I. Wallerstein's World System Theory

se7en

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
96
I am not a modder (although I am a programmer and if someone sincerely picked up this project I would be happy to help.) Anyway, I would love to see a real socioeconomic system based on world system theory put into place

- Make the AI aware of hegemonic power and react appropriately. The main power will attempt to use its economic and military power to ensure that it remains in power. AIs which are heavily benefitting from the military and/or economy will tend to support the hegemon and see that keeping the hegemon in power is in their own interest. Neutral and enemy nations will tend to form alliances with the intent of displacing the hegemon and replacing it with one more powerful. Some of the most dramatic instances of the interplay of hegemons in recent history have been the cold war between Russia and the United States and the now (somewhat) unrestricted actions of a lone and unrestricted hegemon (the United States.) It would be great to see this kind of interplay in CIV.

- Add more realistic beneficial diplomatic agreements such as most favored nation status, free trade agreements with individual nations, etc. These would provide benefits to both nations, drawing them together economically.

- Add more realistic exploitative diplomatic agreements such as one-way foriegn investment agreements, one-way defensive pacts, forced trade of resources, low cost manufacturing/labor agreement (available in modern ages) etc. These would primarily benefit only the more powerful nation, but would still provide some economic benefit to the subjugated state, at the expense of happiness in the subjugated state.

- Addition of a third slider reflecting the conflicting goals of economic competitiveness vs. social freedom. It is well established that in any society that the goals of business and the goals of the public are for the most part incompatible in the short term. This is expressed and debated more in free societies where the public has more power in that it can either demand legislation or protest directly, but since the dawn of time if the powered exploit even the weakest there is a consistent pattern of revolution (in one form or another.) CIV doesn't acknowledge this conflict within societies at all, and I think it could be an interesting facet to maintaining a nation. At the business end of the slider, there are bonuses to commerce and penalties to happiness, and at the other side penalties to commerce and bonuses to happiness. Maintaining a competative economy will require maintaining a "naturally" happy populace allowing the nation to keep this slider at the maximum.

These changes would allow some amazing global political situations to unfold naturally within the game. What happens when a weak nation is providing a powerful nation with Oil, and you intend to weaken that major power. What do you do? You can attack the nation with the resources, claiming them as your own and then sell them to the nation (thereby adjusting the balance of power.) If you are weak militarily but with decent cash reserves you could offer the weak nation a better trade deal than the exploitive one currently offered by the rival power. You could also use your financial resources and donated military units to sponsor a war between a more friendly subjugated nation and the nation that is providing the resource to your rival, thereby "keeping your hands clean."

Ultimately, I'm sure this stuff will eventually make it into some version of CIV. Whether that is in Civ 8 or Civ 4 I guess is up to the modding community. :)

http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/courses/WORLDSYS.HTML

The mark of the modern world is the imagination of its profiteers and the counter-assertiveness of the oppressed. Exploitation and the refusal to accept exploitation as either inevitable or just constitute the continuing antinomy of the modern era, joined together in a dialectic which was far from reached its climax in the twentieth century.
 
just bump this once to see if there are any takers.

One additional (peripherally related) mod idea.. resources should always be "up for trade" after 10 turns to the highest bidder. If a nation has been selling silver to another since 2000 BC for 1 gpt I should be able to offer 2gpt to take it away.
 
It sounds like a good idea. The point about selling resources every 10 turns or so is also a good idea. I can imagine Arabia not selling oil to the USA because we are "under the influence of a heathen religion". That article was most interesting indeed (I love history/politics/economics).
 
This has some good ideas, especially the MFN and FTAs.

But the resource trading shouldn't be up for bid to the highest bidder. That is extremely unrealistic. In fact it should be somewhat reversed with high relations and or power influencing the decision.

In real life Saudi Arabia does not sell oil to the highest bidder which would be China. They sell to us for 2 reasons. 1. because we are much less volatile and far easier to deal with than China. 2. Because it gains them influence in the world's only hyperpower.

In the highest bidder scenario PAkistan could sell uranium to India, etc.

That is also contradictory to the hegemon idea, which is a good idea. It always bothered me that a civ that I could wipe off the face of the earth in 2 turns, wasn't more worried about being my friend...
 
Well, it looks like we are going to have to wait for the SDK to know if this stuff is even possible. Until then I'm going to keep this bookmarked. Anyone who is interested in helping, testing, or whatever, please post.
 
ill test sound like a very intersesting idea indeed i hope its posible without the SDK
 
I am not a programmer (though I can code in a pinch), but having looked through some of the XML as well as pieces of the Python code, there are parts of this which perhaps could be implemented given enough willpower (!). Point by point:

1. It might help if you identified in what ways the AI does NOT behave like this currently. In the games I've played, there certainly is a "support the hegemon" effect. Perhaps what's missing is some ability for the others to band together against the leading nation(s)? If so, what's missing may not be the AI around banding together, but providing an effective mechanism for doing so. Civ leans heavily towards military rather than diplomatic options. Giving as many diplomatic options as there are military ones would be a radical rewrite of the game -- perhaps even a new game altogether. I would think about how to model diplomacy in-game using what's already there, to whit, geography + units. Can the creation and deployment of diplomatic units somehow be made more important than military units?

2. I think these would be doable given existing mod potential, but maybe not. For example, I'm not sure how Civ4 calculates trade routes; if it's in the Py code, we'd be in business. Then it'd be possible to create 2, 3, 4 tiers of trading, for example. Right now it's a very simple mechanism of # routes, but not where from (except open vs. closed). That said, I'd refer back to the first point and suggest that from a game mechanic POV, if you want diplomacy/economy to be more important, you probably need to model it using units rather than the existing commerce engine. Could you create a merchant unit that you deploy to another civ that, turn-by-turn, creates benefits for both (or one)? Such a unit would be more noticable on the board, and thereby promote its use rather than some hidden mechanic that you have to pop open the city view to see. You then also have the option of recalling or redeploying that unit. Maybe you can only have 3, or 1 per builidng of a certain kind, or limited by civic, etc.

3. Similar to 2. Note that there ARE one-way deals in Civ4, but that like reciprocal deals they're pretty B&W. If #2 can work, so can #3.

4. I'm not sure how this already isn't represented in Civ4, albeit weakly. As you adjust the culture slider up, your citizens are happier but your (civ) commerce suffers. One thing Civ doesn't (can't?) represent is the distinction between a government and its members, e.g. does the commerce you can use as a player represent GDP or national budget? (Political aside -- this is the problem Congress is now having with the Dubai port deal).

Another way to create the sliding scale is to add another civic and some options along the scale you describe.

Anyway, the hypothetical you describe is totally possible already -- it was possible in Civ3, too. Of course, a separate problem is that in Civ3+4 resources are binary -- you have them or you don't, which is not how things work in the real world. But if you want to get into reality-based resource trading then you really are talking about a different game!



Anyway, my major point is, think about how you can accomplish these tasks as much as possible using the core game mechanic of the game board and units. Heck, if you're really interested more in the socio-economic dimension than anything else, take one of the modern mods, strip out all the bogus military units and replace them with diplomacy and economic units. If you want to emphasize something, you need to de-emphasize something else, and IMHO that's the military, which Civ4 represents very poorly when you get into the modern era anyway (mostly because of civ lag since ancient times where civs are still running around with longbows). With less emphasis on military technology, there would be more on sheer size and quality (training), all of which depends on economics... you get the picture.
 
The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think a few baby steps like units representing trade missions would be fun to play with. What I like about the idea is some way of benefiting yourself lots but also the other party some. Consider the existing mechanism of the Great Merchant -- the only decision to be made in a Trade Mission is how far away to send him, making the choice between wait time and $payoff. But what if completing a mission gave you 4,000 gold AND gave the target civ 1,000 gold? Would that change your decision-making? How might other nations react to this deal?

(Mechanically, to prevent the game from getting tedious I think it'd be more sensible to send a trade mission to another nation and park him there, where he generates X gold per turn for the origin nation and X/2 or whatever gold for the target nation. See the Faces of God mod for a variant on this called the bandit unit.)
 
i agree that there is'nt too much realism in the late game strategies but this is a common flaw of a strategic game that want to simulate all the history of mankind.
Probably for this kind of mod you must strip away all the ancient units and technology and replace them with new ones also you must change the civic choices and probably how they work. This should require a big work and we must see how much can be done without the SDK.

but ... let's end with the bad news and go with the good news ... a strategic game with models the world with the Wallerstein Theory already exist it is Victoria from Paradox.

Actually Victoria is very different from Civ4 but implements some game mechanics that can be used to implement your model like:

1) There is one hegemonic power. British empire start with more point respect of others competitors. Of course it is the easier nation to play but this somewhat balanced by the score system because for winning you don't need to be the nation with the bigger number of point but the one who improved most.

2) The game span on a limited amount of time (1836 to 1920 if i remember well) where the "Wallerstein" model is more realistic.

3) social conflicts are represented in the game because your civics choiches can make some of your citizen happy and others unhappy so the convenience to switch it is usually more hard do know. How you deal with social issue is trough sliders but your civic choiches limit how much you can move the bar (i.e. with mercantilism you can't go over 30% of taxes)

4) The more technologically and political advanced nation are more sensitive to "war weariness" so for example they can't build a large army like Russian Empire or Ottoman Empire.

In my opinion for implementing this model would be better to make a scenario with almost all cities settled and starting somewhere between 1500 A.D. and
1800 A.D.
I really don't know how much this can be done changing Civ4 but i would like to see and play such scenario.
 
se7en said:
- Addition of a third slider reflecting the conflicting goals of economic competitiveness vs. social freedom. It is well established that in any society that the goals of business and the goals of the public are for the most part incompatible in the short term. This is expressed and debated more in free societies where the public has more power in that it can either demand legislation or protest directly, but since the dawn of time if the powered exploit even the weakest there is a consistent pattern of revolution (in one form or another.) CIV doesn't acknowledge this conflict within societies at all, and I think it could be an interesting facet to maintaining a nation. At the business end of the slider, there are bonuses to commerce and penalties to happiness, and at the other side penalties to commerce and bonuses to happiness. Maintaining a competative economy will require maintaining a "naturally" happy populace allowing the nation to keep this slider at the maximum.
This aspect of politics should be represented by civic options. In my idea-development mod I have used these Labor civics:

* Tribalism (default) +50% hammers in capital city.
* Slavery (Bronze Working) +20% food, can sacrifice citizens, extra unhappiness.
* Manorialism (Feudalism) +1 hammer for Farms, Pastures and Cottages.
* Labor Market (Paper) +50% worker speed, can rush-buy.
* Worker Rights (Communism) +50% Great People, +3 happiness from Hospital.

Industrialized civilizations would shift between Labor Market (sweatshops and low wages) and Worker Rights (social security and labor unions) depending on whether they need productivity or Great People and a happy workforce. If they are desperate for food and production, they can resort to Slavery, but then they would need a government type which can handle the unhappiness. Hitler and Stalin did this.
 
Now that the SDK is out is there anyone who would like to work with me on this? If one or two people respond we could start poking around in the code to see if this is possible and to what extent.
 
Back
Top Bottom