Social Model v.2

[Beör]

F_Smith

I don't disagree with you that the term EG covers the concept at every level very nicely from a programmers point of view. The problem is that the term was previously associated with another concept: the multisquare EG. And this has really confused things. At least I think we should adopt some prefix notation or such to make matters clear

sqEG: Square based EG - the basic population object
prEG: Province based EG - the aggregate of all sqEGs in a province of similar nationality - similar to the earlier concept EG
ciEG: Civ based EG - the aggregate of all sqEGs in a civ of similar nationality
msEG: any multisquare EG - including EGs crossing civ or province borders

(I rather like prEG )

LGJ

My concerns exactly. How sqEGs are aggregated and msEGs are split up into separate entities is of major importance.

Both + Rodrigo

Please read the piece I posted in the Model Organisation thread. I would like to hear your opinion.
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 20, 2000).]

[roquijad]

OT:

Axi: Yes, september as a whole is an important time for us. It's usually called the "Nation's Month". We don't celebrate it all days of the month like a carnaval or anything, but usually it's a period to strenghten our culture and customs through various activities. Yes, the ****ing military coup happened in september 11th, 1973.
What did I drink? The usual plus two national drinks: "Pisco" (also present in Peru) and "Chicha".

Beör: I believe the average chilean would choose Spain. Italy would get a very notable 2nd place, I think. BTW, I've been in Europe, so my guesses are based on my experience there...
Of course, the aggregation (average chilean) loses information! The south of Chile, FE, has an important amount of population who immigrated from Germany and has kept german traditions in many ways. I'm sure most of them would prefer Germany instead of Spain. Like any other country in the american continent, Chile is a land of immigrants "mixed" with native americans (the mix level varies a lot from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, though), so taking the average chilean is just a simplistic way to see it. Why do you ask me this?
BTW, we have a lot more in common than you think, my friend, and distance and years of separation can't break the european/western culture initial immigrants
brought. We just twisted it a little!

Both of you: Bolivar is a major figure in SouthAmerica, but in Chile didn't play such a great role in independence. Our "G. Washington" was Bernardo O'Higgins. See the last name? He came from an irish family... a land of immigrants, remember?

Thanks for the cheering, anyway
----------------

To the social model:

Beör: The game engine will look at the EG's with "german" nationality to compute riot model's equations for that particular thing which is a nationalistic rebellion.

Richard and LGJ: The EG-Tech thing is IMO a key issue that we should solve as a team soon. Please look at the thread I initiated called "Too much shaking goin' on!" because that's IMO just part of a bigger problem.
Anyway, I'll answer very briefly to your questions:

Richard: With the current model, no, you can't have each EG having its own tech level. EG's weren't developed to do that. If we want it that way, though, I see two possibilities. The first is to run the tech model at the EG level. The second is to run it at the civ level as planned and add to each EG modifiers that could reduce or increase civ tech levels in whatever circumstance we want to know what tech knowledge an EG has. The second approach doesn't seem like an easy solution at first sight at least.
On your other question, yes, the idea was to give EG's some characteristics that could make a difference in tech innovation. My idea was to use attributes Asceticism, Traditionalism and Literacy. Tech development, at whatever level we decide to run it, should IMO be influenced by EG's attributes.


LGJ (and Beör): There's no internal splitting within an EG because of the definition of it. An EG is a group of people with the same characteristics. A split never occurs within the EG. Part of the EG could migrate or be conquered by other civ, and in that case the EG is divided in pieces and each one evolves on its own.

I didn't have it like this in the original model just for simplification, but your mountains vs coast example will be 2 different EG's in F_Smith's implementation of the model. As I have said many times, with EG's imlemented in mapsquares a lot more realism is gained at the cost of more resources in the computational side. So in your example you'll find realism. EG's in the mountains can be potentially different than those in the coast.

As for convergence, cultural characteristics aren't IMO the key for convergence. Even if two EG's are very similar in their customs, the issue of nationality still persists, so it becomes the barrier to converge into one single EG. There're a lot of examples of this. Think, FE, in Sweden and Finland. Almost same culture, yet they identify themselves as different peoples (different EG's). So, what the model does is to allow EG's with a low Nationalism level to be absorved by the "dominant" EG. That's the only criteria for convergence. In essence this say that an EG with low sense of identity and where its members hardly see they're a social unit of its own, are willing to join other "tribe" and take their ways as own.


About your kurdish/israeli example, the first thing to note is EG's in different civs are not "forced" to evolve differently. If they live a life in different civs but these civs are alike in the parameters concerning social change, then they won't diverge much. The change in culture is given by the reality the EG lives in, so divergences should be measured in that perspective.

Second, Traditionalism. A case like the hebrews could be modeled with a rather high Traditionalism. Even living in very different places, tradition plays the role of avoiding culture change. It can even be set to 100%, where no change at all is allowed.


Beör: I just took a brief look at what you wrote in the other thread. I'll give you my thoughts later on that. For now I can only tell you that once the EG is implemented at the mapsquare level, there's no increasing number of EG's when land changes hands.
About your nomenclature, I like it and I'll try to use it. Anyway, in all my posts for a long time so far, when I say "EG" a refer to the msq-EG. I just adapted to F_Smith's implementation, so I try to think in that perspective now.

[Richard Bruns]

These posts were originally in the Model Organization thread. I copied them here to try to keep things organized.

-----

manurein
Clash of Civilizations
Social Model
Paris, France
May 99 posted September 20, 2000 16:15

Hi all
I designed a social model for this game some times ago.
I think that this model answers a few questions Böer is raising.
You can see it here : http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum21/HTML/000151.html

See the mixing and the migration sub-models.
This model was based on the assumption that cultures tend to converge when they are in neighbouring places for some time.

A few remarks : first, I have left the Clash team for lack of time, but i still try to follow it, and i really want to play it : keep the pressure guys!

Concerning the procedural vs OO design, it's obvious that OO is far superior in such a project. This said, i think that you make a mistake when you try to design directly OO models; IMHO you are missing a step : OO design concerns the implementation of the model; what you are doing now is deciding what you models will do ; this is the specification phase, and OO has nothing to do with specification. First decide what your models must do, give the equations they will implement, etc. When your model is ready, then implement it, which means first designing it then coding and testing it. Clash is a very complex project, far more complex than most commercial games. If you mix the specification and the design phase, you overcomplicate the job needlessly.

Also, you should try to design each model as a "black box" : the other models dont need to know "how" they do, they need to know "what" they do.
What I mean is, all a model needs to know about the other models is the datas that the other models can give him for integrating in their computations. They dont need to know how these datas are produced.
If a model does what it is intended to do, then it can compute ant value concerning what it does, even if it does not use it internally.
Then, each model designer should design his model knowing what the other models are intended to do. Then ask the other model designers to supply him with the datas he needs for his computations. And supply the others with the datas they ask.

Thats all guys, good luck!

-----

Beör
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000 posted September 21, 2000 08:39

F_Smith
I sort of agree

If the lower limit of EG size is 1000 people, the havock caused by migration will not be as large as I fortold. You could probably keep it in the 20.000-30.000 range, which I find high but acceptable. I read the other day that there is between 5000 and 6000 languages being spoken in the world, and people speaking these languages will be subdivided into many groups. But mind you many of these languages (I believe it was a little more than half) are on the edge of extinction, being spoken by less than 10000 people. We will have to test this. I say that if more than these 30.000 cultures are created we have to consider an alternative.
Actually there is another thing about several of these aggregation techniques (common object, identical attributes, similar attributes) that I don't like and that I think points to a problem with the method:

YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT TO CALL THE AGGREGATE.

If you use the nationality approach you will call the aggegate 'Germans' or 'Germans in XX province' or 'Germans in YY civ'.

With the other methods it will be:
'All persons that were originally Ggerman, but are now something else characterised by their cultural attributes a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i'
or
'All persons with cultural attributes a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i'
or
'All persons with cultural attributes close to a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i'

Grouping by nationality will preserve the flavor, while still allowing EGs to have differing cultural attributes. The aggregates will be larger and more heterogenous, but isn't that closer to reality?

-----

F_Smith
Prince
Austin, Tx 78728
May 99 posted September 21, 2000 09:48

Richard:
I think we're discussing that in the other thread, so I won't repeat here.

* * *

Boer:

Actually, the player can easily filter/aggregate by each and every EG attribute.

Since the player won't have god-like control, the only reason the player will need to know what civ-level aggregates are would be for whatever game models require. So the aggregate problem is a matter of the 'civ' level modelling, not 'square' level 'ethnic groups'. Even if we store 'ethnic group' info at the civ level, we'll have the same 'aggregate' issue.

I will have the filter available for a player to see how many people of a single ethnicity, how many people of a single culture, etc, are in their civ.

* * *

Manurein:

Hi. Welcome back.

[This message has been edited by F_Smith (edited September 21, 2000).]

-----

Beör
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000 posted September 21, 2000 17:31

manurein
Read your old model - it was not manureout (OK you probably heard that one before!).

There were several things I liked (although I am glad we got rid if the race thing ). And you are right: Many of your thoughts on grouping people in 'agents' and 'meta-agents' are valuable in the present discussion.

I would like to emphasize one thing from your model that I think is worth discussing (and I am sorry: this will relate to scale theory): The use of nominal scale (cathegories) instead of ordinal scales with so many steps that they are in fact continuous has several advantages:

1. You now what to call your groups: the Green Race, the Blue Race.

2. By using nominal scales you don't imply that one category is superior to another: the Blues are not better than the Greens, they are just different.

3. You don't imply that they are placed on a continuum. That somewhere between the Blue and the Green there is a Blue-Green. And between the Blue-Green and the Blue there is a Blue-Green-Blue.

The weakness of nominal scales are just as obvious:

1. You have to find a meaningful name for all categories.

2. You cannot perform arithmetic on nominal scales. Thus there is no average or median. The mixing of people gets diffcult, because you cannot estimate the 'typical' value of the merged people, other than choosing the value of the largest number of people.

So when we want to aggregate people it is necessary to use at least an ordinal scale, where arithmetic operations are possible. But this leads to the problems of no names, lacking identity and establishing proximity (particularly when you have to do this in several dimensions).

Fortunately F_Smith has opened my eyes:

F_Smith

Of course you are right EGs can be aggregated by any of the attributes, and the player will rarely if ever have to do that. I was going of on a tangent because of the discussion I had with Rodrigo in the social thread.

I guess the filter you mention will translate values on the 0-100 scale into another scale with much broader intervals (FE 0-20, 20-40. 40-60, 60-80, 80-100 or maybe even wider) which we could then give a name and use this name to describe the people to the player: '15% of your people are very agressive' or 'On average your population is moderately nationalistic'. Beneath this we would still have the actual numbers thus allowing aggregation of EGs either on the detailed scale with the disadvantages I have outlined or on the less detailed scale.

The other kind of aggregation is the one performed by actions/events in the game, and here we can decide ourselves which method we find most appropriate in the circumstances

Ingeneous - why didn't I think of that .

Whisper mode

F_smith: That's Beör - not Boer. B E Ö R

Funny how you can identify with a silly alias acquired about a month ago.
Whisper mode off
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 21, 2000).]

-----

Beör
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000 posted September 21, 2000 17:36

BTW does anybody know how to perform hierarchical cluster analysis. Is it feasible to perform it in this context of aggregating EGs - or other objects with several attributes measured on continuous scales?

[roquijad]

I maybe lost the point, but what's the big deal with aggregation, Beör? In what circumstance(s) you see aggregation causing problems? Why do you want to aggregate?

[roquijad]

Social Model Glossary, Brief Summary and Current Status (September 24th, 2000)

BRIEF SUMMARY
People is grouped in Ethnic Groups (EG) and characterized through a set of cultural attributes. Each EG has also some other variables defining its status like if it suffers slavery or not.

EG's have one or more religions. The number is still TBD.

Cultural attributes are subject to change along the game. The way they change depends on the reality the EG lives in.

Religions work as agents of cultural change also. When an EG follows a religion, it tries to take the attitudes the religion dictates or encourages. To this end, religions are defined as a set of "desirable values for cultural attributes". These values are fixed for the whole game. Just the intensity with which people follow the religion changes.

Religions spread through the world through contact between civs, which is measured in trade routes.

List of Cultural Attributes
Nationalism
Ethnic Tolerance
Religious Tolerance
Individualism
Asceticism
Traditionalism
Aggressiveness
Land Connection

List of other variables defining each EG
Religiously Discriminated (dummy: the EG can be or not discriminated because of its religion)
Ethnically Discriminated (dummy: the EG can be or not discriminated because of its nationality)
Enslaved (dummy: the EG is enslaved or not)
Nationality


GLOSSARY (MOST IMPORTANT TERMS)
Ethnic Group (EG): A group of people with the same customs and cultural profile.

Primitive or Ethnic Religion: The religion an EG is assumed to have at the beginning of the game.

Great Religion of the World (GRW): Religions like Islam that are allowed to spread globally and eventually overshadow all Primitive Religions.

Religion's moral code or doctrine: The set of cultural attributes values the religion encourages.

Minorities: All EG's that are discriminated because of religion or nationality.

Majorities: All EG's not discriminated.


CURRENT STATUS
The model is being coded by F_Smith in the "Beast". You can check it in http://home.austin.rr.com/lostmercha...ashEditor.html

The number of religions per EG is still unsolved.

The following cultural attributes should be included in a future update: Literacy, Natural Affinity and Corruption.

The handling of the attribute Nationalism should be refined.

Religious converting is missing. Spreading is the passive way by which a religion gets more followers (already covered), while converting is the active attempt by preachers to get more followers.

It has been suggested that religions should have branches, like christianity producing catholicism and protestantism. Still unsolved.

The model initially was supposed to manage migrations. It doesn't right now and this issue may end up being handled somewhere else.

It has been accepted so far that we won't model human races, their mixing and race discrimination.

[roquijad]

[This is an answer for LGJ's thoughts posted in the riots model]

There won't be 5-6 GRW. I said there'll be 5-6 groups of GRW. There will be as many GRW as you want.

Hinduism: I don't understand why you don't want to model it as a GRW. If the religion itself (its ideas, its philosophy, etc) makes reference to an ethnicity, then it's an Ethnic Religion. If not, it's a GRW. I don't see the problem. If you say it doesn't spread as a GRW, then you're not understanding what a GRW is. A GRW has the ability to spread beyond ethnicities. It's not its destiny to spread vastly. It just can if the religion is attractive.

For the time being religion attributes will NOT change. We had this conversation before. I won't repeat the arguments. It's way too difficult to model true-to-life religion change, so I won't get into that unless the team decides its mandatory. Modeling culture evolution is already a pain in the ass to get into religion evolution as well. Also, it wouldn't give you any big flavor addition to the game.

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: Originally posted by roquijad on 09-28-2000 02:44 AM [This is an answer for LGJ's thoughts posted in the riots model] There won't be 5-6 GRW. I said there'll be 5-6 groups of GRW. There will be as many GRW as you want. Hinduism: I don't understand why you don't want to model it as a GRW. If the religion itself (its ideas, its philosophy, etc) makes reference to an ethnicity, then it's an Ethnic Religion. If not, it's a GRW. I don't see the problem. If you say it doesn't spread as a GRW, then you're not understanding what a GRW is. A GRW has the ability to spread beyond ethnicities. It's not its destiny to spread vastly. It just can if the religion is attractive. For the time being religion attributes will NOT change. We had this conversation before. I won't repeat the arguments. It's way too difficult to model true-to-life religion change, so I won't get into that unless the team decides its mandatory. Modeling culture evolution is already a pain in the ass to get into religion evolution as well. Also, it wouldn't give you any big flavor addition to the game.

1. Hinduism is though in essence an ER, but only because other groups in India converted to it, but it didn't spread anything like an ER. There also comes a point when a GWR could go back to being a ER such as Hinduism, Celtic Religion and Zoastrianism then. Otherwise almost every religion then could be considered an ER because almost all have the potential to spread beyond the EG atleast somewhat. That is the big problem, you seem to not want ER to spread at all beyond the EG and if they do, it becomes an GWR, atleast that's the sense I get.

2. Well I'll wait and see how you handle the use of braching issue and tell you if its okay.

[Beör]

Don't worry - I won't dwell more on the EG issue at the moment . I see you've left a slot open for discussion of nationality, that's sufficient for now.

I've got another concern related to the OO modelling of this. The three dummy variables (RelDisc, EthDisc, Ensl) IMO should be replaced by pointers to the governing civ, since it is here that it is decided which groups are discriminated/enslaved.

[roquijad]

LGJ:

I keep suspecting that you merge the real world meanings for "ethnic religion" and GRW with the definitions we have here for the game. For whatever religion you consider (hinduism, celtic cult, etc), what you should do is to see in what category it fits better given the definition of the model for ER and GRW. If it doesn't fit correctly (or mostly correctly) in any of the two categories, then let me know. Use the following as definitions:

Ethnic Religion: A cult that is practiced only (or almost only) within a particular ethnicity. Example: ancient egyptian cult. Its capability to spread beyond the original ethnicity is so small that we consider it null. This capability is so small because cult ideas and practices tend to refer explicitly to an ethnicity in many ways "God XX protects the YY tribe", FE.

GRW: A cult that can be practiced beyond ethnicities. It's capable to spread beyond the original ethnicity. This capability exists because the religion has null or almost null references to a particular ethnicity. "Alah is good to all who follow him", FE. Actual spreading into another EG depends on affinity between culture and religion's philosophy/doctrine/ideas.
-----------

Beör: If you excuse me, I won't make any comments on coding stuff like "this should be a pointer". As agreed, I'm gonna try to keep within the lines of my "job", which is "designer" and I won't tell coders how to do their job. All I care is we need to identify for each EG if it is or not discriminated and/or enslaved by the govt under which it lives in.

[Beör]

Sure - got carried away OO-wise, sorry.

In due time we must have a SM OO thread

[Lord God Jinnai]

Ok that does help clear up some things, but there are still 2 problems, one with Celtic religion and the other with Hinduism.

Celtic: There was a point in time where Celtic religion would be by the definition a GWR, but once Greeko-Roman and even moreso Christiranity religions moved in, it lost much of its hold and what was still left, mostly in Ireland and Scottland for the most part was of generally the same enthinicity or at most 2 very similar enthnicities. At this point it would be considered an ER because it no longer had the power to spread like it did before.

Hinduism: This in some ways is similar to Celtic religion. It started out as a local religion and quickly spread throughout India, thus could be termed as a GWR. But, it is unable to spread beyond that point because it is so much linked with the ethnic groups around it (yes i have seen them elsewhere, even a temple here in St. Louis, but the extent is so minimal and is usually for those Hindus that left India moreso than for converts). So today it too would be considered a ER because of this. A stong one unlike the Celtic Religion that can defend itself, but still it is unable to spread.

[roquijad]

Celtic cult fits pretty well in the ER category. It was practiced almost only by celts. It didn't spread beyond celts significantly.

Hinduism is IMO a GRW. The fact that it hasn't spread beyond India and the nearby territories has IMO more to do with the affinity part I talked about in my previous post.

The important thing, though, IMO is having the right overall flavor. We won't make a big mistake if we put celtic religion in the ER category and Hinduism in the GRW category. As a result in game terms, celtic cult will exist only in celtic peoples and could be overshadowed by a GRW like it happened with christianity. On the other side, handling Hinduism as a GRW allows the religion to spread given the right conditions (FE if the Indian civ is able to export its culture through conquest) and wouldn't disappear with the arrival of another GRW.

This kind of analysis is the one I use and can be made to any religion we care about. Using ER and GRW with the definitions I gave, we can model all major/most-important religions seen in the world with realistic enough effects. Making a more detailed modeling for religions is IMO not necessary. The main effects are already there.

[Lord God Jinnai]

But the Celtic religion did spread to other EGs just like other GWRs. Not everyone, but it did spread like that so I can't see how you can have it one way and another for similarly expanding religions in one point, the only differance was that one was eventually exstict. Also what about the use of branches in this. Budhism is my example of the 3 branches, not all fit in the GWR type mode really.

Finally how are we going to handle rebirth's of dead religions such as the Celtic religion (although its not completely the same, it is based on it very much).

[roquijad]

LGJ: I won't refine this model any further unless the team as a whole decide more sophistication is mandatory.

For now, and at least until demo5 release, the model will remain as it is. You'll have your chance to argue all these things, but in a future time. I need for now to concentrate in solving all the little details in my 3 models to help with their implementation for demo5. To this purpose, it's better to avoid changes to the models at this time.

[Whitemage]

A note on religions:

You should, if possible, have a advocate of each GRW decide its stats.
This would help avoid being insulting, and a follower of a religion could better determine its stats.

And do we really need resurrected religions?