Social Model v3.0

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy This seems rather nonsensical to me.
Before what? Before he was crushed by Dong Zhuo? Before the revolt started? What do mean?

Sorry i meant had someone else revolted and he taken advantage of it afterwords.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy The revolt wouldn't start after this event, the revolt is a response to a set of circumstances that did not exist after it had happened!?! (paeadox?!)

Little changed for the lives of the peasants, those who made up almost the entirirty of his forces. The only differance was instead of the Imperial Family opressing them, it was likely more a local warlord or govenor.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "might have had a better chance" ?! "might" does not inspire much confidence in your belief in your own argument... anything might happen, the probability can be deduced by analysing the facts.

I can't say for a fact that he would have succeeded, but neither can you say for a fact he wouldn't have succeeded in a more de-centralized turmoil-ish time period similar to that which followed.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy ""chose"?!
He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big

not really. When there is not a serious technologial edge and you have atleast a descent leader (which Zhang Jiao proved he was by defeating Dong Zhuo in a few battles despite the inferiror nature of his forces, numbers can seriously make a differance. And even uneducated peasants that survive a battle can learn something from it and become better. After all, knowledge had to come from someone who iwas uneducated at sometime, somewhere, so why can't the process repeat itself?

Also during such a time i described above their is more of a chance to survive because not nearly 100% of the military might wouldn't have been centered upon his forces at one time.

So he could have achieved it imo as likely as anyone else, in such a period. And eventually, by sheer force atleast some people may have come to his aid.

But in the end it doesn't matter. I'm not sure you guys are working up a model that could handle anything like that seen in Rot3K.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by yellowdaddy - see Iraq.[/quote[Ahh Iraq...yes lets talk about how different Iraq is.

1st, we are using militaries with two vastly different technolfical, and therefore strategic, capabilities. This wasn't the case really for Zhang Jiao. His technological inferiritories on and off the battlefield didn't prevent too much aptability differential as compared to the US/Britian and Insurgants.

Then we get to level of cooperation. All the US/British (and other) forces are allied in a common goal and work symbitotically toward that goal. The Iraqi insurgants have yet to become thus united in any level of such symbiosis which hampers their capabilties. For Zhang Jiao it was until end an us. vs. them only. Their was internal corruption, but it wasn't like those corrupted were now working for multiple goals now, it was like they just switched sides.

Then their is a differance in goals. For the US/British, they must stabalize Iraq as a democracy to see their goals. Anything less and its not a success. For the insurgants, all they haveto do is destabalize Iraq. Thus their goal is much easier to achieve. For Zhang Jiao his goal was to eventually become Emperor, a very daunting goal for an uprising.

Finally the tactics used in iraq, by both armies differ and both of their tactics differ from those used in ancient China. The gurellia tactics of the insurgants did not exist almost anywhere in the world until near modern times to the level of sophistication seen. I can only think of one exception and its in an isolated area. The tactics used by the US/Britian is also more heavily reliant on specialized suads or units and even moreso on airpower to keep indiviusal soldiers alive. Also urban style warfare war rare before modern times and when it did happen, cities were destroyed in their entirety (think Kyoto during the Onin War).

This iraq as an example of how insurgants would lose because of lack of critical mass isn't a good example.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy 3. The Operative Class = Working Class, Peasants, Plebs, Commoners, Peons, Serfs, Slaves, Indentured Labour etc.

Weren't slaves suppose to be their own class?

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Of course there are ambiguities, when you have skilled craftsmen, or merchants/businessmen who become wealthy, but asking for 5 classes is perhaps a bit too much.

I dunno...that seems too few since those wealthy merchants and such were more powerful than rulers of some nations and today the same with some CEOs.

[yellowdaddy]

their is more of a chance to survive because not nearly 100% of the military might wouldn't have been

I'd much rather you wrote in Japanese...

without cluttering up this with quotes.

I don't agree with your assessment of the differences in technology of the forces.
You seem to get your evidence from the novel or computer game of the Three Kingdoms.

More to the point, you are digressing from the crux of the argument, and just trying to say anything can happen without actually presenting evidence and arguments to support an idea of what is likely to happen.
We are not discussing facts, (because facts don't really exist), the issue is probability, based on what evidence exists from the past.
There are clearly observable patterns, which appear to comprise the majority, and thus have the highest probability.
The probability is that Zhang Jiao's revolt would fail because history shows that revolts without significant Professional Class support, habitually tend to fail; and so he did.

Experience of battle does not equate to intellectual development or education: they might get better at fighting/surviving, but not at thinking.

Iraq

He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big - see Iraq.

you're talking about insurgents, I thought I was talking about the Iraqi army? Nevertheless...

Before the insurgents: The crappy army
Most intellectuals have fled Iraq, army officers were peasants.
Saddam saw fit to ensure that only those loyal to him were educated, the rest, liquidated. The army transformed into a flock of sheep.
You have an army of peasants who have no will to fight, who are led by unintellectual peasant officers.

Technology: Tactics can defeat technology (software v hardware)
You essentially argue that technology is why they "lost."
Technology is no barrier to those Fedayyin with the fanaticism to fight, and the intellectual vision to use ingenious tactics against an apparently superior enemy.

Co-operation: The insurgents are united around a common goal.
As for the insurgents - there are three categories: Seperatist Kurds, Expulsionist Shi'ites, and foreign fanatics + sunni/ba'athist extremists.
It's the latter category that I discuss.

Goals: They are the same.
The Iraqi insurgent goals are to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.
The Yellow Turban goals were to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.

Tactics: The tactics are not relevent.

This iraq as an example of how insurgants would lose because of lack of critical mass isn't a good example.

Not a great example, true; but it still works more or less the same way.

[LDiCesare]

So the difference between autonomy and independence is that independence is a dichotomous choice, and autonomy is a bit more variable isn't it?

Yes.
In fact my main point is I have several kinds of desires, which include:
-Creating/joining a new civ.
-Increasing autonomy inside the same civ
-Changing the regime
-Changing the ruler inside the same regime
-Changing the policies inside the same regime
All these desires come from various feelings.
For instance, ethnic discrimination could make you create a new civ, but bad policies feeling would not.

Poor Welfare Feeling

From the model, this is:
Poor Welfare Feeling (PWF): Discontent mainly because of bad economic situation (poverty), but also includes the welfare produced by the level of civil rights and the administration effectiveness (see more on administration in the govt model).

You can compare that with:
Revolutionary Feeling (RF): The feeling that a dramatic change in regime is needed in the govt because its very essence and structure are "wrong".

If I get your point correctly, PWF is necessary for any of the other feelings to actually turn into something concrete. Even if you think the monarchy is corrupt, you don't mind unless you're actually not getting as much, economically, as you'd expect. Note that the move (revolting, separating, whatever) may actually make things worse, but people want a change and don't know in advance how things will fare.

The equation in the technical part of the model for PWF is directly linked to Per Capita Income modification diminished by the province's Administration Effectiveness Level, so it's a factor if revenue has been decreasing over the last turns plus a term based on poor administration (which represents waste of public money/corruption).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy There are clearly observable patterns, which appear to comprise the majority, and thus have the highest probability.
The probability is that Zhang Jiao's revolt would fail because history shows that revolts without significant Professional Class support, habitually tend to fail; and so he did.

Those patterns you speak all deal with simple us vs. them situations. I haven't really seen any examples given of more complex situations.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Technology: Tactics can defeat technology (software v hardware)
You essentially argue that technology is why they "lost."
Technology is no barrier to those Fedayyin with the fanaticism to fight, and the intellectual vision to use ingenious tactics against an apparently superior enemy.

So, you're telling me that Inida could have fought back during the british invasion and won with good tactics?

Technology whens its close to the same level, isn't that much of a barrier, but if youre fighting with swords and bows, theirs no way you could ever hope to defeat an army with tanks and bombers.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Co-operation: The insurgents are united around a common goal.
As for the insurgents - there are three categories: Seperatist Kurds, Expulsionist Shi'ites, and foreign fanatics + sunni/ba'athist extremists.
It's the latter category that I discuss.

They have a common goal, that doesn't automatically equate that they are united around it.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Goals: They are the same.
The Iraqi insurgent goals are to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.
The Yellow Turban goals were to force imperialist, decadent, resource-grabbing forces out, and establish a fair state based on their cultural values.

Well for some. However atleast one of your above groups, the Kurshish seperatist, have a much narrower and less ambitious and therefore more achieveable goal.

[yellowdaddy]

For instance, ethnic discrimination could make you create a new civ, but bad policies feeling would not.

That seems to imply that groups of citizens or provinces who want to form new civs must develop (into) distinct EGs first? I suppose that could make sense.

So:
How are they defined as being different EGs? How different must they be?

It'd have to be more than one attribute. Even language and religion doesn't seem enough to make Wales and Scotland want break away (but it does induce or indicate a degree of seperatist feeling).

I appreciate that economic growth and slump can't precipitate seperatism (it has to have some cultural impetus, but it could feature as a factor that can add to the feeling.

Did the USA start like that? Or is that a different category?
How did the seperatist feeling happen in the USA? Economics and Political (Religious) freedom played a part, but did they develop a sense of seperate "ethnic" identity from Britain? (discuss!)

If I get your point correctly, PWF is necessary for any of the other feelings to actually turn into something concrete. Even if you think the monarchy is corrupt, you don't mind unless you're actually not getting as much, economically, as you'd expect.

The evidence I cited demonstrates that poverty by itself does not lead to revolt. Yes, wealth can suppress revolt among the Professional Class, but you can make the Operative Class as poor and oppressed as you like as long as you have the economic means to instill fear and hopelessness into them.

The evidence shows that economic growth accompanied with expectation of continued growth, followed then by a sudden recession or correction, will precipitate revolt. The nature and severity of that revolt is magnified by an oppressed mass of Operative Class led by Intellectual Revolutionaries of the Professional Class who are backed by some (I think at least a third) of the Professional Class. A revolting (!) mass of the Professional Class seem usually motivated by corruption and concomitant wealth gap (which might resemble a world population graph rather than a more diagonal pyramid). I expect also that the poverty of the Operative Class must be directly affecting the Professional Class negatively (crime, begging, visible squalour).

When you look at a country like Thailand, you might wonder why they don't revolt?

They have:
extreme Rentier Class corruption
growing Professional Class (not affected by the O-Class enough)
poor (and getting poorer) Operative Class (but not oppressed enough)
economic downturn (not enough yet) (though they did have the 97 crisis)

I think police and military corruption must play a part in keeping fear levels among the O-Class high enough to forestall revolt.

As a very agrarian state, food security is high, which helps.

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

Those patterns you speak all deal with simple us vs. them situations. I haven't really seen any examples given of more complex situations.

Iraq?
The only more complex examples behave like this: multipolar "us v them" "subplots;" but when you break it down, "us and them" just about sums them all up.

So, you're telling me that Inida could have fought back during the british invasion and won with good tactics?

Absolutely - the Afghans did it against the Russians (and now the Chechens are); the Vietnamese against the Americans (and now Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are).

Technology whens its close to the same level, isn't that much of a barrier, but if youre fighting with swords and bows, theirs no way you could ever hope to defeat an army with tanks and bombers.

"Primitive" technologies and skills can prove highly effective against high-tech militaries who have a high level of dependence upon their machines and the supplies (fuel, ammunition, human support supplies).
This is especially true when low-tech forces are fighting in terrain they have a lot of familiarity with, and when they have high levels of "religious"-type motivation.
Low-tech forces can attack supplies and morale, and even win in information warfare.

Software can defeat Hardware, just as Stone beats Scissors (I presume you know the game I allude to?).

They have a common goal, that doesn't automatically equate that they are united around it.

They seem united in so far as one group has every incentive to allow others to cause mayhem.
Why would one group stop another from destroying a target that they would want to destroy themselves?
It seems cheaper to let the Group B carry out activites that suit the objectives of Group A, and then for Group A to try and claim responsibility?

Well for some. However atleast one of your above groups, the Kurshish seperatist, have a much narrower and less ambitious and therefore more achieveable goal.

The Kurds' goal seems more ambitious to me - they want to create a state from parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria; however, they seem to be playing a long game to get support and investment from the West, which will put them in a stronger position in the long run. If they (the Iraqi Kurds) tried to secede now they would invite attack from Turkey and damage relations with the USA.

[LDiCesare]

So:
How are they defined as being different EGs? How different must they be?

It'd have to be more than one attribute. Even language and religion doesn't seem enough to make Wales and Scotland want break away (but it does induce or indicate a degree of seperatist feeling).

An EG currently has a nationality, which is the nation they want to be part of, and a religion. We can add language (and other stuff if needed). The question is: How does the nationality change in order to create a new one?
I do not know. And thus right now in the code I am not changing the nationality.
I don't know how expectations of economic growth are/can be modelled either, so at least as a first phase, expecting to grow or not decrease would be enough. I might also consider the first derivate (expect to sustain the same growth) later.

[yellowdaddy]

I don't know how expectations of economic growth are/can be modelled either, so at least as a first phase, expecting to grow or not decrease would be enough. I might also consider the first derivate (expect to sustain the same growth) later.

Do you have a feature like "population morale"?
How about a "pH scale" of optimism/pessimism?
You could link it to a set of indicators:
economic growth, inflation,
levels of internal and external conflict/peace,
your PWF etc...

you've got a set of variables there that can be used to calculate the population's mood in terms of optimism and pessimism.

In a way, it seems a bit 2-dimensional to have morale measured as "content" "discontent" etc..., it works better as a vector rather than a scalar value.

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

From your description, i.e. that PWF = poverty + poor civil rights + corruption, I think that PWF seems unnecessary.

Can the above "Mood Vector" replace it, with Level of Poverty and Level of Rights, and Admin Effectiveness as variables in the "Mood Vector" Equation?

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

How does the nationality change in order to create a new one?

Clearly we must look at a range of known examples of how seperatism happens.

The word "distance" (from the centre of the state) seems appropriate to define how "nationality" changes.
Factors like:
migration, which creates "geographical distance" between group and centre (including terrain rather than simple distance);
cultural change, which also precipitates "values distance" from the centre;
linguistic evolution, which precipitates "identity distance" from the centre;
economic de-dependence, which is "economic distance" (lack of dependence) from the centre.


geographical factors precipitated by migration:
terrain isolation (Inuit, Amerindians...)
separation by sea (Madagascans, Americans...)

Migration seems to precipitate:
1. Gradual linguistic change (about 200 years for a regional accent, 500 years for a non-mutually intelligible spoken language). This can be separation by miles of sea, or just living in different vallies which are not easily accessible to one another.

2. Economic change - they are no longer entirely dependent upon the centre for trade (especially import).

3. Cultural change will be evolutional too, unless an offshoot comes into contact with a(nother) religion.

summary:
Populations' identity evolves automatically (but slowly) as you expand your civilisation.
The larger and more disparate your population, the more likely the most "distant" parts ("distant" from the capital) will evolve.
You could neutralise this with centralising or federalising policies, depending on various things like tech-level, infrastructure, the prestige of your capital city...

I put "Distant" in inverted commas because, "distance" (or displacement) is not necessarily geographical. It's the conflation of who the given province trades with most, who it's people identify with in terms of values (i.e. religion), and to a much lesser extent language (only relevant in terms of nationalism and/or if you have a number of independent states with similar languages, or multi-ethnic/linguistic states).

Religious or Values distance is likely to always play a major role in seperatism (though less so as you approach the modern era); economic dependence on the centre may neutralise it - as well as education of course.

[LDiCesare]

I don't think poor welfare is unnecessary. It's an element of the bigger vector which includes discrimination feeling, nationalistic feeling etc which all make the content/discontent value.
In the end, I'll have to translate the vector into a straight figure to know the probability of a given event/riot occurring. Summing together some terms that have the same consequences makes things easier.
Levels of conflict are also handled in the model, but not coded yet as I'd have to code the civil war part too and I must converge on the existing stuff before.

I think your separatism variables are sensible.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Iraq?
The only more complex examples behave like this: multipolar "us v them" "subplots;" but when you break it down, "us and them" just about sums them all up.

But those "subplots" really change the dynamics of the situation more than you want to admit.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Absolutely - the Afghans did it against the Russians (and now the Chechens are); the Vietnamese against the Americans (and now Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are).

Howver both examples (as well as the rest you site) use technolgy differentials no where in line with those seen by the british and most of Inida. Plus both of your examples have people backing them. China for Vitenam and America for Afghanistan which also had much more comprable technology to give as support. Had they not given any way to increase the technological capcity of the resitance, things would be different.

For British in india when they did meet resitance their weaponry was so far advanced beyond what even the trained military had that even when they did meet the tough resitance in the north and guriella tactics in the south, they were able to defeat them handily. The only way they might have survied was with similar level of technology because they had the resources to pull to successfully mount a resitance given everything else, but the technology was just so vastly different that even in the south where gurella tactics were used, they posed no threat.

Software can defeat Hardware, just as Stone beats Scissors (I presume you know the game I allude to?).

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "Primitive" technologies and skills can prove highly effective against high-tech militaries who have a high level of dependence upon their machines and the supplies (fuel, ammunition, human support supplies).
This is especially true when low-tech forces are fighting in terrain they have a lot of familiarity with, and when they have high levels of "religious"-type motivation.
Low-tech forces can attack supplies and morale, and even win in information warfare.

Only to an extent. You can, as with Hannibal, win all the battles you want, but you'll still lose the war with such a vast differental in technology. The only hope you have is to wear down the morale of the people back at home so they'll want to leave, but if they don't give a damn about these minor things, it won't matter how much damage you do. You'll ventually lose.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy They seem united in so far as one group has every incentive to allow others to cause mayhem.
Why would one group stop another from destroying a target that they would want to destroy themselves?
It seems cheaper to let the Group B carry out activites that suit the objectives of Group A, and then for Group A to try and claim responsibility?

That's not unity though. That's just a truce. Unity would be actually working together for the common goal which as of yet hasn't really happened much.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy The Kurds' goal seems more ambitious to me - they want to create a state from parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria; however, they seem to be playing a long game to get support and investment from the West, which will put them in a stronger position in the long run. If they (the Iraqi Kurds) tried to secede now they would invite attack from Turkey and damage relations with the USA.

It may invite an attack from turkey, but it doubful they'll do too much there. They want to keep the region stable too as its in their best interest. But there's more to it as well. A kudish state forming in iraq while it might mean more trouble short-term for Turkey with their own kurdish population could be a boon to it as many kurds could mirgrate there putting less pressure on other regions. But it could also backfire before then and those areas also want to join. In either case though, turkey would prefer more stabalizing route.

But none of that changes the fact that the kurdish population has a much narrower goal and therefore more achievebal goal because if the iraqi government succeeds, they can try to peacefully split off later on and if it fails, they can shurg their shoulders and walk away declaring themselves independant then and their.

[yellowdaddy]

I don't think poor welfare is unnecessary. It's an element of the bigger vector which includes discrimination feeling, nationalistic feeling etc which all make the content/discontent value.

I don't really understand or know all of the factors that constitute your content/discontent value.

The question about how expectation could be modelled, I think it must be related to growth in a general sense.

growth in: wealth & trade; education & rights; national prestige (through conquest/increased territory & alliances) & allegience (i.e. anti-seperatism); I dunno if you need anything else?

You can measure W/T (Wealth & Trade) relatively straightforwardly - through amounts of money;

E/R (Education & Rights) seems tricky; I suppose you could link it to research (in the old Civ model)? Perhaps the numbers of Education/Legal institutions and professionals in the workforce?

P/A (Prestige & Allegience) - maybe link it to (as mentioned) increases in territory and population/city size, as well as trigger events like signing of (political) treaties of any kind (each with different prestige effects (ceasefire - alliance) - obviously a surrender treaty has a negative prestige effect).

So you've got these three values which can be factored together to produce a scalar Expectation Value, you then might relate it to the previous values (to a limited extent) to produce a vector - so that the public mood follows events rather than being synchronous with them (which seems more natural).

All these three scalar values could range from e.g.: -5 to +5, and likewise with the averaged and resulting Expectation scalar value.
The difference between the current and previous value acts like a growth rate.

eg:
Year 1:
W/T +2
E/R +5
P/A +5
Expectation Scalar: +4

Year 2:
W/T -3
E/R +5
P/A +4
Exp Sca: +2

Year 2 Expectaton Vector: -2
People's mood is becoming more pessimistic as country X experiences a sudden slump in Wealth & Trade. However Education & Rights are very high, as is Prestige & Allegience, which help mitigate the effects of a serious economic setback.

In this example country X looks likely to experience a drop in consumer confidence/spending, which requires the government to intervene by lowering interest rates (or the Roman equivalent!), or perhaps launch a military campaign it can win lest the economy weakens further...

hows does that sound?

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

But those "subplots" really change the dynamics of the situation more than you want to admit.

Where do you get the "want to admit" bit from? I try to look at evidence, and draw conclusions from it; if you've got credible evidence that proves the model I propose doesn't work, then produce it.

The British defeated the Indians because they lacked any sort of political unity, national identity or common goal (at least until Gandhi). We bribed them and divided them and dominated them with tiny forces.
Then Gandhi came along without any technology - just education from abroad, and instilled those three things into the Indian middle classes and thus ousted the British a lot sooner than planned to go.

You can, as with Hannibal, win all the battles you want, but you'll still lose the war with such a vast differental in technology.

You think Hannibal and the Romans were vastly different in technology levels?!

Apart from Hannibal not being the leader of a seperatist movement (and thus another complete digression from the debate), he lost because of morale - the defection of the Numidian Cavalry at the Battle of Zama - Cavalry played the decisive role in Hannibal's defeat, not any "vast differential in technology" - if anything the Carthaginians had an advantage with superior numbers and elephants.

Try beating amazonian tribesmen with poisonous blowdarts with Apache helicopters and M16s in the middle of the Amazon!
Or suicide bombers with spy satellites and smart missiles.
And try reading before citing these flimsy examples.

That's not unity though. That's just a truce. Unity would be actually working together for the common goal which as of yet hasn't really happened much.

You can't accurately describe it as a truce or formal unity; but it is unity of purpose and objective. Anyway you mentioned a specific kind of unity not just "unity" in a vague, general sense, didn't you?

It may invite an attack from turkey, but it doubful they'll do too much there. They want to keep the region stable too as its in their best interest. But there's more to it as well. A kudish state forming in iraq while it might mean more trouble short-term for Turkey with their own kurdish population could be a boon to it as many kurds could mirgrate there putting less pressure on other regions. But it could also backfire before then and those areas also want to join. In either case though, turkey would prefer more stabalizing route.

Right. The first part you appear to repeat what I already said, but reword it in a way that sounds like it contradicts me.
Kurds will not migrate from Turkey or elswhere into a Kurdish state in Iraq, there are masses of Turkish troops on the border to prevent that, the PKK is not about to leave what it regards as the Kurdish homeland.

But none of that changes the fact that the kurdish population has a much narrower goal and therefore more achievebal goal because if the iraqi government succeeds, they can try to peacefully split off later on and if it fails, they can shurg their shoulders and walk away declaring themselves independant then and their.

The Kurds do not have a "narrower goal", you simply don't seem aware of the ramifications of Kurdish Iraq trying to become independent whether as a tiny statelet or part of a unified pan-kurdish whole.
More to the point, fail to see the connection to the original argument.

More to the point, debating fine points doesn't really add anything to the design of a model for this game. We need to replicate what usually happens most of the time as recorded in credible history sources to come up with a workable model for the game that produces plausible results and effects - the game cannot include every possible permutation, the line has to be drawn somewhere, having said that what we include in the game must surely replicate reality in a simple, fun and interesting way?

[LDiCesare]

I'll put the link to the riots model here again for reference, since all the definitions are inside: http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Riots.shtml section IV.
This describes all the factors set in the model.
You're basically saying that no riot will happen unless Poor Welfare Feeling exists, which is what I need Mark to code PCI for .
I still don't know how to include education to lower the risk of nationalistic rebellion feeling, but haven't spent much time to think it since I spent more time on the ai.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Laurent:

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Poor Welfare Feeling exists, which is what I need Mark to code PCI for

I did that a Long time ago, and am sure I posted or emailed you about it. The fix is in commit 196, and I expect that you already have it.

added Economy.getPCI() method. Per capita income (PCI) is 4 for a subsistence economy and can get into the 100s for a modern economy.

Let me know what else you need, or if the implementation turns out to have problems.

Looks like your making good progress! Please let me know when the next milestone is for playtesting.

[LDiCesare]

Sorry Mark, I must have seen it but forgot it (I had been busy with vovan's changes to the imports so I overlooked your change ). I'm busy with the ai (plugging it, weeding out the non implemented parts, checking why a unit vanishes from sight when I assign it to another command, needing some better optimisation of the placement of units). I'll plug the PCI now...

[yellowdaddy]

You're basically saying that no riot will happen unless Poor Welfare Feeling exists

I think I split PWF; combine RF, RRF, BAF, SDF, NRF & ADF as components of "Seperatism" and add P/A (Prestige and Allegience).

Why?
Revolution Feeling = Seperatism from political system
Replace Ruler Feeling = Seperatism from political leader
Bad Policies Feeling = Separatism from political leadership
Anti-Discrimination Feeling = Separatism from political system & leadership
Self-Determination Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership
National Rebellion Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership

It doesn't mean they cease to exist - I agree with them, but I think they are all forms of Seperatism, and so I group them together - perhaps as like a "graphic equaliser" (!) of Seperatism.
NRF, SDF, RF, RRF and BDF seem akin to Prestige & Allegience (of and to the state).

PWF - I think it feels better if you split it into
Economic Welfare; and
Education & Rights Welfare

Same system different variables:
Key:
W/T = Wealth & Trade
E/R = Education & Rights
P/A = Prestige & Allegience

Year 1:
W/T +5
E/R -1
P/A +5
Expectation Scalar: +4.5

Year 2:
W/T +4
E/R -3
P/A +4
Exp. Sca.: +1.7

Exp. Vector = -2.8

Expectation is falling (i.e. a Bear market!) Education and Rights have gone from bad to worse, but the Economy and Loyalty is still high, but not enough to curb public protest. (?)

I don't know if this works, or feels right.
I've read, however, from what I regard as a very credible source (cited earlier), that poverty alone doesn't cause a riot.

I think you can still get riots if the state oppresses people, but it's got to come from an economic effect - such as oppression damaging entrepreneurial growth and productivity.

I still don't know how to include education to lower the risk of nationalistic rebellion feeling

It looks like a tricky one. When I categorise NRF as a kind of Seperatism, it raises interesting questions.

"Seperatism from the political leadership"

Nationalistic Rebellion Feeling (NRF): Discontent because the ethnic group the social class belongs to is ruled by another civ (a civ with another nationality). The EG feels "invaded", so it wants to form a civ of its own or join the civ of the same nationality if it already exists.

This seems to state that a form of ethnic strife precipitates NRF (which makes it seem like ADF).
I come at it from an economics POV - "why are they discontent" - because the ruling EG has more economic power, which stems from their political power.
Thus, NRF = "injustice feeling".

How would you use Education to neutralise this sense of injustice? Propaganda?!
Perhaps it makes more sense if you make "Education & Rights" always as a pair : -
You increase the Education of the whole population (oppressors and oppressed = Operative Class and Professional Class) and Rights automatically increase. As Rights increase, NRF decreases... like a see-saw or scales or fulcrum (or whatever).
It looks like calculus really!
[As E&R tends to infinity, NRF tends to 0]

You can have a "Education & Rights" level, as a component of Tech Level? Affecting speed of research (and thus speed of Economic growth...).

Certainly it looks to me like a gaping hole on your "Computing PAFs" list.

[LDiCesare]

I disagree with calling all other sentiments as separatisms:

Revolution Feeling = Seperatism from political system. Doesn't make sense for me. Once separated from its population, the old political system no longer exists, so it is not separatism but change. Most other feelings fall in the same category.
Replace Ruler Feeling = Seperatism from political leader. Not really separatism either. (I'd say this one is not really a very important feeling to model, though.)
Bad Policies Feeling = Separatism from political leadership. That's not separatism, that's wanting changes in policies.
Anti-Discrimination Feeling = Separatism from political system & leadership. Can lead to separatism, but not necessarily, as it can lead to demands of a change in policy.
Self-Determination Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership. Ok for this one.
National Rebellion Feeling = Seperatism from political leadership. Ok for this one.

How did you compute your 4.5 and 1.7 values in your example?

I do not want to switch completely to a system like the one you are describing without having thoroughly tested roquijad's model first. I'll probably be using your idea of using econ effects as a necessary trigger. I still have not found out a way to get education/propaganda/rights in the equation to lower nationalistic rebellion feeling. (I don't want that getting a good economics be the only way of reducing unrest.)