The Social Model

[roquijad]

(I didn't finish the last paragraph and the server then didn't allow me to edit the message. Here's what I wanted to say)

As for implementing both models (social, govt) at the same time, I agree 100% on the "structure" side. I think govt and social methods don't need to be implemented simoultaneously and I'd first go with the govt model.

[roquijad]

Well, we'll go for the old/current version, as Gary has stated. The secret model will wait, then.

Gary: Just please check again those equations F_Smith coded, because (now I remember) when he posted them in the forums so I could see them, I noticed in some cases he coded just one eq. and then copied it several times, so equations that should be different were coded as equal.

LGJ: I'll email the "secret" model to Gary, probably friday (because I see he's out-of-mail now) and I'll try to send it to the person in charge of our web site (who is him now?) ASAP. Anyway, as I said before, it's a very technical doc, without explanations for why things are like they are, so don't expect to understand it much. I'll see if in the near future I can develop an explanatory doc of the new model.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Rodrigo:

I think the new document is too brief to put up as the primary government model page, if that is the request you sent to Dom. If you want to post it as a "sketch of the new version of the model with little explanation" then I think it's fine. I just wanted to raise my concern on the off chance that was what you were doing. I'm looking forward to the version with more explanations in it . It looks like you have a clear improvement in the model, but it's hard to be sure without seeing some explanation, examples, and a few more details.

[Mark_Everson]

Man, Rodrigo, did you surprise me by sending the 'explanatory' version of the doc a mere hour after I requested one! I've given the new model a moderately attentive reading, and think it looks good! You seem to have solved many of the problems with the previous model. I of course have some concerns and suggestions with the new one, but I'll hold off on those until the model is posted where others can read it.

Great Job!

Mark

[roquijad]

Mark: I didn't see your first post asking for a more explanatory document until after I sent it to you... that explains the quickness of it. I took a day off my duties just to do that "readable" version, because I felt it was needed. I think having the new model split in two documents, one explaining the model and the other with the equations, is much better than the version2 document where everything is in there. I think more people would be able to understand and comment the model.

The documents should be now up in our web site, as Dom told me (I sent him the docs).

Gary: Do you have an email account already?

[Gary Thomas]

My email address is gthomas@takaro.co.nz for the next 8 hours or so. I will then be out of touch for about 18 hours, then will be at thomasg@acc.co.nz

Safest to send things to both email addresses.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

This may be a little off-topic, but it borders social and economics.
I recently learnt interesting things about cathedral building in the 12th/13th centuries. It seems that cathedrals effectively made people happier (a la civ), but actually, it was the building of cathedrals which made people happy (lots of work, good work conditions - 4 days a week only in Paris! -, increased trade because of the fairs and the lots of workers).
Is there anything in the models which would make people happier building some kind of infrastructure rather than building, say, armies?

[Gary Thomas]

I thought cathedrals took hundreds of years to build. Mind you, having the people happy for hundreds of years is probably not a bad idea.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

They took around 2 centuries to build, and the work was often stopped and resumed. Actually, many cathedrals in France are unfinished because there came a war which lasted a century too, and thus there were more urgent concerns than building cathedrals. Unfinished catehdrals can still be functional, though. That's why having a smooth infrastructure model is cool here, it can model unfinished work that has some effect on people in a way civ/buildings cannot.

[Mark_Everson]

The Riots Model (perhaps Happiness Model would be a more inclusive name) is supposed to cover that sort of thing. I certainly think that religious structures can have a benficial impact on happiness of all or part of the populace. Of course it depends how many people believe in the religion, and how fervently etc. I don't have any specifics to recommend at this point, and suspect we should have a good handle on 'secular' happiness before moving into the religion area. That's because things like entertainment have fewer details associated with them, which should make it simpler to figure out what's going on in those cases.

[Simon Loverix]

Good stuff about the cathedrals, 'Arbeit macht Spass'

For nomadic population: we can consider them either migrating within one square, or migrating in an entire province. In that case, they can go directly into the province object, not via a square. That way, it would be clear they are a migrating people, so we don't need to record that then.

[Gary Thomas]

In recent times, the main effect of Cathedrals and their equivalent in other religions seems to be the negative effect when a rival religion destroys them. I don't know that the destroying people thereby gain happiness themselves, but I do know that it is one of the significant excuses for a war.

Cheers

[The Cid]

Hello, I'm new to the forum, and after reading about the models and catching up on the forum discussions I have come up with a sugestion that might add depth to the play with little effort in coding and processing.

First, let me make sure that I have the correct understanding of the current situation: from the description of the social model on the web page, any EG can have only one GRW. I have seen a lot of discussion about this in the forum but my impression is that it has remained unchanged for the sake of simplicity.

Furthermore, I understand that when a civ is set with the multietnic option, a new EG is created where the different characteristics are taken from the various EG present in the CIV, from which I gather that the most common GRW becomes the GRW of the new EG.

One problem that I can see with the single GRW is that we could not see situations such as the expansion of Islam where Islam effectively replaced the dominant GRW it came in contact with not only the local Ethnic Religion (ER). Ffrom the parts of the Eastern Roman Empire that was conquered right up to Hispania the population went from predominantly Christian ot predominantly Muslim, and in Persia Zoroastrism was for all intents and purposes wiped out...

What I propose, is that when setting up a multiethnic CIV, the player would still have the option of deciding if the CIV would nevertheless have an official GRW... and choose it himself from the set of those availabe in the CIV. The new EG created would then have this GRW and as people migrate from the other EG with low Nationalism to the CIV EG they would be "converted" to the chosen GRW.

This would be doable entirely within the constraints of the model. The player would only have to decide to choose the GRW of the new EG at the same time at its name.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi The Cid, welcome to Clash!

I'm not sure if the problem you point out is really an issue. Rather than rereading everything, since I don't remember the details here, I'll just hope Rodrigo will check in within the next week or so and answer your question!

[The Cid]

Thanks Mark,

I guess we'll see if my understanding of the model was correct. In any event, if it was, my suggestion of allowing the player (or the AI for that matter) to choose the GRW of the new EG in a multiethnic civ should take care of it without any real penalty...

The model would not have to be changed at all, the only thing to add would be an option for the selection of a GRW (it could also be decided to let the computer use the original weighed averaging) along with choosing the name of the new EG. Very little computational overhead (essentially null since these are punctual events, not frequently recurring) and very little coding effort.

Anyways, I was just trying to give my 2 cents woth.