Coding the "Society Model"

[roquijad]

Yellowdaddy: I'm all for it when it comes to aesthetics and flavor. We can easily add races, FE, in order for the game to look different (different faces for characters, for instance), provided race isn't relevant for anything else. IOW, we can add races, but not racism if we don't want to go into more complexity.

If we want the aesthetics, then it's simple and cheap. If we want races/languages as a game factor, then it's more complexity to add.

Different arquitectures of cities was a nice addition to civ2. I liked it because it made a nice visual effect. But arquitecture was irrelevant in game terms. Would you accept that for languages or races?

-------

There is a problem with your reasoning about languages from a modeling point of view.

Let me be a little bit boring:

What we're doing here is trying to model differences among people. And we're doing that because evidence shows difference has an effect on historic evolution. (I know this sounds very basic, but please follow me). From a modeling view point, the simplest way to account for differences is to put just one variable, labeling each group with a unique identifier. Call it a name. Then you can have, FE, "persians" and "greeks". Voila, you have created difference.

By doing that you can solve some basic problems. The game can compare labels, discover they're different, and do something with it, like increasing unhappiness in persians when greeks invade them. All you need is the label. It's enough to represent in the game that basic evidence that says people is pissed when other people with other ethnicity comes in.

But please note we don't really care why unhappiness increased. It's important to see that it's perfectly possible that the increase of unhappiness is due to differences of language, of race, of clothing style, of religious customs, etc or a combination of all the above.

The sociological explanations for why people is pissed when others come in is totaly irrelevant when modeling. If it's because they talk different, dress different or simply because they call themselves with a different name, we don't care. We have the effect in the game and that's all we needed.

As a corollary, note the ethnic label, by being the only descriptive variable of people differences in our persians vs greeks example, is including every possible human difference. And since it's the only source of difference, it's used for any possible conflict that comes from social differences.

Next step:
A model that uses only one descriptive variable, as in our example above, can represent in the game some evidence we've seen in the world, like the greeks invading the persians, but fails in other cases. Another piece of our evidence shows that persinas who followed ideas of Zoroaster were discriminated when ruled by muslim persians. To represent this, we have two options. First, keep using the labels (stay with our "one-variable handles all differences" strategy): instead of having just "persians", we'll have "muslim persians" and "zoroastrian persians" as new labels. That way the game can compare labels, realize they're different and apply the discrimination. The other option is to add another variable: a second label, used for religions. So you'd have something like:
Ethnicity: persian
Religion: muslim
--and --
Ethnicty: persian
Religion: zoroastrian

Why this second option is better (and therefore used in the model)? Because persians are not the only muslims in the game. We have arab muslims, mongol muslims, etc. If an empire has all those peoples (and others non-muslims) under its control and discriminates all but muslims, then our labeling strategy fails in recognizing where are differences and where are things in common. The game wouldn't be able to effectively apply the discrimination to non-muslims. Therefore we need separeted variables. IOW, we need to model religion.

At this point, having two variables, it's important to note that the first descriptive variable (label) now includes "every possible human difference but religion". Language, race, etc, are there, while religion has its own descriptive variable and is used exclusively for that purpose.

In general, you're gonna have to keep including variables like religion as more evidence you want to incorporate in the game, but only as long as your first descriptive variable (the label), which includes everything that hasn't a specific descriptor, fails to be useful.

So let's see. You say:

the Japanese during their pre-WW2 occupation of Korea actively tried to delete the Korean language from history, forcing Koreans to adopt Japanese names, and think of themselves as Japanese.

Do we need a language-specific descriptive variable for this? No. Note that if japanese were having a hostile attitute towards korean for, let's say, they way they dressed, then the effect in game terms is pretty much the same: on screen you'd see complains by the koreans, protests maybe, reduced unhappiness, etc. Even more: if japanese were sucessful, then slowly we'd see koreans transforming an becoming japanese. And again, it didn't really matter if they were changing their language or their clothing.

For the model, it's more than enough to use the label to account for that. The mere fact that there're "koreans" and "japanese" is enough for the game-engine to realize there's a difference and then apply the desired discrimination.

As opposed to the persians example, when I said we needed an extra variable for religion because persians are not the only muslims, in the korean vs japanese case that doesn't happen. The only speakers of korean are koreans. Korean language is so intimately related to the korean people and culture as a whole, that for modeling purposes it makes no sense to add a new variable. The ethnic label by itself and by definition, includes every specific characteristic of koreans as a specific people. And so, we don't need to model language.

Let's see this other example: Chileans and peruvians both speak spanish. You have two different ethnicities but one language. Do we need to define a language-specific variable to account for this? No. Because there's nothing to model really. Who cares if they speak the same language? Since we stated before that we'd only add variables if known evidence is not correctly incorporated in the game, then What evidence are you trying to incorporate in this chileans vs. peruvians case? If you want to speculate that because of the same language they get along better, that's simply false (I'm chilean, BTW).

One last example: During the age when most of modern european nations were born, roughly the 19th century, different languages coexisting within the same "new nation" was an "issue". In order to build a nation, this heterogenity had to be eliminated. But the issue of language was really a simplification. People from different parts of what today is France, FE, not only had different languages, but also different customs. Furthermore, most of them didn't even call themselves "french". They weren't "the same people with different languages". They really were different ethinicities. In the north they had more nordic and english influences, while in the south were influenced by the spanish and "italians" (they didn't exist as "italians" yet, though). Sure they had similarities, but Weren't they equally similar also to spaniards, germans and other peoples near by?. They were different "tribes". Not only spoke different, called themselves different (typically with a local/provincial name). Language again, then, appears as one more difference of different ethnic entities. When it comes to modeling, again, I don't need to individualize language because it's enough to have them labeled as different ethnic groups. The base of France was a set of different ethnic groups, not a set of french peoples with different languages.


If you're still awake at this point, this is what I've been trying to tell you: if you say we need to incorporate language as a specific "thing" (variable), then you have to show me a few examples where the mere use of the ethnic name (label) fails to incorporate some relevant evidence seen in history.

I believe that's a hard task. The problem is, like in the korean vs japanese example, that every time language difference plays a role, different cultural profile in general is really playing a role. And as such, a broader descriptor, the label, is enough because includes language.


Cheers
Rodrigo

[yellowdaddy]

t

thanks for taking the time to reply so concisely.

ok

Different arquitectures of cities was a nice addition to civ2. I liked it because it made a nice visual effect. But arquitecture was irrelevant in game terms. Would you accept that for languages or races?

well, on one level, sure something is better than nothing.

Let's see this other example: Chileans and peruvians both speak spanish. You have two different ethnicities but one language. Do we need to define a language-specific variable to account for this? No. Because there's nothing to model really. Who cares if they speak the same language? Since we stated before that we'd only add variables if known evidence is not correctly incorporated in the game, then What evidence are you trying to incorporate in this chileans vs. peruvians case? If you want to speculate that because of the same language they get along better, that's simply false (I'm chilean, BTW).

well for a start, it must make espionage and war, and depending on the stage of development, some economic effects. almost anyone from a latin, and particularly a spanish-speaking country, could easily merge into another unnoticed - sure latin americans are often of mixed ancestry, but i bet you could pretend to be Nicaraguan or Paraguayan without as much difficulty as a Korean or AustralianAborigine?

i think most people can bgo along with the espionage and pacification effects.

One last example: During the age when most of modern european nations were born, roughly the 19th century, different languages coexisting within the same "new nation" was an "issue". In order to build a nation, this heterogenity had to be eliminated. But the issue of language was really a simplification. People from different parts of what today is France, FE, not only had different languages, but also different customs. Furthermore, most of them didn't even call themselves "french". They weren't "the same people with different languages". They really were different ethinicities. In the north they had more nordic and english influences, while in the south were influenced by the spanish and "italians" (they didn't exist as "italians" yet, though). Sure they had similarities, but Weren't they equally similar also to spaniards, germans and other peoples near by?. They were different "tribes". Not only spoke different, called themselves different (typically with a local/provincial name). Language again, then, appears as one more difference of different ethnic entities. When it comes to modeling, again, I don't need to individualize language because it's enough to have them labeled as different ethnic groups. The base of France was a set of different ethnic groups, not a set of french peoples with different languages.

this bit i find some areas whcih don't quite fit together for me. i'm confused - are you talking about the 19th century or the Dark ages... only some nations emerged in the 19th c, and it's not really the point i'm making.

essentially, although you've made good points, you haven;t really addressed what is to me the main concept behind the languages and race idea, IMO [please include a glossary of abbreviations!!!]

the Japs and Koreans in the scenario you discuss, yes by this time they are quite auchthonous ethnic groups. so i can see what you mean about how language isn't such an issue - i pulled that one out as an example of a linguistic equivalent to a jihad.
Peruvians and Chileans are post colonial nations, and on the 3-stage Ethnic Evolution tree i propose, they wuold be categorised as Nations, not Tribes or Peoples.

i think we're possibly talking about two different types of game - the historical scenario - and the - dawn of civilisation - game. historical scenarios may not require a full world map, and may be more to do with military things - like a gulf war scenario which might have a huge middle east map, and not leave you so much control over running a country if you were playing the Allies for instance.

What i mean by the
"3 stage ethnic evolution tree"

is that it provides a structure which more or less simulates the evolution of peoples into tribes and then nations.
go back to 4000 bc or so, there were much less people, much less languages, and much less mixing. a language family, or proto-language defined the early peoples, whether Indoeuro-Hittites or Tibeto-Burmans.

as these people move around, and migrate, due to cenvironment chages, or pressure from other peoples, so they have the potential to split by one grouop going in a differnt direction: as the Tocharians did when they went east and all the other Indo-European tirbes went west. or be isolated by geography - as the Hungarians have following their migration from Western Siberia.

then we have some tribes, who have the same origin [their origin people automatically becoming a tribe as soon as it splits], and some peoples who have not split - and who either splite later or never split and become isolates (in which case their language is likely to be less of a factor in differentiating them, admittedly).

as these tribes bcome more settled they evolve into nations - some based around a location, some around a personality, some around a religion. from an are occupied by a tribe or peopel who become settled, any number of nations i.e.: prinicpalities, duchies kingdoms whatever, cansprnig up, each with the same tribal language - as happened in Germany. through history thesae nations can merge and split.

the next factor not taken into account is the merging.

what happened when rome conquered the mediterranian, and then was overrun by germanic and other tribes?
new merged ethno-linuistic groups emerged - the beginnings of the Frecnh, Spanish, Romanians, Portuguese, Italians, Rhaetians, Catalonians, Istrians, etc...
sure they are a mixture of slightly different things in slightyl different amounts, but for the purposes of a game it needen't be any more than 2 or 3 ethno-linguistic influences.

what happened when the Turks came to Anatolia? when the Hungarians came to Pannonia? when the English came to Britain? they became the overlords of the poeple that lived there, and their language, but not their race, became the dominant feature.

What happened when the Machus conquered China, or when the Ghurids conquered India?
they became the ruling class, but their ethno-linguistic identity was subsumed into the ethnicity of the poepl they ruled. except in the Ghurid's case where they left a muslim aftereffect in northern india.

these are 3 different ways in which tribes and nations can merge.
and thus you can get all your diversity on nations simulated.

if you played the Koreans, and set up colonies in Kamchatka, or elsewhere, a new language could emerge given the right amount of time, there could be any number of Korean languages potentially if you were successful in spreading your Koreans around.

what i'm talking about is at least a reasonably accurate order of and relationship between EG's.
and by using a set list of people, tribe and nation names, plus a way of generating new unique ones to simulate the way naions evlove.
so that you are not sending roman battle tanks against the spanish - which is a bit crappy in terms of realsim.
this is in a nutshell what i'd like to avoid.

i'd like to see nations evolving. language is one of the ways of depiccting and structuring that. i like the idea of race too - if you play the Iroqouis and colonise Francem and you're future generations atart to look a bit mixed as well as having evolved a new Iroqoiis language with a french influence.

what about the ideas of losing data when you destroy a linguistically isolated civilisation? i'd like to see the automaticness of - "i capture your cities so i can automatically get all your technology and map info etc..."

[LDiCesare]

Rodrigo's points remain valid. If you consider Romans invading Etruscans, then Iberia, Gaul, Romania, etc. you say that you want to model language so the local celtic (f.e.) language is replaced by a latin language. What Rodrigo says is that what happens is broader than language replacement, in the sense language but also customs, ways of dressing, culture in general, is changed. All these changes can be put together by saying the Gaul ethnic group slowly turns into a Gallo-Roman ethnic group. When Gaul later splinters, each remaining EG can split from the rest (giving rise to Belgians, Lorrains, Provencaux, Catalans...). Each of these has its own language, with its own peculiarites, but the only thing which may be needed IMO is something that says these ethnic labels are "close".

[yellowdaddy]

n

yes, i agree with that, culture, dress is all true. they are the other parts of the concept of ethnicity.

i wouldn't say replaced, influences, evolves into, by merger, and then splinters. that's my angle. you get the holy roman empire after.

i don't think that's quite what he was on about.

the problem is when you start treating Gauls as being as different from Britons or Lusitanains as they are from Vikings, Mongolians, or Bantu for that matter.

we know that most groups are affiliated to others, and language is the common thread which makes it possible to measure that. religion can change, as can race to an extent. i think there should be a way of shwong that Gauls are more similar to Britons than they are to Romans or Greeks for example.

[LDiCesare]

i think there should be a way of shwong that Gauls are more similar to Britons than they are to Romans or Greeks for example.

I agree with that, but what you want looks like "language families" (celtic vs. latin, where Gaul, Kymric, Irish are different languages of celt family) more than languages by themselves. You could thus say an EG is defined by a sort of family tree which can change: Gaul is part of Celt, part of Indo European. Then Gallo Roman is a change of that Celt EG into a Latin EG. These concepts can remain without explicitly modelling language, although language transmission/evolution is what would allow us to model how the changes occur.

[yellowdaddy]

b

well, it's sounds like we're coming closer to agreement.

You could thus say an EG is defined by a sort of family tree which can change: Gaul is part of Celt, part of Indo European. Then Gallo Roman is a change of that Celt EG into a Latin EG. ... although language transmission/evolution is what would allow us to model how the changes occur.

this is more or less what i've been getting at with the ELG (Ethno-Linguistic Group) tree as opposed to the more ambiguous EG (ethnic Group) distinction.

These concepts can remain without explicitly modelling language,

what exactly do you think i mean when you talk about 'modelling language'?

the only idea i had related to that was a way of generating completely new names for places/geographical areas, by having a set of vocabulary for geographical features in each language group... things like "city", "port", Lake", "mountain", "river", "fort" - that would be a way of avoiding generating names of real tribes, cities and countries, but still maintaining the sense of cultural link.

eg when i play as the japanese, i avoid using the set list of names, but make up relevant descrptive city names in japanese, eg: Nishimori - west forest, Kitazaki - north cape. Yamagawa - mountain river. thus these could potentially evolve into the new names of provinces and nations and even new Ethnicities.

i have to admit, envisaging the potential for mutating the vocabs in set ways - like changing vowels to simulate language change:

Kitazaki -> Ketozoke

or consonants as well

Kitazaki - Gedojoge

i think it'd be a novel and interesting feature, i don't know how hard it would be to code in, but it doesn't strike me as being so hard - just a simple command to change letters to the next one along on a universal chart when ELG change occurs.

[LDiCesare]

By 'mocelling' I ment mostly adding a languag variable in addition to the ethnic group name.

I like the proposal for city names. This may require a little bit of grammar (limited to object before or after complement), and a set of adjectives/names. Thus Greenland, Colorado, Texas, Dublin could be Pais Verde, Coloured Land, Roseaux, Black(?) hill. City names however often evolved a lot (e.g. Lyons in France is actually Lugdun(um) - Lug's hill).

[yellowdaddy]

as

By 'mocelling' I ment mostly adding a languag variable in addition to the ethnic group name.

I don't see how this statement fits with this statement:

You could thus say an EG is defined by a sort of family tree which can change: Gaul is part of Celt, part of Indo European. Then Gallo Roman is a change of that Celt EG into a Latin EG. ... although language transmission/evolution is what would allow us to model how the changes occur.

Ethnicity and therefore Ethnic groups are defined by the following characteristics:
Race,
Language,
Religion,
Culture/Style,

an EG can made up of any combination of shared or unique nembers of these components.

you can have:
two EG's with only 1 shared component, such as religion only, e.g.:
Russians and Ethiopians

Race: different
Language: different
Religion: same
Style: different

two EGs with 2 shared components, such as Turks and Persians
Race: same
language: different
religion: same
style: different

two EGs with 3 shared components, such as Aztec and Hopi
Race: same
language: same
religion: different
style: same

or 2 EG's who share all 4 components, such as Spanish and Portuguese
Race: same
language: same
religion: same
style: same

..............

it's not completely accurate to say that the Gallo-Romans change from Gaul to Roman, (Celtic to Italic), they merge.
Gallo-Romans are x% Celtic and x% Italic.

the question is what if only some of the Gauls are influenced/integrated by the Romans in an alternative history scenario?
do they lose their entire affinity?
there may be some who adopt Roman style and/or religion, but retain their language - they shouldn't suddenly become a completely different EG? would the same be true for Indonesians arriving in Madagascar and merging with KiSwahili?
two different races - one does not absorb the other - they mix, they merge x% depending on ratio and segregation/integration.
Gaulish and early french languages existed side by side for quite a while before one group superceded the other.

linx:

http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/conlang.html

nb

http://hobbit.griffler.co.nz/introduction.html

http://www.cix.co.uk/~morven/breath.html

http://softrat.home.mindspring.com/germanic.html

the names of tribes should be based at least to an extent on language groups, some tribes in history belong to identical EG's, languages etc...

Greenland, Colorado, Texas, Dublin could be Pais Verde, Coloured Land, Roseaux, Black(?) hill.

the city name evolution thing is not quite what you seem to think...

i'm talking about how you start with a PEOPLE, and then it splits and/or merges evolving as a TRIBE, and NATION - which can have identical EG features such as Germany and Austria.

i thought it was best to squeeze them all into the same numbers of potentials - each people can divide into 6 Tribes, each tribe into any (practical) number of Nations.

.

City names however often evolved a lot (e.g. Lyons in France is actually Lugdun(um) - Lug's hill).

the evolution in names can depict gradual evolution in languae.

you might start with the Nordics,a nd then when the split event occurs, you select which branch you wish to continue playing with, from the chaoice:

Nordics:

Norse (includes vikings)
Svears (includes varangians)
Goths (includes gepids)
Lombards (includes burgundians, vandals)
Alemans (inclusdes franks, sueves)
Ingaevons (includes dutch, saxons, frisians, english)

to depict this, we can see the placenames change:

x
Vitland
Wichtlanda
x
Weissland
Whiteland

Ostbjerg
Ostborg
Ostabaurgs
x
Ostbruck
Oostburg/Eastborough

(i'm not researching them all right now, but you catch my drift)
it needn't be 100% authentic, especially if we're on random worlds, just a sense that a new identity has formed

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/6297/index.html

completely new branches could exist, given a sense of prescence by simple alterations to consonants and vowels as in the Jap example above.

from these new names - completely new EGs could evolve.

Wistalendians - from that Whiteland example

or

Ustabrokish - from the other one - just examples

[yellowdaddy]

one thing i omitted to mention was that, as a "people" splits into a "tribe" the "people" would cease to exist.
likewise as a "tribe" splits into nations, the tribes would cease to exist.

as a player, when the split event arrived, you would get a prompt to force you to choose to continue playing with one of the new divisions/EGs.

as for racism, i suppose it could just be a case of a simple populatio n variable of %of people who are racist, and % who are not. ?

[yellowdaddy]

another thing i thought about, was culture can be rather like languge - if you look at cambodia. thailand souther vietnam laos, and a bit of burma, there's a cultural homogeneity - more noticable when you travel up to north vietnam where the peopel become colder, and the vibe is more chinese.

i dunno what i'm getting at really

i suppose it's if you are factoring cultural victory things...

it shows that peoples' culture can be pretty similar to other neighbouring peoples without sharing language or even religion completely.

south and north vietnam are really markedly different in their ways. but you don't see the south being controlled in any way by it's neighbours - who are culturally the same essentially.

so a cultural or non-military victory, needs more than culture/style - so i'm referring back the the division of ethnicity into language, religion and style. more same elements are needed for a non-military victory - they need to take on the language, religion AND cultural-style to complete the process and be able to switch loyalty from their own govt to another... but i think their needs to be an economic stimulus - that must be the final and/or biggest stimulus. the poorer they become, the more they revolt - people will put up with a lot of stuff if there's plenty of money about.

but i'm not a prograsmmer, so don't expect fancy logorithms or owt for this!

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
so a cultural or non-military victory, needs more than culture/style - so i'm referring back the the division of ethnicity into language, religion and style. more same elements are needed for a non-military victory - they need to take on the language, religion AND cultural-style to complete the process and be able to switch loyalty from their own govt to another... but i think their needs to be an economic stimulus - that must be the final and/or biggest stimulus. the poorer they become, the more they revolt - people will put up with a lot of stuff if there's plenty of money about.

Hi YD:

This just seems needlessly complicated to me. 99% of all players won't care about the distinctions you're making IMO. It seems to me the programmers time can be better spent elsewhere. . . Sorry to be negative, but we always need to keep a watch on the game vs world-simulator aspects and ensure that stuff we put in is fun and gives the player bang for the buck.

[yellowdaddy]

ok,

so what do you propose for how to achieve a cultural victory?

This just seems needlessly complicated to me. 99% of all players won't care about the distinctions you're making IMO.

which ones? all of them, or some of them?

the tribe splitting and merging thing doesn't seem to conflict with the game. it's merely adding a structure which allows a dimension of some degree of realism.
i think it's entirely compatible. and it's an idea that i really like. it ties in with the idea of language being as equally important as religion.

we always need to keep a watch on the game vs world-simulator aspects and ensure that stuff we put in is fun and gives the player bang for the buck.

does this mean you're opposed the whole concept of world simulation aspects, or that you think that most players aren't likely to be interested in world simulation aspects?

if the latter, then i would say that i can see lots of quite popular sim games (and i don't just means the Sims!).

if the former, then i'm a bit puzzled because there are bits of this game that seem pretty world-simmy to me - the politics and characters elements. I like the ideas in these, but i worry that they will be somehow incomplete without a few other simmy aspects to complement them.

sure i'm presenting some of my ideas in an overly complicated way perhaps. however, i'm really only testing the water, and i don't think they are all especially complicated. i'm sure you don't believe that 99% of civ-type players are just essentially wargamers?
i'd be willing to bet that it's more of a spectrum, with a significant percentage looking for SOME world-simulation aspects, though not necessarily always the same ones.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
so what do you propose for how to achieve a cultural victory?

I'm not sure "cultural victory" has any real meaning. My main point was that adding language and style to the already-existing culture is making things overly complicated IMO. As I've said before, I don't see why we couldn't do language. We just need to be sure the player doesn't need to keep track of large numbers of cultural/language interactions to be able to succeed in the game.

the tribe splitting and merging thing doesn't seem to conflict with the game.

Cultural splitting and merging is already planned.

does this mean you're opposed the whole concept of world simulation aspects, or that you think that most players aren't likely to be interested in world simulation aspects?

I like the simulation aspects when they add to the fun and immersion of the game. Simulation that just adds details that most players don't care about is what I am against. We have very few resources to push the project forward, and they need to go to things that are critical for player enjoyment first. After Clash 1.0 is out, then we can afford some nice-to-haves that don't do much for most players.

[yellowdaddy]

I'm not sure "cultural victory" has any real meaning.

well, when i think of cultural victory i'm thinking of ideas related to "finlandisation" and "east germanisation"
as well has the way that the USA and Japan export their culture to an extent where hostile actions from culturally absorbed nations are inconceivable.
also i think of how arab/muslim, roman, greek, chinese, hindu, aztec etc cultures either export aspects of their identity which become a shared identity with other groups whilst retaining the central control of them. Mecca, Rome etc... and also how neighbours are absorbed - conquered by choice - like in the various dynasties of china, the tribes around the Aztecs or Egyptians. it's all in civ 3 - but it's just a bit simplistic.

but the idea is worthwhile - seduce some enemies/rivals, and destroy others.

Cultural splitting and merging is already planned.

cool, but what are your thoughts on my attempts at structuring it in language groups?
essentially it's
1. just a way to avoid playing the Italians against the Romans or the Swedish against the Vikings - that kind of thing.
2. a way of generating unique new names for towns and nations etc... with a limited set of placename vocabs.
but coupled with having some racially related faces for characters - as i posted earlier, it could add a sense of authenticity: Malayo-Polynesians (Lapita) splitting into Malays, Madagascans, Filipinos, Maori (polynesians), Paiwans (aboriginal Taiwanese) and maybe Chams of the mekong delta area.

I like the simulation aspects when they add to the fun and immersion of the game. Simulation that just adds details that most players don't care about is what I am against. We have very few resources to push the project forward, and they need to go to things that are critical for player enjoyment first. After Clash 1.0 is out, then we can afford some nice-to-haves that don't do much for most players.

i appreciate that.

I'd like/hope to see Clash 1 with
1. some of these racially identifiable faces - as i drew, and
2.the language tree for the tribes to evolve through, including the sets of placename vocabs related to each of the basic 60-70 language groups; and
3. some penalties/advantages for language - if only in espionage, and ability to capture information.

what are your thoughts on the placename generatin idea?

if you imagine 60-70 core ethno-linguistic groups that can be chosen from when playing a "from the dawn of time scenario".

and each with it's own set of placenames eg:
bay
forest
lake
river
hill
mountain
cape
gulf
swamp
desert
plateau/highland
plain

then some colours
then some adjectives:
big
little
long
short
wide
narrow
flat
beautiful
fertile
barren
hot
cold
high
low
valley
coast

that sort of thing.

a. are you into it?
b. how big could thes vocabs be?
c. how easy/hard would it be to make the individual letters of names on the list alter for a given dialect?
e.g.: every "d" becomes a "th" or every "a" becomes an "oi" that sort of thing - to give the illusion of evolution and relationships.

tribe A could have a city called
"Pankod"
and related tribe B using the same name components, but modified as a dialect:
"Poinkoth"

any thoughts?

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy

well, when i think of cultural victory i'm thinking of ideas related to "finlandisation" and "east germanisation" (snip)

but the idea is worthwhile - seduce some enemies/rivals, and destroy others.

Oh, I've got no problem with it if that's your definition.

cool, but what are your thoughts on my attempts at structuring it in language groups?
essentially it's
1. just a way to avoid playing the Italians against the Romans or the Swedish against the Vikings - that kind of thing.

There is already a more flexible mechanism for this. Essentially cultures will have a parameter for how much they like another culture. I don't recall exactly where we discussed it, maybe in this same thread. My objection to your approach is sometimes the Latins Could hate the Romans, and your hard-baked language-based approach doesn't seem to be of any help there. If we have languages, and it seems we should, then I have no problem with language families. But tying them too strongly into the game seems premature. Peoples with the same language frequently hate each other. Language closeness is only one of many parameters in how peoples get along.

2. a way of generating unique new names for towns and nations etc... with a limited set of placename vocabs.

Sure, seems doable, the short proposals you've made would certainly give some flavor to the game. If you want to make a detailed proposal that's fine. But it is way down on the coding list, which is why I'm not inclined to discuss it at length right now.

1. some of these racially identifiable faces - as i drew, and
2.the language tree for the tribes to evolve through, including the sets of placename vocabs related to each of the basic 60-70 language groups; and
3. some penalties/advantages for language - if only in espionage, and ability to capture information.

That sounds fine by me. Does anyone object to my provisionally committing us to this? If so, speak up!

if you imagine 60-70 core ethno-linguistic groups that can be chosen from when playing a "from the dawn of time scenario".
(snip)
a. are you into it?
b. how big could thes vocabs be?
c. how easy/hard would it be to make the individual letters of names on the list alter for a given dialect?
e.g.: every "d" becomes a "th" or every "a" becomes an "oi" that sort of thing - to give the illusion of evolution and relationships.

tribe A could have a city called
"Pankod"
and related tribe B using the same name components, but modified as a dialect:
"Poinkoth"

Seems doable, but I'm not sure we'd enough player enthusiasm to justify it in Clash 1.0. I as a player probably wouldn't notice all the clever things you would have happening in the background. Anyone have opinions?