If we are going to use the religions system as ideologies, these are our current ideas:

Political Ideologies:
Neoliberalism
Promotion of peace through trade agreements.
Wahhabism
Reactionary fundamentalism opposed to the changing times.
Bolivarianism
Extra-patriotism, fidelity to not just one's country but one's neighboring countries and one's continent; Venezuela and Russia could have this.
Progressivism
This is just an ideaology concerned with advancing the conditions of the state, its people, and the world, by extension. What policies are used depends on the state.
Juche
Survivalism at the national level. Belief that a state should be completely self-sufficient, and hostile to any foreigners, with a military to repel them.

Cultural Ideologies:
Western (Western Europe, North America, Australia...)
Orthodox (Russia, Greece, Ex-USSR states...)
Latin American
Muslim
Hindu
African (Sub-Saharan Africa)
Sinic (China, Vietnam, Korea...)
Buddhist (Most of East Asian countries)
Jewish (Israel)

Furthermore we could have Cultural Capitals (i.e. Holy Cities) and Cultural Landmarks (i.e. Shrines). Although I'm not sure about these terms and would love it if someone came up with better ones here are my suggestions:

Western: New York, Statue of Liberty or Los Angeles, Hollywood
Orthodox: Moscow, Saint Basil's Cathedral
Latin American: Rio de Janeiro, Cristo Redentor or Caracas, Centro Simón Bolivar
Muslim: Mecca, The Masjid al-Haram
Hindu: Varanasi, The Kashi Wishwanath or Mumbai, Bollywood
African: Addis Ababa, Africa Hall or Addis Ababa, Grave of Haile Selassie
Eastern: Angkor/Phnom Penh, Angkor Wat or Beijing, Forbidden City (or something else...this is tough)

Post reserved #1

Post reserved #2

I think that Islam needs to be two religions: shia and sunni. The differences are too great to ignore.

I would suggest, if you’re going to have holy cities, that they be in the obvious founding city or first location of that culture:

Western: Rome, St. Peter's Palace (Apostolic Palace)
Orthodox: Istanbul, Hagia Sophia
Latin America: Rio de Janeiro, Cristo Redentor
Muslim: Mecca, Masjid al-Haram
Hindu: Varanasi, Kashi Wishwanath
African: Kilwa Kisiwani, Kilwa's Great House (Supposedly the oldist city in Africa)
Sinic: Beijing, Forbidden Palace (Because the Chinese were the first Easterners)
Buddhist: Bodh Gaya, Mahabodhi
Jewish: Jerusalem, Temple of Solomon

If there are going to be holy cities for political ideologies than Juche’s is in Pong’ yang.

Rather than "Latin American" I'd suggest making the ideology something like "Amerindian" so it can coincide with Western. The continent is too diverse do lump together. Argentina would be a Western country, Bolivia or Ecuador Amerindian, and many others would contain both.

eastern(oriental) : kong miao ( Confucius is one strong figure here in asia)
BTW. no need for buddhist ideology all eastern countries (including SEA) are the same. I can prove it , cause i live here in SEA myself

;)I dont know which thread to do this in but if someone knows how to script random events you could have some amusing/relevant ones
you have been caught cheating with a presdential aide
:sniper:Silence them -20 gold per 'media' building in civ:dunno:I did not have relations with that woman! chance you might be discovered grows larger with every legal/media building in capital,+mintanance costs for next 2 turns
:shifty: 'Im sorry':( +:mad:in all cities for next few turns

lol thats a good one

Er, okay. Duly noted...

It's the first idea in the events thread :)

Rather than "Latin American" I'd suggest making the ideology something like "Amerindian" so it can coincide with Western. The continent is too diverse do lump together. Argentina would be a Western country, Bolivia or Ecuador Amerindian, and many others would contain both.

Replacing "Latin American" with "Amerindian" is a great idea. Although I would not merge it with western. I'm not sure if that is what you're proposing. Having Italy be "Amerindian" would be strange.
But of course your example with Argentina is right. But you could solve this problem by placing "Western" AND "Amerindian" in all Argentinian cities. At the beginning Argentinas "state cultural ideology" (formerly called "state religion" ;)) would be Western. But during the game it could switch to Amerindian. Just like it did in Bolivia with the election of Evo Morales.

I think that Islam needs to be two religions: shia and sunni. The differences are too great to ignore.

I strongly disagree on doing this, because the differences are in fact actually very minimal. That, and there is only one country which has a majority of Shia muslims (Iran) which will give Iran a bit of a handicap.

I strongly disagree on doing this, because the differences are in fact actually very minimal. That, and there is only one country which has a majority of Shia muslims (Iran) which will give Iran a bit of a handicap.

I think so, too. And since in the Cultural Ideologies model we don't seperate straight along confession lines (also, we don't differentiate between protestant and catholic or Taoist and Confucianist) but more along general political, cultural, sociological, ethnic and religional (all put together) borders I think a distinction of sunni and shia would focus just too much on religion alone.

We will need a way to convert people so what about missionaries?

Neo Trader
Fundamentalist
Patriot Diplomat
Progress Minister
Juche Commander

I will also edit the buildings post for political buildings.

I strongly disagree on doing this, because the differences are in fact actually very minimal. That, and there is only one country which has a majority of Shia muslims (Iran) which will give Iran a bit of a handicap.

To outsiders looking in, the difference may be minimal. However, the difference has caused wars, thousands of deaths, civil war in Iraq, Al-Qaeda infiltration of Iraq, and tensions in Israel.

Iraq, Iran, and Bahrain all have Sh'ia majorities.

As for Ideologies (if they replace Religions): will they be religion-based, culture-based, or politics-based?

I would suggest, if you’re going to have holy cities, that they be in the obvious founding city or first location of that culture:

Western: Rome, St. Peter's Palace (Apostolic Palace)
Orthodox: Istanbul, Hagia Sophia
Latin America: Rio de Janeiro, Cristo Redentor
Muslim: Mecca, Masjid al-Haram
Hindu: Varanasi, Kashi Wishwanath
African: Kilwa Kisiwani, Kilwa's Great House (Supposedly the oldist city in Africa)
Sinic: Beijing, Forbidden Palace (Because the Chinese were the first Easterners)
Buddhist: Bodh Gaya, Mahabodhi
Jewish: Jerusalem, Temple of Solomon

If there are going to be holy cities for political ideologies than Juche’s is in Pong’ yang.
If you want to get technical it wasn't Istanbul where Orthodox was founded, it was Constantinople:) though positioned in nearly the same places they are majorly different..Ottoman Empire/Turkey was/is largely Islamic..while Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire was largely Christian..true it doesn't exist today, it should be represented somehow that it wasn't Otto s or Turkey who founded it

If you want to get technical it wasn't Istanbul where Orthodox was founded, it was Constantinople:) though positioned in nearly the same places they are majorly different..Ottoman Empire/Turkey was/is largely Islamic..while Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire was largely Christian..true it doesn't exist today, it should be represented somehow that it wasn't Otto s or Turkey who founded it



istanbul is postioned EXACTLY where constantinople was, if you really want to get technical, what with them being the same city. :p

people can look in the civlopeadia if they want to know more of the history IMHO.

istanbul is postioned EXACTLY where constantinople was, if you really want to get technical, what with them being the same city. :p

people can look in the civlopeadia if they want to know more of the history IMHO.

Different Empires, Differnet Cultures, way different..Yes I know its in roughly the same area..with the exception Modern Istanbul is much larger then ancient Constantinople

We will need a way to convert people so what about missionaries?

Neo Trader
Fundamentalist
Patriot Diplomat
Progress Minister
Juche Commander


Concerning Cultural Ideologies it should be hard to spread them directed. Good relations to the founding civ should increase the spread, bad relations should make it difficult. Since Cultural Ideologies are more locked with population groups and cannot be switched as easily as political ideologies or religions the spread should mainly happen through immigration. Thus we need an immigration system... after all one of the major issues of today's world.
A foreign corporation in one city could increase the spread, too. So could foreign units. (Just think of the American soldiers in Germany after WWII who introduced us to chewing gum, jeans and t-shirts ;) )
As a missionary-like unit I could imagine a kind of Cultural PR guy (have to think of a name...) who'd need to work in a city for about 10-20 turns to spread a Cultural Ideology. If successful or not is decided at the end of those turns.

As for Ideologies (if they replace Religions): will they be religion-based, culture-based, or politics-based?

The "ideology"-system suggested would base on politics. The "cultural ideology"-system suggested would base on a combination of all three of them and leave concrete political, governmental, legal, economic, labor-related etc. ideologies to civics that would need longer to change and affect diplomacy much more.

Example of this combination in cultural ideologies:
Western would symbolise: individualised lifestyle, christian religion, democracy, capitalist economy, ethnicity of european origin
while
Eastern would symbolise: less focus on individuality, rely on eastern spirituality, less participation of the individual in politics, ethnicity of east asian origin

This system might be a bit complicated, and I don't know if it's too late to suggest such a radical change, but

how about making ideologies shape a lot of the game, dynamically but forcing the player to listen to the people's opinion?


Let me explain:

Ideologies would be somehow linked to civics so that running the wrong civic (ie the one the people don't like, based on ideologies, so communists like State Property and hate Free Market) would cause unhappiness in cities and the right civic would cause happiness. There would be many ideologies, some being political, some economical, some social and some others some others. The ideologies could be spread like religions (with propagandists [=missionaries]) but they would also spread according to the civics and happiness of the empire. This is complicated to explain but I hope this example of Russia helps: (vanilla civics shown)

pre-1917
Russian citizens are unhappy, and a new ideology, communism, spreads to their cities. Now the people begin to demand that the state switch civics to State Property.

1917
Russia switches to State Property, people are happy for a while, except those who don't follow communism.

late 20th century
Russian citizens are unhappy. Because the state is running Police State and State Property, the citizens think their unhappiness is caused by those civics and convert to ideologies opposing them, ie capitalism and [democratic political ideology (liberalism?)].

after 1991
Russia switches to Free Market and Universal Suffrage/Representation, but as the people aren't any happier now, nationalism and statism spread among some of the unhappy people.



The ideologies I've thought about and the civics they'd be linked to:


Mostly social/political

Liberalism
-supporting freedom, insisting that the traditional values need to be revised

Conservativism/Traditionalism
-somewhat opposed to rapid social change, insisting that traditional values would lead to a better society

Statism
-opposing freedom, supportive of strong leadership, claim that the masses aren't smart enough to lead

Religion (all religions in one?)
-any moderate religious people who are able to peacefully coexist

Fundamentalism (for each religion)
-opposed to religious freedom and other religions, consider own religion superior and heeds the religious texts literally

Nationalism

Mostly economical

Environmentalism
-opposed to environmental exploitation

Capitalism (need a better name after the Cold War?, if Liberalism is about economy as well, this could be Laissez-Faire)
-supporting free market and economic freedom (if split to two, Liberalism about free market and Laissez-Faire more extreme, about minimal state intervention)

Communism
-want that the state should control the economy




Civics:
(in red: not available at start)

name -ideology which favors said civic

Political

Discord
(no organised government)
Autocracy -statism
(one leader in rule)
One-party system -statism
(the party in rule)
Republic -liberalism
(democratic nations)
Direct democracy -liberalism
(direct democracy)
Meritocracy
(post-modern, the ruling class is selected by testing the individuals in some way, and the most succesful in these tests are chosen to lead, like in Platon's "utopia")

Social

Disorder
(everyone minds their own business to survive)
Authoritarian -statism
(the state says what's acceptable)
Fundamentalism -fundamentalism
(IT'S WRITTEN IN THE HOLY BOOK, YOU OBEY IT!)
Traditional -conservativism/traditionalism, religion?
(traditional values)
Total freedom -liberalism
(need better name, what doesn't (directly) harm others is socially acceptable)
Technocracy
(post-modern, the society is all geared towards technology)


Press & Speech

Ignorance
(people are busy surviving, they have no time to think about much else)
Propaganda -statism
(the press is used as a tool of the government to influence people's thoughts directly)
Censorship -statism
(the press is nominally independent, but if the gov't doesn't like what it says, it doesn't say it)
Biased press
(the press is "free", but strangely nobody questions some "truths")
Objective press -liberalism
(the press is free to say what it wants, and it sure uses that freedom. No state ideology)
Enlightened citizenry
(post-modern, the citizens have unlimited access to all information in the world, the government doesn't even try to affect their opinions. No state ideology, espionage penalty (the openness is bad for secret issues), tons and tons of war weariness, happiness, culture and science bonuses)
Thought control
(1984)

Legal and Civil Rights

Rule of the strongest
(me is da boss. u do wat me sez)
Religious law -fundamentalism
(See Fundamentalism in Social category)
Martial law
(the military does the police's job)
Judicidal courts
(there are laws which apply to most of the people)
People's courts
(the people decide what to do to criminals in each case individually, makes some happier but allows prejudice/discrimination)
Human rights
(everyone has the unbroken right to live... etc)
Cybernetic
(post-modern, cases are fed to a complex computer program which tells what to do)


Economy
Labour

(basically the same as in the civics thread)


Environment
(new, to allow more diverse solutions to GW etc)

Exploitation -laissez-faire
(What, should we do something? the businesses can do it on their own)
Regulation
(inefficient but the only way in the early game to cut environmental damage without radical society changes)
Naturalism -environmentalism
(need a better name, the whole society is built around the idea of keeping the nature intact)
Technological solutions
(post-modern, technology is used to solve environmental problems [if there is any environment left when the civic becomes available])



Now, as you can see, many combinations of multiple ideologies are possible adding a lot of diversity to the game. A civ can make both liberalists and environmentalists happy, but making both communists and laissez-faire capitalists happy is impossible, as is statists and liberalists




What do you think?

I think that's probably what we should be aiming for when we get to this.

Wait. There are other ideologies too.

Conservatism

Liberalism

Socialism

I think a new category should be created: Power.

In this category:

Growing Empire

Desperate Empire

Minor Power

Major Power

Superpower

Dictatorship

UN Patriot has the best ideas for this, hands down.

With that said: The types of government to be used should be:

Government:

Communism: -25% food & research in all cities (millions starved under it), +100% $$ in capital (where else does the money go when the state controls it), no corporations (if we use them) (Russia [might as well be], Cuba, Venezuela, China)

Capitalism: +25% $$ in all cities, +25% Research Rate in all cities (worlds best advancements have come under capitalism), +1 unhappiness in all cities (stupid people get hammered in capitalism) (USA, Japan, etc.)

Socialism: -25% $$ in all cities, +1 health in all cities, +1 happy in all cities (dumb people like re-distribution of the wealth), (Canada, EU, [should be USA])

Religious Fundamentalism: -25% Research in all cities, +3/-3 happy/state religion in/not in city, +50% military unit production (countries in the middle east, North Korea, Africa, etc.)

UN Patriot has the best ideas for this, hands down.

With that said: The types of government to be used should be:

Government:

Communism: -25% food & research in all cities (millions starved under it), +100% $$ in capital (where else does the money go when the state controls it), no corporations (if we use them) (Russia [might as well be], Cuba, Venezuela, China)

Capitalism: +25% $$ in all cities, +25% Research Rate in all cities (worlds best advancements have come under capitalism), +1 unhappiness in all cities (stupid people get hammered in capitalism) (USA, Japan, etc.)

Socialism: -25% $$ in all cities, +1 health in all cities, +1 happy in all cities (dumb people like re-distribution of the wealth), (Canada, EU, [should be USA])

Religious Fundamentalism: -25% Research in all cities, +3/-3 happy/state religion in/not in city, +50% military unit production (countries in the middle east, North Korea, Africa, etc.)

I would jsut lie to point out there has never been a Communist country in human history. The USSR, China, Vietnam, are all Socialist countries.

perhaps instead of socialism you could have:
Welfare State
-25% $$ in all cities ro reflect costs involved, +2 health in all cities, everyone has access to free healthcare, +1 happy in all cities from some form of security in life and +1 population growth through healthcare and social security. (EU, UK\NATO)

Correct on socialism vs. communism, but it is easier to call it communism and socialism than call it 75% state control, and 90% state control.


Economy:

Communism/Socialism: -25% food & research in all cities (millions starved under it), +100% $$ in capital (where else does the money go when the state controls it), no corporations (if we use them) (Russia [might as well be], Cuba, Venezuela, China)

Capitalism: +25% $$ in all cities, +25% Research Rate in all cities (worlds best advancements have come under capitalism), +1 unhappiness in all cities (stupid people get hammered in capitalism) (USA, Japan, etc.)

Socialism/Welfare State: -25% $$ in all cities, +1 health in all cities, +1 happy in all cities (dumb people like re-distribution of the wealth), (Canada, EU, [should be USA])

Religious Fundamentalism: -25% Research in all cities, +3/-3 happy/state religion in/not in city, +50% military unit production (countries in the middle east, North Korea, Africa, etc.)

Government:

Monarchy: +3 happy in capital, +3 healthy in capital, +25% distance penalty from palace

Republic: +3 happy in all cities, +25% wonder construction, -25% military production

Police State: -1 happy in all cities (loss of rights), +25% military production, -10% wonder constuction

Totalitarian/Dictatorship: -3 happy in all cities, +50% military production, -25% wonder construction

Legal:
Same as in Civ4/others ideas...

Labor:
Same as in Civ4/others ideas...

Religion:
Same as in Civ4/others ideas...

I don't exactly like where this is going. No doubt, the ideologies aren't finalized, but we need to slim down some of the suggestions here. I also think that capitalism and communism are too last-century, and no longer relevent. Fundamentalism should be there only when it already pertains to a state's policy, such as in Iran, Israel/Palestine, and Tibet. Liberalism and conservatism don't work on the global scale, considering different countries will have different definitions.

I share Bahmo's unease, (though possibly for different reasons).

Looking at UNpatriot's arguments, the idea that unhappy citizens are more receptive to other ideologies is interesting.

Real world, ideologies are currently static due to the effect of changing birth rates. The opinions of Gen X and Gen Y will never matter, as most voters/consumers are baby boomers - by the time the baby boomers have died out, new generations will be born whose opinions will then be decisive. As we have no idea what they will consider important, 'realism' is going to be impractical.

Can I recommend the use of a 'too hard basket'?
Keeping ideologies tentative until solid lists of nations and desired initial alliances have been hammered out? And being prepared to make brutal modifications during playtests? If too much effort is put into this question now, people will be less willing to throw that hard work away later - when the practical needs of the mod are known.

I've been having the same feelings as Bahmo on this thread for quite a time but I never really had an idea how to put it. So thanks, Bahmo, for expressing it.

First of all: what is this thread about? It started with the goal to replace Civ's religions by certain ideologies. The latest posts seem to use ideologies as a civic system. So where are we going from here?

What are ideologies? Ideologies are whole systems of thoughts, kind of world views. So they indeed have something in common with religions. This makes them predestined for the Civ's religion system.
The civic system however, breaks down political systems into different aspects. While in Civ 1-3 you could choose between Monarchy and Democracy (i.e. ideologies as political systems) the civic system makes it possible to form your own "ideology". This is reasonable and should not be overthrown. I try to express it more graphic:

IDEOLOGY = CIVIC A + CIVIC B + CIVIC C etc.

So IMO ideologies are made up of a constellation of certain civics and should not be a civic themselves.

OK, now I say ideologies should work as religions. But how? I'd like to put the Cultural Ideology model back into discussion. This is because I don't see the relevance of different ideologies in 21st century. There is an explanation why we have difficulties to agree on a set of political ideologies for this mod. As (not only) philosopher Slavoj Žižek says: We live in a post-ideological era.

- There actually are no different ideologies that matter like in the 20th ct. when there was a struggle between the strong ideologies capitalism, communism and nazism. One ideology has won this battle and is now in effect in every corner of the world: That is capitalism. Unlike it has been claimed in this thread also in Russia and China capitalism
is the one and only. Small exceptions like Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea don't matter enough to justify a whole religion-like political ideologies system.

So this is why I suggest cultural ideologies. Look at NikNaks' first post in this thread for the details. Each cultural ideology (CI) stands for a whole set of economical, political, cultural and religious ideas that the majority of an ethnicity/cultural group are sharing. This means for "western" e.g. capitalist economy, individuality, christian roots, democracy etc., for "eastern" it would be more towards a collectivist society model, buddhist roots etc.
Thus an existent CI in one city would also mean that a certain ethnicity lives there. This makes melting pot cities possible, as well as the ethnic cleansing feature from the "features" thread. Civs with the same CI would have a slight relations bonus just like the same state religions gain. But having the same civics should give even more.

I think Insane's idea of allowing a player to essentially form his own ideology by mixing civics is a good one. To maintain the goal of realism to the actual world situation, however, at the AI level there need to be some things set more-or-less in stone. This means certain favorite civics and certain favorite ideologies. The only problem is exactly what the ideologies are.

So how I understand this: For every CI we should in general specify one favourite civic of each category. Then we should look at every civ more closely and slightly altering the favourite civics to match reality. For not all states of the same CI have the same system. CI just shows an overall tendency.

I'm not sure how to achieve this. Can we link this civics preference to the current state CI? So if maybe Mexico changes its state CI from Amerindian to Western (or the other way round) in 2019 the civics preference would switch, too? Or do we have to fix it to every civ in the beginning and it won't alter? Which would mean no big difference in choosing.

Both would mean that we choose preferred civics for each CI and then apply them for every civ with that state CI and finally make slight modifications to match the singularity of this civ.

First I'd start with a list assigning a state CI to each of our game's civs.


United States of America (Western, any other CI present)
Canada (Western)
Mexico (Amerindian)
Venezuela (Amerindian)
Colombia (Amerindian)
Peru (Amerindian)
Brazil (Amerindian)
Argentina (Amerindian)
Chile (Amerindian)

Kazakhstan (Muslim)
Georgia (Orthodox)
Belarus (Orthodox)
Ukraine (Orthodox)
Russia (Orthodox)

Algeria (Muslim)
Nigeria (African)
Egypt (Muslim)
Ethiopia (African)
Sudan (Muslim, African e.g. in Darfur)
Angola (African)
South Africa (African, strong Western)

Israel (Jewish)
Palestine (Muslim)
Iran (Muslim)
Syria (Muslim)
Saudi Arabia (Muslim)
Pakistan (Muslim)
India (Hindu)
Sri Lanka (Eastern)
China (Eastern)
North Korea (Eastern)
South Korea (Eastern)
Thailand (Eastern)
Vietnam (Eastern)
Myanmar (Eastern)

Taiwan (Eastern)
Japan (Eastern)
Australia (Western)
Philippines (Western)
Republic of Indonesia (Muslim)

European Union (Western, presence of any other CI)

Permanent Neutrality (Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.) (I'd say Western, since a majority of western countries. But Costa Rica should also have Amerindian and Turkmenistan only Muslim)

NATO (UK-capital, Turkey, Iceland, Norway, Croatia, Albania.) (Western, but others present in UK, Turkey, Albania should be Muslim)

Independent African States (Morocco (capital), Libya, Zimbabwe, Kenya.) (hmmm...2:2 between Muslim and African...)

African Union (all African countries that aren't represented elsewhere) (African, since outnumbering Muslim countries)

Failed States (Somalia, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Chad.) (Muslim since Somalia and Chad are, EG African and ET Western)

Minor Nations

-South American Socialist Allies (Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay). Vassal of Venezuela. (Of course Amerindian)

Then I'd try as an example to assign favourite civics to a Western state CI. I'll only take them from those lists NikNaks posted at the beginning of the Civics thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275872). Of course they are not complete.

Western:
Labor: Organized
Economics: Corporatist
Government: Parliamentary
Religion/Society/Ideology: Messianism

To keep things organized: let's move the ideologies discussion from the art thread here:

I made icons for ideologies. Here they are:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=202786&stc=1&d=1233935008

from left to right
African, Amerindian, Eastern, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox, Western

I first made icons for Cultural Ideologies since it's the ones we have a undisputed list of. If we decide to go for Political Ideologies and can agree on a list then I'll of course make icons for them instead. Although it's no secret that I think political ideologies are a difficult subject in a present day mod (after the capitalism walkover...).

But anyway, let me know what you think of those icons. At the moment I have no access to the SVN so maybe someone else can blend the icons in the right files. If needed I'll make smaller versions for the city bar including those with a star for "holy cities". And pedia buttons of course.

ianinsane:"I made icons for ideologies. Here they are:
Although it's no secret that I think political ideologies are a difficult subject in a present day mod (after the capitalism walkover...)."

Regrettably, you are correct. The modern world is less ideologically-sensitive than the old, Cold War world, thanks to neoliberalism. People care less about being right and more about being rich.

However, as pretty as your buttons are, using cultures as ideologies is still a forced and inappropriate idea. A country can't convert to or adopt a different culture than the one it already has, and being nicer to people with the same culture is less in line with the modern world situation (where trade is the main factor in international relations), not more. I still stand by my old idea of most of the ideologies I wanted to add; the only difference is neoliberalism, because, as I've said, it is in many ways more of an anti-ideology than anything else, and Obama does not believe in it to the extent that Clinton and Bush did.

Bahmo: "A country can't convert to or adopt a different culture than the one it already has"

Of course not. The cultural ideology has to be present to "convert" to it. Being present in a city different Cultural Ideologies represent people of different ethnics who share different values and beliefs.
I'd say one of the recent "conversions" happened in Bolivia. This would be equal to a change of State Cultural Ideology from Western to Amerindian. Another one would be the end of the Apartheid in South Africa: State Cultural Ideology switched from Western to African.

Bahmo: "and being nicer to people with the same culture is less in line with the modern world situation (where trade is the main factor in international relations)"

No. For example the difficulties for Turkey to become member of the EU come from the problems the old EU states have with Turkey's different culture. And this is being frankly admitted.

This is exactly how the modern version of official racism works. It is justified not by biological means as it was the fact 50-100 years ago but by cultural means ("they don't share our values..."). And it does affect international relations as shown above. We must have means to simulate this.

We already have means to simulate
- trade related effects to relations ("...appreciate the years you supplied us with resources...")
- politically related effects to relations ("...you have wisely chosen your civics...") <--- that's why I don't see the necessity of adding another political relations factor with political ideologies

What's clearly missing are means to simulate the culture effects on diplo relations. This should be weighed much less than the trade and politically related effects but there has to be a penalty when a Western or Jewish civ is negotiating with a Muslim civ. And there has to be a bonus when two Latin American civs are negotiating with each other.

Bahmo: "People care less about being right and more about being rich. "

I'm on my way out the door and unfortunately can't really get involved in this discussion until tomorrow, but I must say, I couldn't agree with this statement less.

There is a huge, worldwide resistance to neo-liberalism and in favour of social justice. Primarily in the global south.

No poor country has ever voted for neo-liberalism.

Now that you put it that way, the ideological basis you propose is more appealing.

A number of things do still need to be considered, however, such as a fleshing out of exactly what different cultures value, and whether or not a culture has enough expectations of its people to serve as a political force. Amerindian, for example, seems to be valid, as it inherrently values good use natural resources, which is in line with South America. Orthodox, I really don't think that has enough sway over the people to be a valid ideology, and since it's originally Greek, not Russian, that's another problem. The need for a pan-Slavic ideology of some sort is apparent, as it's such a large part of the world's population, but it should be more modern.

Turkey, I believe, is far more Western in its values than it is Islamic at this point, if not so Western as the West is. Perhaps even Egypt is. The sticky issue of no admittance into the EU can be acomplished simply by making Turkey an independent Civ in the mod.

One more thing, I think if we go this route, it makes a lot of sense to not use any counterpart to missionaries. Though perhaps they could be justified as "propaganda," I think a better idea is to use buildings to spread the ideology. If we still want to utilize the immigration component at some point, that, too, could spread different ideologies. Perhaps a unique slum building could exist for each foreign ideology, and it would be built automatically when an ideology spreads to a city.

Now that you put it that way, the ideological basis you propose is more appealing.

Cool! I always tend to need many failed attempts to explain ideas... lol

Orthodox, I really don't think that has enough sway over the people to be a valid ideology, and since it's originally Greek, not Russian, that's another problem. The need for a pan-Slavic ideology of some sort is apparent, as it's such a large part of the world's population, but it should be more modern.

You're right. I'm not too happy with the classification Orthodox, too. The ideas for the different Cultures originate from Samuel P. Huntington's thesis of "Clash of Civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations)". Although his theory is highly controversial at large and I personally don't want to adopt it I found his classification to be a good starting point. We already merged his Sinic, Buddhist and Japanese culture group into one "Eastern" cultural ideology after someone from the Philipppines in this board claimed that they would "all be the same" :). Another reasonable change we made was to replace "Latin American" by "Amerindian". So what about changing "Orthodox" simply into "Slavic"?

Here by the way is Huntington's map, which served as an inspiration. This is not my suggestion for ideology distribution:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Clash_of_Civilizations_map2.png

Turkey, I believe, is far more Western in its values than it is Islamic at this point, if not so Western as the West is. Perhaps even Egypt is. The sticky issue of no admittance into the EU can be acomplished simply by making Turkey an independent Civ in the mod.

Yes, I believe so, too. But conservative politics in the EU don't. And there is some shifting towards Islamic under the current administration. And you're right, Turkey will be it's own civ. That's the proper way to deal with that issue. I just used that example to point out that these cultural differences affect international relations.

One more thing, I think if we go this route, it makes a lot of sense to not use any counterpart to missionaries. Though perhaps they could be justified as "propaganda," I think a better idea is to use buildings to spread the ideology.

I'm totally with you. Missionaries would be highly unrealistic. Would be cool if some resources, like Hit Movies from Hollywood, could spread ideologies, too. Although that might give to much advantage to the Western ideology, but maybe we can have a second Wonder (Bollywood) to counter that.
Another way of spreading could be corporations, and friendly military units stationed in a city for a long time. But the best way would indeed eventually be immigration. The idea concerning unique slum buildings is very interesting!

Another thing I have been wondering about lately is if we should represent African American population by having African ideology in the cities at the American coasts? Probably not...what do you think? But there should definately be some Amerindian at the Mexican border and in California.

It's good to see some healthy discussion here. I'd agree with the change from Orthodox to Slavic, but if there is a better word to describe it, I'd be happy to switch again.

In reference to that map, I'd say make Japan a Western/Eastern combo, instead of its own culture. There are many other changes we can make, as well, and in some cases, it may even be on a city-by-city basis.

Of course, we'll have to do it city-by-city. London or NYC for example should have every cultural ideology present. Sudan should have African cities in the south and Muslim cities in the north. But nevertheless there should be a state ideology. And I think for Japan that would still be Eastern. Although there might be strong Western presence in Japanese cities.

When/if this is agreed on then I can make a list with all our cities, researching what culture is present in them.

Well, I'd be more inclined to go with Western. Their heavy reliance on technology and innovation seems to fit more with the Western lifestyle, IMO.

Sout Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and lately China share the same reliance I think. The main distinctive feature for Eastern I think is the more collectivist social and economic structure where the group is more important than the individual. Whereas the Western culture has a very individualistic approach. And in that case, IMO Japan would be more Eastern than Western.

Another thing I have been wondering about lately is if we should represent African American population by having African ideology in the cities at the American coasts? Probably not...what do you think? But there should definately be some Amerindian at the Mexican border and in California.

While it is sad to admit this, Africa does not seem to have any unifying culture on the whole, which has led to a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make a pan-African ideology, because many of the overseas African peoples do support such a movement. So perhaps we'd need to make African ideology one of those that rarely exists on its own. Johannesburg would have both the African and Western ideologies present, while Timbuktu would have both the African and Islamic ideologies present, Madrid would contain Western, Islamic, and African ideologies, and it would coexist with multiple ideologies in many American cities, though primarily Western and Jewish.

I agree that having multiple ideologies coexist in cities would be the best way to avoid an excessive amount of extra, less-important ideologies. So yes, New York and London would probably contain all ideologies, with certain other cities having at least more than one. For example, Beijing and Kyoto would just have the Oriental ideology, but Shanghai and Tokyo would have both the Oriental and Western ideologies. Istanbul and Berlin would have both the Western and Islamic ideologies, but Riyadh would only have the Islamic ideology and Athens should only have the Western. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

That sounds about right to me Bahmo.

If anyone who isn't doing anything else right now wants to volunteer to start on the XML for the ideologies, please do. Most of the team members are busy working on other areas at the moment, so unless we get some new blood, it may be weeks before someone gets a chance to do this. :-(

This would be a good place for a new team member to start. ;-)

I'm more than happy with that distribution, but I'm concerned about Japan on its own out there; why is it not covered partly in the Buddhist region?

Maybe I didn't point that out clearly enough but I'm not proposing to use the ideologies exactly as in Huntington's map. In fact, earlier in this thread and I think in the old w2k8 forum we narrowed it down to X ideologies, which are the ones I made icons for:
African
Amerindian (which roughly replaces Huntington's "Latin American")
Eastern (wich merges Huntington's "Buddhist", "Sinic" and "Japanese", so Japan won't be on its own)
Hindu
Jewish
Muslim
Slavic (roughly Huntington's "Orthodox", of course then without Greece)
Western

Later today, I'll (hopefully) post a map or a list with my suggestion for state ideology distribution.

OK. Here's my suggestion concerning state ideologies. All this does not mean that no other ideology can be present (like Slavic in the East of EU). It just means that this specific ideology is the civ's state ideology. Feel free to criticize... :)


http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=203206&stc=1&d=1234213721

I left minor and neutral states unassigned. We'll have to discuss about which state ideology they should have.


BTW. I might be able to look into XML for ideologies. But not earlier than next week. And I might need some advice, since this will be my first piece of XML.

hey buddy, looks good, thanks. Most of it looks perfect to me (but what do I know), but offhand I would question whether Brazil and Argentina should be primarily western.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I recognize that you are doing state ideologies here, and since they are USA, theirs is obviously western. But, those areas shouldn't have the ideology itself in their cities... I suspect you weren't planning on them having it, but I just thought I would say it.

It would be great if you could do some XML work towards these. I will gladly help guide you getting started, anything you need. :D

hey buddy, looks good, thanks. Most of it looks perfect to me (but what do I know), but offhand I would question whether Brazil and Argentina should be primarily western.

I think Argentina should indeed be mainly western, Brazil might flip anytime.
Here are some statistics concerning population groups of both countries. Of course we shouldn't let just the ethnic groups decide but it's an important factor, I think.


Brazil:
49.7% White
42.6% Pardo (Brown), which are actually a mixture of Black, White and Amerindian people
6.9% Black
0.5% Asian
0.3% Amerindian

Argentina
86% European (Italian, Spanish, German)
7% Mestizo
2% Amerindian
4% Other[1] [2]


As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I recognize that you are doing state ideologies here, and since they are USA, theirs is obviously western. But, those areas shouldn't have the ideology itself in their cities... I suspect you weren't planning on them having it, but I just thought I would say it.

Totally right. :goodjob:

ok cool. Where did you get that info? Very handy for this.

On wikipedia. In each state's article there's a fact box on the right side that contains ethnic groups.

South Africa could maybe be flipped to Western, apart from that its all good.

This Ideology concept is interesting. And based on Huntington's suggestion is a brilliant idea, great job ianinsane :goodjob:

One suggestion: Would it be worth to have Jewish on it's own? We took out Japan because it is on its own, but Japan is at least 10 times greater than Israel...

Alternatively, would it be more interesting if we take out Jewish, and use that extra slot to split the West into Anglo-Saxon vs. Continental Europe? Then Israel's ideology can be represented by the Anglo-Saxon due it's close relationship with the US.

I'd say that (and as a Non-Jew), that the Jewish ideology is probably stronger than anyone's. It is the REASON there is an Israel and those people continue to live there and carve out a life for themselves in the midst of people surrounding them who hate them.

I'm really don't know and can't speak as if I know...but it would seem to me that the Jewish foundation in Israel plays as one of the biggest roles in modern world dynamics.

Couldn't the same applies to Japan? or Even, Hong Kong? :)

I'm not saying Israel is not special, and that's why we have blown it up on the map and represent it as a civ even it is such a small nation. We have 52 civs and adding Israel as a civ doesn't seems too imbalance. But we are talking about only 8 ideologies, giving an ideology to a 2 city state is really imbalance I think.

Just checking Huntington's original idea, Jewish is actually not an independent ideology.

Think about playability as well, Israel would be best to have the same ideology with US so the ally can be sustained.

Anyway, I can of course live with having Jewish as proposed, I just though it would be good to have the slot with a better use, mainly from gameplay perspective. I am not contributing in this aspect so don't worry about me if it doesn't making sense :)

Heh...I really don't have much of an idea.

I'm not Jewish...but the Jews seem to make a HUGE deal of Israel, even living there when they are surrounded by people that absolutely do not want them there.

I really don't care either way. Was only playing devil's advocate.

Both of you guys are making too much sense.

I'd suggest to give it a try with having Jewish as its own ideology and not to split Western. If it causes realism/gameplay problems we can change it after testing or for the next version.

The reason why I'd like to include Israel is basically the same thing Mattygerst said. The Zionist movement has had such a strong impact on world relations how they are now so I think it deserves it's own ideology. Israel will be the only civ with Jewish state ideology but Israeli cities surely won't be the only ones with Jewish ideology present. It would also be present in some French, Canadian, Russian, Argentinian, British and US cities.

I wouldn't like to split Western because contintental and american/anglo-saxon culture and lifestyle are interlaced to such a huge degree...

BTW Huntington actually does consider Jewish as its own ideology (or "civilization" in Huntingtonian terms). It's just not in the map.

And concerning the worries that Israel might end up on its own...there should be a lot of "past events have brought us closer together" diplo points for Israel with most Western civs.

especially with Germany (or even EU lol), germany is probably Israels closest non US Ally. Israel should have generally mediocre relations with most other countries (cept for India, USA & EU) and poor with Arab and Nrth African world.

I'd say that (and as a Non-Jew), that the Jewish ideology is probably stronger than anyone's. It is the REASON there is an Israel and those people continue to live there and carve out a life for themselves in the midst of people surrounding them who hate them.

I'm really don't know and can't speak as if I know...but it would seem to me that the Jewish foundation in Israel plays as one of the biggest roles in modern world dynamics.

I think it's potentially dodgy grounds to say that any particular ideology is stronger than another. The same argument could be made for the Kurdish Muslims etc or Catholic vs Protestants in Ireland. However, I agree that if the Jewish ideology is only to be represented in Israel then it would be better to either split the 'Western' ideology or represent Japan more accurately.

Can I ask, though, if we represent the Jewisn ideology, can this also be represented in other cities throughout the world as is the reality- so that there is a Muslim ideology in Leeds for example (very high Muslim population in Northern England) and I would guess a high Jewish population in London and many U.S cities etc. Does it work like this (I'm thinking along corporation, religion lines)? If it does, then no doubt Jewish ideology is very important, but I would say not for Israel alone.

Can I ask, though, if we represent the Jewisn ideology, can this also be represented in other cities throughout the world as is the reality- so that there is a Muslim ideology in Leeds for example (very high Muslim population in Northern England) and I would guess a high Jewish population in London and many U.S cities etc. Does it work like this (I'm thinking along corporation, religion lines)? If it does, then no doubt Jewish ideology is very important, but I would say not for Israel alone.

Yep, that's the way it is to work.

The only thing I worry is how to do that objectively? Would 2 or 20% of Muslim (or Jewish or any other) population be considered as significant to be represented? And is population the only factor that is going to affect the decision?

May be it would be better if we can define clearer of what we meant by 'Ideology' in here so that the decision can be more objective. (If it is already defined somewhere, could it be highlighted to us again?)

being a Jew living in London, I can say that there is a significant feeling of general support in the worldwide jewish Diaspora towards Israel and that many millions of £/$/Euros etc are raised every year for Israeli charities by these communities.

I would imagine its the same with the muslim world raising funds for Saudi\Palestine\Iraq and Hindu's sending money back to there familes in India?

You're bringing up the subject that I think can be the most disputed concerning these ideologies, Genghis. This is really tough. I have thought about this myself but hoped that no-one would bring up the question of objectivity. This is what I think:

These ideologies are subjective to the core. As I said they represent a kind of xenophobia (or homophilia concerning own ideology). If you ask a Westerner someone why he'd trust a Hindu less than a Westerner then he certainly won't come up with an objective answer. It's mainly prejudices. But the fact that the differences between cultural ideologies are to a great part made of prejudices and subjectivity doesn't mean that they are inexistent. They affect international relationships, no matter which of them are real and verifiable and which of them are prejudice. And that's why we'll have them in the game. But that's also what makes it difficult to agree on a completely objective way of placing them. However, here is my suggestion.

1st step (Objective part)
Research every city's ethnic groups. Each population group that has at least 5% is represented by its ideology.
Reason: Cultural prejudices are directed towards ethnic groups, no matter what values one individual of that ethnic group might have.

2nd step (Subjective part)
Wherever there is a part of native population in a city that in our view really shares actual values of a non-native ideology then this non-native ideology should be present in that city.
Example: The population in the southern part of Tehran is mainly westerly orientated, liberal and secular. They certainly don't share the values of our Muslim ideology but nevertheless are Iranian natives.
Reason: Members of an ethnic group can share values that are not traditionally linked to their own ethnic group. They sympathize with the (real or imaginated) values linked to a different ethnic group. Thus they sympathize with that other ethnic group. If their ideology spreads, they can turn over the state idology to that non-native one and thus improve relations with civs of that new ideology.

You're bringing up the subject that I think can be the most disputed concerning these ideologies, Genghis. This is really tough. I have thought about this myself but hoped that no-one would bring up the question of objectivity. This is what I think:

These ideologies are subjective to the core. As I said they represent a kind of xenophobia (or homophilia concerning own ideology). If you ask a Westerner someone why he'd trust a Hindu less than a Westerner then he certainly won't come up with an objective answer. It's mainly prejudices. But the fact that the differences between cultural ideologies are to a great part made of prejudices and subjectivity doesn't mean that they are inexistent. They affect international relationships, no matter which of them are real and verifiable and which of them are prejudice. And that's why we'll have them in the game. But that's also what makes it difficult to agree on a completely objective way of placing them. However, here is my suggestion.

1st step (Objective part)
Research every city's ethnic groups. Each population group that has at least 5% is represented by its ideology.
Reason: Cultural prejudices are directed towards ethnic groups, no matter what values one individual of that ethnic group might have.

2nd step (Subjective part)
Wherever there is a part of native population in a city that in our view really shares actual values of a non-native ideology then this non-native ideology should be present in that city.
Example: The population in the southern part of Tehran is mainly westerly orientated, liberal and secular. They certainly don't share the values of our Muslim ideology but nevertheless are Iranian natives.
Reason: Members of an ethnic group can share values that are not traditionally linked to their own ethnic group. They sympathize with the (real or imaginated) values linked to a different ethnic group. Thus they sympathize with that other ethnic group. If their ideology spreads, they can turn over the state idology to that non-native one and thus improve relations with civs of that new ideology.

Certainly agree, this can be highly controversial. ;)

I agree with your 2 steps approach. So basically, ideology is going to be based on ethic groups with a threshold percentage, but with some certain cases given exception on. This to what I would consider objective enough. I do similar things for the standard religions in my scenarios too.

It entails with a follow-up questions:
1) What percentage would be good for the ethic population threshold? 5% is quite low I think. Think about the Eastern ideology. The combined population of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and etc would probably make every American, Canadian and Australian cities with Eastern ideology :)

OK now I realized that I didn't write what I wanted to write. (It's always the same...I'm struggling to find the right English words and doing that I forget what I wanted to write)

Why I considered this subject to be so controversial:

My concern is that since a lot of the effect our ideologies have in reality are due to prejudice and subjectivity I strongly advise not to define these ideologies objectively in terms of values. If we try to exactly determine of which cultural, social, political and economic values one of our ideology consists then we won't reproduce anything but stereotypes and prejudices ourselves. Making subjectivity objective is a senseless task.

That's why we should leave it at using ethnic groups for ideology placement at the objective level. On the subjective level, however (like I said in 2nd step above), we can discuss about single cities. But we must not neglect that we're discussing on a subjective level. On this level (natives with non-native ideologies) no objectivity and no definition carved in stone is possible.

1) What percentage would be good for the ethic population threshold? 5% is quite low I think. Think about the Eastern ideology. The combined population of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and etc would probably make every American, Canadian and Australian cities with Eastern ideology :)

Maybe, but the Muslim population of Berlin is at 6% and that of London at 8-9% and I think they should be present.

Although we should make sure that no non-native ideology is present in every city of a civ.

There's just a few additional things that need to be brought up. It might seem to make things more complicated, but in truth, it might make our efforts more flexible, due to reducing the need to split any one hair.

Israel is officially a secular republic, but it certainly fits to give it (and it alone) a Jewish state ideology. However, just as Judaism should have a presence, though not a dominance, in many other areas, so should it not be alone in Israel. The city of Jerusalem is similarly-revered by all monotheists, which easily brings in both Judaism and Islam. Christianity does not exactly correspond to modern Eurocentric ideology, but Western can be there simply because one, those countries tend to support Israel, and two, Jews who lived in Europe or America would have brought some aquired customs with them to Israel.

The sticky issue of an ideology's presence in any given city not clarifying how much of the population professes to it, is partially mendable by giving leaders favorite "religions" in their coding, and making it weighted so that they don't switch.

Finally, if there is any ideology that seems insignificant enough to remove, but has too much effect on relations to do so, remember that attitudes of leaders can be adjusted in the Worldbuilder, and hence, the real-world can be in some part replicated simply by doing that.

@ianinsane:

I have read your posts over a few times, and I can't figure out why you think your previous post was misinterpreted.

Anyway, I am with you about how it can be controversial and difficult to be truly objective. So no, I am not after a set of formulas to calculate the ownership of an ideologies; that would be a PhD research topic ;) I was just after a set of rules of thumbs and I am satisfied with your 2 steps approach. Without that information, it would be too difficult to understand what you had in mind when classifying ideologies. Now, I can ask question like whether 5% ethnic group is a good threshold. Previously I can't.

No, you didn't misinterpret it. I hadn't read your post #65 when I wrote #66. I just wanted to add those lines that were meant to be in post #64 but which I forgot when I was searching for the right words. :)

point of order?

Just because there is a strong minority of a religion of non domestic origin doesnt mean they are all automatically supportive of the home country. For example a number of jews in the UK community were disturbed by israels actions in Gaza earlier this year.

Would the current bar thingie on the bottom left of a city info screen do?

No, it doesn't mean they support the home country unconditionally. But you'll agree that Jews around the world by trend do support the state of Israel. Of course they don't approve of every action of Israel.

What bar do you mean? The culture output?

Oh I would agree undoubtbly with you about that but as times go by those links can become just cultural.

The bar which shows a city is say 10%egyptian, 20%greek, 70% british or the like.

Tonight I'm gonna start with research for ideology distribution. However, we haven't yet agreed on an ethnic population threshold. So I'm gonna use the 5% threshold. But in the excel file I'll highlight those that only have between 5% and 10% of a cities population in color so we can delete them if it looks unrealistic.

ianinsane, if you don't mind a bit more work, it would be best to identify and list them on the excel file with the raw % first, instead of applying the threshold as yet. You would probably get a better picture of what % would be ideal once you listed all of them out.

good idea! i'll do that.

I'm still working on that list. It is progressing very slowly because it can be really tricky to research the ethnic population of single cities. 220 of 563 cities are done. That covers Europe, Central Asia and Africa. If I can keep up the current speed I'll be finished in 4-5 days unless someone would like to help. That would be great. No special skills needed, it's just researching on Wikipedia.

wow ianinsane amazing work in such a short amount of time. Nice job!

I see one flaw just by looking in South America(where I live). not very accurate for countries like Argentina, Chile and Brazil(I am Brazilian living in Europe atm). You should be seriously careful when comparing us with today's Venezuela or Bolivia, for example. Theirs is a pseudo-democracy that is really just a dictatorship dressed up as socialism to their own people.

Now, if I understand correctly, each of the countries with the same ideologies will also have the same civics? Or is it same favorite civics? Well, anyway, if you take South America, how can you put countries like today's Brazil and Argentina with countries like today's Venezuela and Bolivia? Completely unrealistic and would break the immersion for any South American playing it. Our government systems are very different and you really should be careful with what you do there.

Just the fact that Brazil speaks Portuguese and the rest speaks Spanish should give you a clue that internally we can be very different. Also, the fact that Spanish South American countries got their independence by war(mostly with Bolivar's influence, which I guess the stupid term Bolivarianism came from) while Brazil claimed its independence in an almost bloodless manner should also make you see that. In fact, the Prince of Portugal(Dom Pedro I) claimed our independence himself, he really liked our country it seems. Of course, this is just an example, but I bet things are a lot like that in other parts of the world too. Generalization is bad, so careful.

Or maybe I understood something wrong? Well, just giving input! Just hoping everything will be perfect for this mod! :D
Things can always be "fixed" in newer versions though.

Edit: Ah, and good luck, that is some insane amount of work!

Brazil and Argentina are their own civs, not part of our Bolivarian civ.

A side note, how is Venezuela a dictatorship when they keep having legitimate elections?? That sounds like something they would say on Fox news. My country (Canada) seems a lot less democratic than Venezuela. Our Prime Minister shut down our Parliament for the stated reason that he was going to loose a confidence vote. Chavez lost his second last referendum by 1% and accepted the result....??

Brazil and Argentina are their own civs, not part of our Bolivarian civ.

A side note, how is Venezuela a dictatorship when they keep having legitimate elections?? That sounds like something they would say on Fox news. My country (Canada) seems a lot less democratic than Venezuela. Our Prime Minister shut down our Parliament for the stated reason that he was going to loose a confidence vote. Chavez lost his second last referendum by 1% and accepted the result....??

Let's just start by the fact that he tried to take take military control of Venezuela in 1992. Just like a dictator would.

Also, I am sorry, but your statement is wrong. Here:

"The referendum was defeated on December 2, 2007, with 51% of the voters rejecting the amendments proposed by Chávez.[118] Chávez stated that he would step down at the end of his second term in 2013.[119] In November 2008, he proposed another constitutional amendment removing term limits, so that he could remain in office until as late as 2021.[120] This time, the resolution passed with 54% voting in favor after 94% of the votes have been counted.[121]". Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez#January_2007.E2.80.93present)

As long as he is alive he ain't stepping down peacefully my friend. I am from South America, we just hear more about Venezuela in the news than other parts of the world, and seriously, even our President(Brazilian) had to step away a bit publicly from him because he is leading a clear dictatorship. It is a clear fact many prefer to turn the eyes away from because of Venezuela's resources.

Guys, let's leave that kind of political discussion out of this thread. I'd love to say a thing or two about Chavez myself but only if someone starts a "Bashing/Worshipping Hugo Chavez" thread. :D

To take it back on an apolitical level: Don't worry, Arlborn. We're very aware of the differences among Latin American countries and won't lump them together. As DVS said, Brazil or Argentina are not part of the Bolivarian civ. They don't even share the same state ideology. The Bolivarians have "Amerindian" while Argentina and Brazil both are "Western". Civs sharing the same ideology don't necessarily have the same civics or the same favourite civics.

I still don't see what part of my statement is wrong. He had one referendum, lost, accepted the result, proposed a modified bill, and won. The sounds a lot more like democracy that what happens in most countries.

I think he would give up power if he lost an election. If he ever proves me wrong about that, then he will be a dictator. Until then, it just sounds like a right wing smear to call someone who has been elected many times a dictator. I suppose you would think it a more free and democratic country if Carmona were brought to power like the US tried to do in 2002? If you would consider a place like Columbia a democracy, and Venezuela a dictatorship, it seems pretty obvious that you are talking about markets more than votes.

In terms of picking our starting civics, I don't see why we wouldn't give them a democratic civic.

But, like ianinsane says, let's keep the political discussions to a minimum in this forum.

@ianinsane- I'd like to hear your advice on what civics they (and any others) should start with.

Guys, let's leave that kind of political discussion out of this thread. I'd love to say a thing or two about Chavez myself but only if someone starts a "Bashing/Worshipping Hugo Chavez" thread. :D

To take it back on an apolitical level: Don't worry, Arlborn. We're very aware of the differences among Latin American countries and won't lump them together. As DVS said, Brazil or Argentina are not part of the Bolivarian civ. They don't even share the same state ideology. The Bolivarians have "Amerindian" while Argentina and Brazil both are "Western". Civs sharing the same ideology don't necessarily have the same civics or the same favourite civics.

OK, that clears up a bit! Thanks.

And sorry about the political debate, I will refrain to say something else. But just remember that I am a very "left" kind of guy. Chavez is simply... Well.

Good luck guys! Hope to see some great mod coming out soon!

@ianinsane- I'd like to hear your advice on what civics they (and any others) should start with.

As soon as Bahmo will have posted all the civics. :)

OK, it's done. Here's the Excel file with the percentage of cultural ideologies in all our cities. This was really difficult. For some countries I found excellent statistic material. That's the reason why UK, Australia, Canada and the US are very detailed. Some countries like France and the Netherlands don't collect statistic material concerning religion or ethnicity at all, that's why I had to rely on rough estimation there.

After collecting all the numbers I still think that 5% ethnicity share would be a good treshold for a ideology to be present. Otherwise our world might look too homogeneous.

OK, have a look at the file, tell me what you think about it. In some cities we'll have to add additional ideologies not based on ethnicity but on personal judgement (like I described before with "second step"), e.g. adding Western in Istanbul, Tehran, Shanghai, Tokyo... I did not yet do it in this file.
If you are from a country that I did not get first hand statistics from have a look at your numbers and tell me if you think there's something wrong.

BTW, wherever one ethnicity/ideology has a clear majority (normally >60%) I wrote 99% into the box...just for simplicity's sake.
I hope all the formulas work for your excel version.

Whoops...here's the file. :mischief:

Wah, truly amazing staff! Great Job!

Yes, it looks like 5% was a very good pick. I would make a few suggestions for applying the exemptions in the East Asia/ANZ region later.

Wow awesome dude, I can't believe you did all that already!

As soon as Bahmo will have posted all the civics. :)

I'm done, if anyone cares.

I have a few questions about the political ideologies.
1) Which ideologies would belong where?
2) Are they going to work corporation-style, where if one spreads, the rest can't? Or are you just going to treat it just like a religion?
Although I am not a modder, and I have never modded anything, I may want to take a shot at implementing these.

Okay, I'll take this opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings.

We ditched the political ideologies idea in favour of the cultural one, thinking that the political matters would be dealt with better in civics.

I explored the XML, and I think I can do it. One question, though; are we going to make certain ideologies spread faster than others, or would that be too biased?

The ideologies are already implemented, they just need to be slightly reworked to fit the RevDCM standard. If you could do that it would be great.

Different spreading speed is definately something to think about. I guess that Islamic, African and Hindu should spread faster than Jewish or Amerindian for example...

Well, I'm more like a modder-in-training, so I think I might need to start with something less complicated (unless reworking it isn't complicated)...
EDIT: Looking over the status thread, I think I could try my hand at events.

just a question... about civs like "Neutral states" that have diferent nationalities hpw would ideologies apply?

Good question. I wish I had a good answer. With cities belonging to the simply neutral player, it would differ case-by-case if we did that. The problem with giving Zurich a Western ideology, Kingston (I think it belongs to the neutral player; not sure though) an African one, and so-and-so, is that it's hard to decide what the AI's favorite ideology would be. You could set it to none, but it might still adopt one, and I don't know how it could be guaranteed to adopt the one that fits best.

With Barbarians (rebels), I really don't see why there's any need to give them an ideology. given they're always at war with the civs.

I have a few questions about the political ideologies.
1) Which ideologies would belong where?



Ianinsane posted a pic of that:



http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=203206&stc=1&d=1234213721




2) Are they going to work corporation-style, where if one spreads, the rest can't? Or are you just going to treat it just like a religion?
Although I am not a modder, and I have never modded anything, I may want to take a shot at implementing these.

Corporations are still in the game and work as they do in BTS, though they've been changed to real-world corporations. Ideologies replace religions, but work a little differently. They can't be deliberately spread by players with units like missionaries, and represent sizeable amounts of a city's population adherring to them, rather than a strong leadership position. So if there's any way they'll be spread, it's by immigration, but I don't think that's been implemented yet.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=203206&stc=1&d=1234213721
and in the countries like costa rica and switzerland?

I believe they were left blank since those are our planned neutral nations, however I will give them ideologies, regardless. Ideologically driven war won't be a problem if we just adjust their attititudes to be amiable towards everyone.