Ethnic Trees

[Marquis de Sodaq]

No luck finding the particular site I had described earlier. I'll poke around over my lunch hours, maybe I'll stumble across it again...

[dervish]

In case someone has some information on the ethnic links between current nations and ethnicities, please, share with us. Especially links to websites or if anyone has specicific site or map to show - would be a good reading material.

[siredgar]

Thanks for posting all those trees. It looks like you've planted a whole forest.

Anyhow, please remember that these are all theories and theories differ from one another and sometimes are proven wrong.

[Iron Chancellor]

As far as this subject goes, how about if nationalities didn't go away. 20 turns is awfully fast for ethnic assimilation. Couldn't all new citizens not be belonging to the conquering race, i.e. the Chinese take Tokyo, a Japanese city, but all new citizens are the children of ethnically Japanese people and so keep their ethnicity. Then, the only way to get rid of them could be workers/settlers/drafters or by adding ethnically Chinese workers/settlers to the city. Then, their ethnicity would still stay important for longer. Modern example: how many Irish-Americans opposed American intervention in WWI and WWII on Britain's side because of Britain's oppressive mismanagement of Ireland?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
As far as this subject goes, how about if nationalities didn't go away. 20 turns is awfully fast for ethnic assimilation. Couldn't all new citizens not be belonging to the conquering race, i.e. the Chinese take Tokyo, a Japanese city, but all new citizens are the children of ethnically Japanese people and so keep their ethnicity. Then, the only way to get rid of them could be workers/settlers/drafters or by adding ethnically Chinese workers/settlers to the city. Then, their ethnicity would still stay important for longer. Modern example: how many Irish-Americans opposed American intervention in WWI and WWII on Britain's side because of Britain's oppressive mismanagement of Ireland?

i agree...

on the other hand, i'm a second generation immigrant in switzerland and grew up here. i feel more swiss than my of parents nationality. and that took less then 20 years (20 turns).

i guess it depends, where you grow up. in america the "assimilation rate" works a lot faster... but if you live in china town of little italy or whereever, it can take several generations....

but back to civ3: i think it's not 20 turns to change nationality, but "half the time living in xxx". so if china founded beijing in 4000 BC and you conquer it in 50 turns later... it'll take 50 more turns to assimilate.
but if you conquer the city after putting the population down to '1' and your new city grows and china takes in back a few moves later, they'll have no problem assimilating... (i think)

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
As far as this subject goes, how about if nationalities didn't go away. 20 turns is awfully fast for ethnic assimilation. Couldn't all new citizens not be belonging to the conquering race, i.e. the Chinese take Tokyo, a Japanese city, but all new citizens are the children of ethnically Japanese people and so keep their ethnicity. Then, the only way to get rid of them could be workers/settlers/drafters or by adding ethnically Chinese workers/settlers to the city. Then, their ethnicity would still stay important for longer. Modern example: how many Irish-Americans opposed American intervention in WWI and WWII on Britain's side because of Britain's oppressive mismanagement of Ireland?

Nationality doesn't change in 20 turns, I think. I recall reading that a citizen switches nationalities after being a member of a minority nationality (in that city) for longer than not. (Also, they will obviously only switch to the nationality of the nation that controls the city.) I think this is mentioned in the Civilopedia now. To give a concrete example:

New York is founded by the Americans. One new citizen is produced each 10 turns after its founding. Just after its population reaches 3, it is captured by the Aztecs. It continues producing one citizen every 10 turns, only now each new citizen is Aztec. 70 turns after New York was founded -- 40 turns after being captured -- its Aztec population reaches 4, and the Americans become a minority nationality in that city.

Since the most recently produced American citizen has already been around in an ethnic-American majority city(actually, for the last 10 turns, there were as many Aztecs as Americans, but the important thing is that the Americans weren't a minority) for 40 turns, it takes 40 turns for that citizen to change his/her nationality. 10 turns after that -- 50 turns after the Aztecs gained a majority, 90 turns since the city was captured-- the second-most recently produced American citizen, who had been part of of an ethnic-American majority (or near-majority) for 50 turns, is assimilated. 10 turns after that, the city's most ancient American citizen finally gives up hope of reuniting with the mother land and identifies with the Aztecs.

Yikes! It took the Aztecs *100 turns* to fully assimilate a size-3 city! (I mean it was size 3 when it was captured, of course -- it is now much larger.) In fact, American citizens didn't even begin assimilating into Aztec culture for 80 turns after their city was captured. Assimilating members of a foreign culture really *does* take a long time! And immigine what would have happened if the city hadn't been built next to fresh water or had its aqueduct built on time, as I assumed here-- it would have taken the Aztecs even longer to push the city's size above 6, which they needed to do to even begin the assimilation process. And if the city had been even larger or older, it would have taken that much longer.

Come to think of it, capturing a city may reduce its population by 1 -- I can't recall-- so maybe it would have taken the Aztecs a shorter time (exactly how long would depend on which citizen got killed). And maybe time is measured in years instead of turns for nationality changing purposes (I don't think they say), in which case it could potentially take much longer (since years/turn decreases as you play the game). So my math could be way off here. But you get the general idea (I hope).

I don't think that any of this is affected by the strength of either of the 2 relevant nations' cultures, or by the amount of culture either nationality has built up in the city, even though it probably should be. I mean, obviously, if the conqueing nation has a strong culture, or if it has built up a lot of culture in that city, foreign nationals should be more inclined to join them, right? And if the conquered people have a strong culture of their own -- either shared with their native nation (that civ's cultural value) or local (the amount of culture the "conquered" civ accumulated in that city) -- they should take a longer time to give that culture up, right? Why, it might motivatethem to try to acheive independence, even if their nation of origin had been destroyed!

By the way, all that's required, the way I read it, is that a conquered people be an ethnic minority for the assimilation process to begin. Now, if I take a city with 3 Egyptians and 5 Greeks in it, the Egyptains are already in the minority and may have been living under foreign rule for quite some time. They could start joining my culture in just a few turns, as they give up their old nationality. Similarly, the city need only reach size 11, not size 17, for the Greeks to begin to be assimilated. And if the captured city contained 3 different ethnic groups, they might all be minorities! The assimilation process would begin immediately for every nationality in the city. And this seems reasonable enough to me, since the smaller your ethnic group is in a city, the less likely you are to strongly identify with it, and thus the more likely you are to identify with the nation you live in instead. (You don't think America would have been such a "melting pot" if all of its immigrants had come from the same place, do you?)

By the way, in case it's not clear, when I say a nationality has begun "the assimilation process", what I mean is that it's now a minority, so in however long a citizen of that nationality was in the majority (or living under his/her own nation's rule, I presume), he/she will assimilate into the ruling nation.

As a final note, if you are captured by the Borg, you will of course be assimilated immediately.

[sabrewolf]

johnM, you're right. from civilopedia.txt:

#GCON_Assimilation
Assimilation
^
^
^[Assimilation] is the process by which $LINK change their nationality
from one civlization to another. When a foreign national has been a part of a minority population longer than not,
he or she assimilates and becomes a member of the majority nationality.

well, basicly, that sucks. if you take a size-18 city, you'll actually never be able to assimilate them... except if you build a lot of orkers... but who sais, that the foreign population is taken. maybe the game choses the "own" workers...

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
well, basicly, that sucks. if you take a size-18 city, you'll actually never be able to assimilate them... except if you build a lot of orkers... but who sais, that the foreign population is taken. maybe the game choses the "own" workers...

Huh? I didn't quite follow that last part. But anyway...

Let's assume that the captured city is built on land that can be appropriately irrigated and railroaded to the point that it can support 19 more inhabitants. Making the further simplifying assumption that population always increases about every 10 turns:

The city's first inhabitant was there when the city was founded ~180 turns ago. In ~190 turns, your nationality will be the majority in that city. After that, it will take another ~180 turns before all of the city's natives are assimilated into your culture. So about 370 turns after you capture a size 18 city, all of the inhabitants will be of your civ's nationality. As I recall, the game lasts some 540 turns or so, so it can be done, in theory.

Now, why does it "suck" that citizens get assimilated so slowly? I've never had a big problem with foreign nationals -- they don't like it when you're at war with their country, of course, but it's not really any more difficult to deal with than normal unhappiness problems. What's the big deal?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
Huh? I didn't quite follow that last part. But anyway...

Let's assume that the captured city is built on land that can be appropriately irrigated and railroaded to the point that it can support 19 more inhabitants. Making the further simplifying assumption that population always increases about every 10 turns:

The city's first inhabitant was there when the city was founded ~180 turns ago. In ~190 turns, your nationality will be the majority in that city. After that, it will take another ~180 turns before all of the city's natives are assimilated into your culture. So about 370 turns after you capture a size 18 city, all of the inhabitants will be of your civ's nationality. As I recall, the game lasts some 540 turns or so, so it can be done, in theory.

Now, why does it "suck" that citizens get assimilated so slowly? I've never had a big problem with foreign nationals -- they don't like it when you're at war with their country, of course, but it's not really any more difficult to deal with than normal unhappiness problems. What's the big deal?

you just showed it yourself: 370 turns in our example! that's about 2/3 of all possible rounds (something over 500). that's quite long to integrate foreigners, don't you think?

that part you didn't understand:
let's say, you've got a size 4 city with 2 foreigners and who "own" people. now you build a worker. one of these four will be removed from the city population and i think the AI chooses it randomly. if it's a "own" worker he's faster, but the average foreigner percentage in the city rises.

however, doesn't really matter. fight short wars and the "trouble makers" havn't got a big influence

[Q Classic]

size 18?

this is why you starve the city into submission.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
you just showed it yourself: 370 turns in our example! that's about 2/3 of all possible rounds (something over 500). that's quite long to integrate foreigners, don't you think?

that part you didn't understand:
let's say, you've got a size 4 city with 2 foreigners and who "own" people. now you build a worker. one of these four will be removed from the city population and i think the AI chooses it randomly. if it's a "own" worker he's faster, but the average foreigner percentage in the city rises.

however, doesn't really matter. fight short wars and the "trouble makers" havn't got a big influence

Well, Hong Kong was under British control for a long time. Many of its citizens may have been loyal to and grateful for their government, yet in an important respect their nationality was not really British. I suspect that there would have been much more of a fuss over China finally resuming control of the place if most of its citizens had been of English, rather than Chinese, decent. It's not that Hong Kong's residents aren't resentful about the change in government-- no doubt many are-- but that they're less likely to violently oppose it. The type of "nationality" under consideration here is very relevant to retaking cities and does not go away for a very long time.

Ah, now I see that by "'own' worker" you mean "one of your 'own' workers", i.e., a worker of your civ's nationality. I was unaware that foreign-nationality workers were slower than domestic-nationality ones-- are you sure about that?

And regarding the small influence of the "troublemakers", that was my point. If they created a lot of problems, I might agree that it's unfair for assimilation to proceed so slowly. As it is, I don't think it's unfair at all; it's realistic.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
Ah, now I see that by "'own' worker" you mean "one of your 'own' workers", i.e., a worker of your civ's nationality. I was unaware that foreign-nationality workers were slower than domestic-nationality ones-- are you sure about that?

yep... workers of your civ's nationality work double as fast... if you play a civ with the industrial trait. i'm sure about it. and it mas mentioned in quite a few threads.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
yep... workers of your civ's nationality work double as fast... if you play a civ with the industrial trait. i'm sure about it. and it mas mentioned in quite a few threads.

Huh, no kidding. I had noticed that sometimes it took workers different lengths of time to complete exactly the same task. But I guessed that improving squares with lots of railroaded squares next to them went faster, for some reason. Maybe that was just my imagination. Or did anyone else notice that?

Now, I assume from what youv'e said that a worker's speed depends only on its nationality. In other words:

If you are industrial, your workers from industrial nations will perform the same as your own, but those from non-industrial nations will be slowerer. If you are not industrial, your workers from non-industrial nations will perform the same as your own, but those from industrial nations will be faster.

Now, that seems a little silly to me, unless the laborers in your cities retain their nation's traits too. For example, if you capture a city from a commercial civ, it should have lower-than-usual corruption because of the commercial trait of its citizens. Is that the case? I'm guessing the answer is no, but I can't say for sure.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by JohnM2433


Huh, no kidding. I had noticed that sometimes it took workers different lengths of time to complete exactly the same task. But I guessed that improving squares with lots of railroaded squares next to them went faster, for some reason. Maybe that was just my imagination. Or did anyone else notice that?

Now, I assume from what youv'e said that a worker's speed depends only on its nationality. In other words:

If you are industrial, your workers from industrial nations will perform the same as your own, but those from non-industrial nations will be slowerer. If you are not industrial, your workers from non-industrial nations will perform the same as your own, but those from industrial nations will be faster.

Now, that seems a little silly to me, unless the laborers in your cities retain their nation's traits too. For example, if you capture a city from a commercial civ, it should have lower-than-usual corruption because of the commercial trait of its citizens. Is that the case? I'm guessing the answer is no, but I can't say for sure.

uh... you've got me there

to be honest: i don't know exactly. i remember reading a thread at apolyton or civfanatics about this.

i'm sure, that foreign nationals are NOT faster then your own, even if they are industrialists and you aren't.

railroads nearby don't have any effect.
speed depends of:
- workers task (basic number of turns)
- governement (democracy has 4, republic & monarchy 3, despotism iirc 2)
- industrial trait doubles speed (at least of your workers of your own nationality)
- discovery of replacable parts doubles speed too.

[Anodyne]

In a CIV-like game, there should be different options you could do with minorities; For example:
- Kill them off, like the Europeans did in Americas (of course, much of that was due to the lack of resistance to the Eurasian diseases... and things like that make the game-system even more complicated), or like Stalin did during his reign.

OR:

- Give them liberties to keep them happy; Make their language official, perhaps a limited authonomy. Not flooding their cities with your nationality, etc...
Like Greenland/Denmark, or Åland/Finland, etc. Of course, this is rather a new "tactic", and should require a certain score of culture, or scientific progress (Democracy, perhaps...)

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i'm sure, that foreign nationals are NOT faster then your own, even if they are industrialists and you aren't.

railroads nearby don't have any effect.
speed depends of:
- discovery of replacable parts doubles speed too.

Oh. I guess they just didn't want industrial civs to benefit disproportianately from the capture (or purchase) of foreign workers. Well, that actually seems fair, and reasonable too, since industrious workers might become less so if no longer serving their own nation.

So I withdraw my objection. I will only add that one might wish to note that an industrial civ's workers are more valuable to that civ than foreign workers, even if they are never added to a city's population. This is not true of other civs. This might prove to be an important consideration under some circumstances. Then again, maybe not.

I had forgotten that replacable parts double worker speed, even though I do think I remember reading that before. Thanks for reminding me! That's one of those little details you don't want to forget -- it could be a big incentive to research replacable parts before other techs, especially if you have lots of workers.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
I had forgotten that replacable parts double worker speed, even though I do think I remember reading that before. Thanks for reminding me! That's one of those little details you don't want to forget -- it could be a big incentive to research replacable parts before other techs, especially if you have lots of workers.

interesting, how could you forget that

the beginning of the industrial era is to me the time, where i build massive armies of workers and improve my realm.
i usually research as following:
1) steam power (then build railroads)
2) electricity (irrigate squares without access to fresh water)
3) replacable parts (double worker efficiency)
4) sanitation (hospitals allow growth beyond size 12)
5) then all those techs with no new improvement/wonder/unit (corporation, refining, atomic theory) ... in this phase research is up on max. and i use these techs (expensive ones) to definetly take the sole lead in the tech race... if i made it this far, i usually win (and mostly don't finish the game)

[dervish]

I still think that Ethnic Trees should be incorporated into the Game as well as Goverment Trees. To show real evolution.

PS. I was looking for this thread long time.

[joncnunn]

On coutries giving automony but not total indepedance to a minority:

Actually, in one case fairly recently, a country did split in two independant countries peacefully. (Czeckoslovokia splitting into Czech and Slovokia.) I'm not sure which of these groups was the minority, but Czech was the more industralized section.

In addition, if Quebec had voted to leave the rest of Canada the last time they had a vote on the issue, the rest of Canada would have let Quebec go peacefully.

Similarly, the US wouldn't stop Puerto Rico from leaving the US if a majority of the population there wanted to. Conversely, the US wouldn't object if a majority of the population of Puerto Rico wanted to become the 51st state. What many members of our US Congress is getting tired of is the current Common Wealth status where they are US Citizens, but don't pay US income tax, can vote in the Republican and Democratic primaries for President, but not in the general election, can send 1 delegate to the US Congress that can vote in commitees, but not on the House Floor.

[kring]

Welcome back, dervish; long time since I have seen you around.

[Centauri18]

Maybe France ought to have sold Quebec to America before the English took it over along with the rest of Canada. Sort of like Napoleon sold Louisiana to fund his wars.

[Centauri18]

What i mean to say is, maybe they could have done that.

[joncnunn]

France's sell of Louisana was also related to the successful revolt against the French on their third of the island of Hispanola.

[Az]

great thread darvish. I was calling for the establishment of ethno-lingo-cultural trees for a long time.

But this calls for a real change, A VERY BIG change.

you should start with a small tribe. A REALLY SMALL TRIBE. and you should work your way through thousands of other tribes, assimilating them, killing them off, establishing new national identities. and it would work that the assimilation would work both ways. by assimilating another people, you change your nation/tribe/people as well, say, sliders of agression/industriousness move.

But to do that we'll have to change the premise of the game. No longer do we start with a fledgeling kingdom at 4000 BC, but we start at say... 10,000BC, and we let time tick more slowly at ancient times. Another thing that would have to change is the scale of the map. we'll need MUCH bigger maps.

I Can't wait for the time such ideas would be implemented in a civ game.

[HAND]

Alot of english people are in fact Celtic...Look at Henry the 8th and Elizabeth the 1st. They both had the Celtic facet of a fine crop of red hair(along with a fierce temper). Probably the majority of the english have some Celtic ancestery.
Few people have blond hair and blue eyes for an "Anglo-saxon" country..most have brown hair.

[Az]

my point exactly, HAND.

there are plenty of such examples. like :

the french: they take their names from a germanic tribe "franks".
yet, they speak a latin language, and have lots of celtic ( gauls) and other "blood" in them.

[joncnunn]

In many parts of the US, basically anybody whose ancestors were in the US 3 generators or more back will find some relationship to American Indians if they throughly check those branches of their family tree.
(Being accepted to the tribe rolls is another matter entirely though, because they only count via along the pure Mother line.) This is one of the sources of exelent tans in Tennessee and also those with black hair in Oklahoma.

[sabrewolf]

really? i didn't know that. i thought native americans were more ethnicly cleansed or in better cases "just" isolated. didn't know there was a mix.

but speaking about that: my girlfriend (a yankistani) said recently, that it's strange you call blacks african american, because most of the coloured people in fact are more american than the white. most white just came in the last 100 years and only 2nd and 3rd generations were completely integrated.

[joncnunn]

The Cherokee in the 1820s and 1830s were "so civilized" that they started buying slaves. They treated their slaves better than most whites did.

Most of those living in the tribes in the 1830s were relocated to Oklahoma, but some had successfuly hiden, and both prior to afterwords there was intermingling between the Cherokee & Euopeans both ways.

There were several isolated accounts of Europeans west of the Mississippi joining Indian tribes in the 1870s & 1880s.

Well, your correct about there being substantal mixing between white & black especally in the South, but slaves didn't really have much of a choice in the matter.

[Centauri18]

I didn't know the Cherokee owned slaves. I knew a lot of that other stuff, but I never knew those tribes owned slaves.