role of "Importance of Religion" variable. You probably overlooked this one. When IR is high, people is more like fanatics, caring a lot about religion and its role in society. When it is low, it's like a western country today. This is exactly why I have no problem at all with static religion's doctrine. The doctrine stays the same (which is in essence true), but people can see religions in different perspectives. This matches perfectly with something you say: "Doctrine is simply one aspect of a religion's form. What religion does to people and how many people it can reach will depend on religion practices and people's views and not the form or doctrine of the religion."
----------
"We cannot use a model that assumes that the religious leaders and followers in 2000 will act the same way as they did in 1200 or even 1945."
Sure! that's why I encourage you to consider seriously "Importance of Religion". In 1945 people won't care too much about holy places and therefore they won't accept easily a crusade. But they would in ancient times. And this has no conflict with the static characteristic of doctrine, which truly IS mostly static.
----------
"I didn't look closely at the religion part of the model..."
With that comment and some of LGJ's questions, I'm starting to think you two just overlooked the model. While this is alright if you just wanted to have an idea about the model, I think it won't work for a discussion about social-techs interactions. IMO deciding what must be managed by the social model and what by the tech model regarding social stuff is a Major decision with several important consequences. Said that, I'd suggest a closer and deeper look at the social model before continuing. On my side, I don't know the tech model fully, so if you can send me the latest version you have, I'd appreciate it.

I want to insist that I do agree about managing some things in the social model and others in the tech model. But, as I've said, the tech model should only handle those things the social model cannot. This opinion holds for whatever social and tech models we have. If we feel the social model must be completely changed, well, that's alright... somebody else will take the job. But still, the new model has to be the cornerstone of social stuff and the tech model should only help it with the things that are too complex to model. Do we agree on this, at least ?

[Richard Bruns]

I did review the social model and religious models before making that last post, thus correecting my previous mistake.

I don't think the IR variable can cover the problem of static doctrine. The current assumption is that people will either follow an ancient, unchanging doctrine to the word or ignore it completely. The form of religions will change; equally devout people will sometimes do entirely different things as the interpretation of the religion changes over the centuries.

I referred to the religious class in passing, and I'd like to make the statement more explicit: In real life, the actions of the RC change over time even though they are a part of the same religion. In the clash model, the RCM values for four important attributes will never change. Today's pope is not aggressive like previous popes were, but the model assumes that they will be the same.

I was planning on disguising the religion "level" and keeping it out of the tech tree. It would be in the social model interface, not the tech interface. The relation to the tech model would be hidden. And yes, the religion "level" will fluctuate up and down. It is not meant to only go up.

I agree that the social model should be the basis for most social applications. It should be possible to assign most applications like Abolition of Slavery based only on social attributes. The social attributes, plus a religion and/or philisophy level for each civ, should do the job well.

I'll be going on vacation tomorrow, so I won't be able to continue this discussion. I've said about all I can already; if I haven't convinced anyone yet I probably never will. The "level" idea is not menat to be final and other somutions could be found. But I remain convinced that religious attributes should change over time the same way that cultural attributes do.

Rodrigo: The tech models posted on the Clash website are accurate and up to date, with the exception of a few equation details you probably don't care about. If you want the tech spreadsheet and tell me before tomorrow morning, I can send them to you. If you want them while I'm gone, ask LGJ for them.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited June 27, 2000).]