Cultural Schtuff: For the hard-core civers out there

[Mathphysto]

Public opinion has always played a fundamental role in historical developments - whether analyzing feudalistic governments, or ancient despots, the opinions of the people have always been a significant factor in deciding the course of history. Opinions on crime, corruption, discrimination, and national defense are among the most important.

As an example of the importance of public opinion, consider discrimination. Cultural discrimination caused the Persian wars of ancient Greece. Religious discrimination caused the Crusades. Racial discrimination caused the Nazi invasion of the Slavic lands, as well as the Holocaust. Economic, religious, and cultural discrimination motivated Stalin to initiate the Cold War. And racial discrimination helped cause the American Civil War.

Similarly, the downfalls of many leaders have been cause by failing to address corruption and crime (modern America, ancient Rome). Also, opinions on national defense have determined how much the people would support war or preparations for war (Vietnam versus WWII). So clearly these are fundamental aspects of history.

Could Civ be modified to account for this? Should it? It's probably far too late for this to affect Civ3, but who knows what mods or sequels may accomplish?

[SerapisIV]

I'm not sure how to implement such culture specific ideas such as you present without making unique-civs like in SMAC, something I'm against in Civ3. I kind of prefer a more general culture as it sounds like Civ3 is developing. The whole premise of civ is starting from scratch thousands of years ago, how would todays unique differences in nationalities/races be accounted for in the game? I like the idea, I think your goes along with the idea of changing your civ attributes (social-engineering, SMAC) depending on your gameplay. I don't think Civ3 is going to be robust enough to allow this, even if moded, it sounds too much enginer dependent, but I'm not a programmer so maybe it could.

[Mathphysto]

Of course, I wouldn't have started this thread if I didn't already have some brilliant ideas of my own to brag about...

Basically, one needs to attribute more variables to society, in order to differentiate between classes of people, and to measure motivations for people to be more worried about crime than, say, education. Some of these variables would come from political/economic systems. Note that I'm treating politics on separate footing from economics. In Civ, the political system determined trade to a large extent. Thus, the ancient Greek republics got the same trade bonuses as a modern republic.

One needs to introduce notions of capitalism, communism, democratic socialism, feudalism (aside from its political aspects), and bartering. For instance, modern Sweden may be said to have a democratic govm't, and a democratic socialist economy.

Besides added systems and system factors, we need more flexible variables, sensitive to the state of society. Such variables may be average income, income polarization (top 20% vs bottom 20%), education levels, health levels, unemployment, and religious persuasion.

For example, to determine average income of the top 20% of society, we may assume it fluctuates over time as a sine curve, reflecting the cyclic nature of business in any era. The amplitude and average of the wave may be determined by the system, while the period may be hardwired (say, on the order of a decade), or system dependent. The total average income may be gotten by averaging the averages of each quintile of society.

As another example, some religion and tradition may be seen as sedatives, compelling people to simply accept their lot in life (eg - catholicism and feudalism). Then the level of sedation may be modeled as a decaying exponential, with its initial value and time scale determined by the political and economic systems. This means that, eventually, people will not be so blindly accepting of the injustices in their lives, and will demand change. It might even be a challenge for a player to satisfy their demands before a revolution occurs, and the player is executed! If the general happiness level is below 70, say, for 4 turns, then revolution occurs. This forces change on the player, making him adapt to the needs of the people, instead of the more common situation where the Civ player jumps immediately from despot to democratic president.

Much of public opinion is dependent on the priorities of the govm't. Govm't domestic priorities, in any age, are usually reflected in its budget. If the govm't gives massive funding to education, it's less likely to be a concern for society. So I think that the player should set funding levels for different purposes (education, health care, crime, welfare, religious tithes, etc) and that this should impact on public opinion.

So, for example, the difference in avg. incomes btwn the top 20% and bottom 20% would be determined by some system factors, plus welfare funding levels determined by the player.

Also, public opinion on national defense would determine the conscription rates, setting a cap on the size of one's army. Diplomatic threat factors, cultural points, and propaganda spending levels may determine this. And in democratic/republican govm'ts, the public opinion would affect your diplomatic possibilities. If you make peace with a much hated enemy, the population will become upset and possibly kick you out of office (just think if FDR had made peace with Japan after Pearl Harbor).

[Mathphysto]

BTW - Serapis, I'm from Kalamazoo orginally (before I escaped to the splendor of New Jersey). Go blue!!

[GaryGuanine]

The thing is, mass politics is a relatively new development. Through the vast majority of history, the average Joe really had no say, he was just struggling to put food on his table.

Gary

[Mathphysto]

Although the average Joe didn't directly chose the leader, the general public did have great influence on politics in all eras. Roman emporers often lost power to senates when the people were very unhappy with their conditions. Kings were overthrown when they failed to provide for their people.

It's just that ancient people were more easily pacified than modern people. Religion sedated the serfs and lower classes in Egypt, medeival Europe, China, and pre-Ghandi India. They saw their stations as eternal, with no notion of social mobility. But when their opinions became strong, and actions overpowered less tangible ideas, the people reacted.

Historical change has almost always come from the bottom to the top. It's just that change has become more frequent and more drastic in recent centuries - due to the rise of science and philosophy, and the receding influence of religion (separation of church and state...).

[AcidReflux]

i tink Mathphysto is more interested in historical simulations than a actual game... he;s talking about modelling busines and opinion - that sounds like something on msnbc or cnn... i want a game, not an in-depth lesson on history and the way socity funtions... maybe there is a seperet market for gamers like Mathphysto... i wouldn't be apposed to having options to make games like civ be more realistc, if thatd make em happy.

[AcidReflux]

actually why dont you just make your own game, Mathphysto... nice name btw... you mighta been my calculus teacher last jahr...