Remember when culture levels were more widespread? It eventually was discarded on several grounds, including its poor use (IIRC, it had to do with decreasing revoltrisk among certain segments of the population more than anything else). I'm also very unsure that anything approximating an objective measure of anybody's culture can be developed, and consider that particular part of the original rules to be a load of hogwash. Also, I don't know if the way you planned to implement it (tying culture to other elements of the stats) would be very helpful at getting people to do stuff like write stories or invest in state patronage.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
New NESes, ideas, development, etc
- Thread starter das
- Start date
Well it is true you cannot objectively judge culture, but you can say which cultures seem to be the most dominant at the time. For instance, American and British music is much more widespread then Nepalese music. A higher culture rating wouldn't so much judge whether or not the culture was good, but rather how widespread it was.
Also, Culture in this would not be so much about decreasing revolt and helping your economy (Though I would like a system where it would to a minor degree) as it would be a completely independent way to judge your nation against the other. For example, at the end of the NES, Germany may have largest empire, but might not have accomplished as much as, say Belgium in their contribution to world music or literature.
If you read, the rules, I think it actually does help increase state patronage, but you are correct on that it might actually hinder story development, taking out one of the key elements of Never Ending Stories. A way to tie this in with a cultural development system in an objective way would be key but I'll admit I currently have no idea on how to best do this.
Overall I do understand your points, but I am not happy ignoring something as important as cultural development just because we can't think of a way to accurately portray it at the moment.
The problem is defining what has influenced what. Ought "Jamaican culture" be extraordinarily high because of the influence Marley et al have had on virtually every modern artist since the 1980s? (Yes, I exaggerate some. But not that much.
)Yeah, I understand, and I tried to contrast it with your approach (guess that language was epic fail on my part).bombshoo said:
I suppose the research part does count as a patronage type thing but I'm pretty uncomfortable with the formulation of research in general.bombshoo said:
Which is a very good point. I'm pretty sure das has had ideas on how to work it for his IANES Project of Nebulousness which Sadly Never Seems to Get Any Closer. I myself am a bit frustrated with the whole thing too, but I've only got the imagination to try to shoot down other proposals, not make any good ones of my own.bombshoo said:
Refer to my NES for an attempt to answer some of those questions
Why in any case try to quantify a thing which by nature is unquantifiable?
I will check it out, but to answer your question...Though most NESers are very well versed in history, geography and social studies in general, when it comes to cultural phenomena, something that I don't think can be stressed enough in the development of world history, I find we are as a whole, pretty clueless.
While I agree that something like this might seem unquantifiable, so is a good amount of other things we attempt to assign a number (Such as factions in BirdNES). For that matter the amount we simplify nearly every trait on here is rather unrealistic when you think about it, but in the name of playability we make sacrifices, and that is all I am really attempting to do.
Just because we have not yet came up with a good way of developing these aspects in an NES doesn't mean we shouldn't try especially when I think it could add so much to a game and be such an educational experience at the same time. Like I said I don't want to make any attempt to define which cultures are better then others, simply how widespread they are and their over all influence on the happenings of global events.
The problem is defining what has influenced what. Ought "Jamaican culture" be extraordinarily high because of the influence Marley et al have had on virtually every modern artist since the 1980s? (Yes, I exaggerate some. But not that much.
Actually that was sort of the point of the whole thing. It would make playing a nation like Jamaica (Since that is our example) have some chance of accomplishing something in an NES where they have to compete with nations such as Russia, USA and the UK. Though if we do base the spread of a nation's cultural achievements on things such as economic influence and population size, then the larger nations should naturally be higher (which is somewhat realistic), small nations still have a much greater chance of having an impact.
My main thing with the research, was that it was more just an advancement naturally achieved once your nation reached a certain level of education and political or economic freedom for instance. (Different things would be achieved through a certain combination of traits....Dictatorship and slavery might even be a trait needed for some developments for instance). Like I said though, I wasn't horribly satisfied with that, and I thought the best aspect of it was it forced players not to ignore cultural development entirely.
Culture is something people don't want to change over a short period of time. It tends to be one constant we don't as a group like to deal with, we might approximate it but it invariably ends up on roughly the same track as OTL. We can't really simulate decade long cultural shifts... most NESs don't last that long and even year on year cultural changes are often beneath our notice. It's a question of time frame and the distance between point A and B. I should also note that as we get closer to today the speed of cultural change increases...
It's not just that its unquantifiable, its just that it doesn't matter enough in most NESs to be worth simulating. I agree that in decade long turns or in BTs we could really push for it to be used as it should...
Nations are going to ignore culture irregardless we are dealing overwhelmingly with players who would fit well into the Soviet Union for economic and political control. You can get the cudgel out day one... but players don't like being punished for things they overlook
It's not just that its unquantifiable, its just that it doesn't matter enough in most NESs to be worth simulating. I agree that in decade long turns or in BTs we could really push for it to be used as it should...
Nations are going to ignore culture irregardless we are dealing overwhelmingly with players who would fit well into the Soviet Union for economic and political control. You can get the cudgel out day one... but players don't like being punished for things they overlook
das
Regeneration In Process
I don't think culture should really be in the stats (or, at least, the nation stats). Technically, culture is amorphous enough a concept as it is; I find it a superior idea to chop what we usually seem to understand under it here into components and disperse them throughout the nation and world stats. Ethno-linguistic components are probably ultimately best served by a map; (pre-4th century AD) religion actually doesn't work all that well on a map, and should be covered in the world stats or better yet be given separate religion stats of some sort (and only referenced in the nation stats via "dominant cult(s)", where appropriate); and the idea that you might've confused with it is Grandeur, which is like a combination of a greatly reworked Prestige and of traditional Culture in its influence, in that it measures one's cultural influence and political impressiveness and so affects the way your neighbours commonly percepts you. PC rulers can always try and ignore it, but their advisers, ministers and generals, and people, won't (though one should note that a nation with high Grandeur is always a tasty target for those seeking to usurp that, and the people will generally understand if this seems achievable). Basically, China traditionally had very high Grandeur, as had the Roman Empire, and later the Pope. The French had certainly invested a lot into it as well in different periods. If you look at each example, you will see that it was not a cure-all, that many had managed to overcome it, and that both this and the two-edged sword nature of Grandeur had helped the fall of many dynasties, but nonetheless a certain very important factor was there and impossible to ignore. Grandeur could be raised naturally due to high culture, through investment into palace-building and other "wonders" (Grandeur is an inevitable side-effect of that last one, anyway), and through momentous achievements like some really loud victories or just conquering large area and showing that you can hang on to it as well (setting up stelae to boast of your conquests helps!).
And, ofcourse, player control over culture should roughly equal ruler control over culture, which mostly amounts to patronage on one hand and banning stuff (like the Hu'ut theatre, NK ) and persecuting those involved on the other. That certainly will alter the way your culture develops, but probably not in the way you had expected (for one thing, banning the Hu'ut theatre would've likely resulted in it reforming in the extensive "underground", or rather in the countryside in the form of traveling troupes, and thus likely becoming all the more perilous; on the other hand, the city will be calmer after the initial disturbance).
And, ofcourse, player control over culture should roughly equal ruler control over culture, which mostly amounts to patronage on one hand and banning stuff (like the Hu'ut theatre, NK
) and persecuting those involved on the other. That certainly will alter the way your culture develops, but probably not in the way you had expected (for one thing, banning the Hu'ut theatre would've likely resulted in it reforming in the extensive "underground", or rather in the countryside in the form of traveling troupes, and thus likely becoming all the more perilous; on the other hand, the city will be calmer after the initial disturbance).My point was something similar to this (the only thing that the Jamaican authorities did to promote the music during its genesis was to create Trenchtown in the first place) and attempting to note the silliness of attributing anything Bob Marley did to his government. That's not my view of how a state should be played in a NES; this is of course where we may get into an ideological divide, but there you have it.And, ofcourse, player control over culture should roughly equal ruler control over culture, which mostly amounts to patronage on one hand and banning stuff (like the Hu'ut theatre, NK
Culture is something people don't want to change over a short period of time. It tends to be one constant we don't as a group like to deal with, we might approximate it but it invariably ends up on roughly the same track as OTL. We can't really simulate decade long cultural shifts... most NESs don't last that long and even year on year cultural changes are often beneath our notice. It's a question of time frame and the distance between point A and B. I should also note that as we get closer to today the speed of cultural change increases...
It's not just that its unquantifiable, its just that it doesn't matter enough in most NESs to be worth simulating. I agree that in decade long turns or in BTs we could really push for it to be used as it should...
Nations are going to ignore culture irregardless we are dealing overwhelmingly with players who would fit well into the Soviet Union for economic and political control. You can get the cudgel out day one... but players don't like being punished for things they overlook
Again, just because most NESes fail to do something, doesn't mean it should be ignored. It does very much matter, the culture of the 60s greatly changed the political climate for example, and yes the notices are minimal, they do add up. It is simply a matter of finding a way to show this, something I believe is possible, at least to the degree an NES accurately portrays anything else. There also is such thing as wide scale cultural shifts. Often brought upon by the influence of a major cultural event or technology (Television, the Vietnam War, etc).
Of course how these new aspects in cultural development will change things can be predicted somewhat (As you said even OTL we follow a track to an extent). Trends do occur...For example in Art, philosophy and music (And many other things), if you want to predict the next trend in a way, you simply look at a previous trend that is the most opposite of what is currently popular and combine it with new influences; Romanticism as the antithesis of the Enlightenment for example.
I don't think culture should really be in the stats (or, at least, the nation stats). Technically, culture is amorphous enough a concept as it is; I find it a superior idea to chop what we usually seem to understand under it here into components and disperse them throughout the nation and world stats. Ethno-linguistic components are probably ultimately best served by a map; (pre-4th century AD) religion actually doesn't work all that well on a map, and should be covered in the world stats or better yet be given separate religion stats of some sort (and only referenced in the nation stats via "dominant cult(s)", where appropriate); and the idea that you might've confused with it is Grandeur, which is like a combination of a greatly reworked Prestige and of traditional Culture in its influence, in that it measures one's cultural influence and political impressiveness and so affects the way your neighbours commonly percepts you. PC rulers can always try and ignore it, but their advisers, ministers and generals, and people, won't (though one should note that a nation with high Grandeur is always a tasty target for those seeking to usurp that, and the people will generally understand if this seems achievable). Basically, China traditionally had very high Grandeur, as had the Roman Empire, and later the Pope. The French had certainly invested a lot into it as well in different periods. If you look at each example, you will see that it was not a cure-all, that many had managed to overcome it, and that both this and the two-edged sword nature of Grandeur had helped the fall of many dynasties, but nonetheless a certain very important factor was there and impossible to ignore. Grandeur could be raised naturally due to high culture, through investment into palace-building and other "wonders" (Grandeur is an inevitable side-effect of that last one, anyway), and through momentous achievements like some really loud victories or just conquering large area and showing that you can hang on to it as well (setting up stelae to boast of your conquests helps!).
And, ofcourse, player control over culture should roughly equal ruler control over culture, which mostly amounts to patronage on one hand and banning stuff (like the Hu'ut theatre, NK
I do think a trait like "Grandeur" probably can be done to some extent with it largely by affected by Culture. However I also want to consider some way of showing dissemination of culture and the natural development of types of cultural aspects in certain areas due to the political and social climate. This would possibly make banning certain things (such as the Hu'ut theater) have effects even after it was "dealt with".
Well I suppose I see your point and you might be right about the ideological divide, but I also am not implying I want to create a system where Jamaica gets a dozen extra economic points because of one artist. Simply that it does give the nation some kind of prestige (Grandeur as Das mentioned), and if the country's culture does gain broad enough appeal it possibly should get an economic bonus. (In a proper NES, this would be to the overall nation getting the bonus, not necessarily the government's spending capabilities, though this would indirectly make them slightly richer sometime in the future). I suppose if an NES were set up like this and you had little interest in playing a nation that had to emphasize cultural growth to achieve something, other options such as more military oriented nations would be available.
bombshoo said:
The one built upon the other.
I agree with the whole notion of making culture important... but I disagree with quantifying it. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm attempting it, I'm just saying in the vast majority of cases its irrelevant or adds minimal utility.
Sounds difficult to track, extremely difficult to quantify (which is my point, I don't like quantification of this sort of thing), and I will probably disagree with its implementation.
I did mention that new influences (though I did fail to say from the previous trend) do affect "counterculture" trends.
Sounds difficult to track, extremely difficult to quantify (which is my point, I don't like quantification of this sort of thing), and I will probably disagree with its implementation.
I suppose I simply find quantifying it in some way the most fair way of implementing it even though there might be ways that seem naturally better (whether they really are or not). I'll even admit I might turn away from trying to create a ruleset this way if I am consistently dissatisfied. I'm fine you you disagreeing with most of this, as it only encourages me (and anyone who wants to try along with me) to try and perfect it as much as possible. I wholly believe criticism is the foundation of good work and I'll keep posting ideas, with hopes of finding a system that you and Masada and any others can agree is an accurate and compelling way to portray something of this complexity. It might be difficult to come up with something like I am describing, but I really think it has the chance to add a lot to an NES if done right. The only thing I ask is that people don't tell that it is impossible or to quit trying, as that never gets us anywhere.
das
Regeneration In Process
It's difficult to integrate that into the immediate gameplay (unless you want to give greater power to the players). Maybe this isn't something that could or even should be covered in stats; personally I was thinking of making occasional "macrocultural" updates, since there often is no good way to fit the development of Persian epic literature into the overall politics-centered narrative.
Um, why? Economy is usually one of the last things to be affected by this (except in some specific, usually religious cases). China is a very good example of how high culture need not equal prosperity (or if it does, then it usually works the other way around); there are many others.
Das said:
I tend to notice that literature follows the prevailing notions of useful things like Kingship and the role of the Monarch and that's how I'm working it... or trying to
Time is the key factor here yet again. A to B needs to be of a sufficient distance for things to work updating concurrently year on year will not generate much in the way of new content.
*
Thus did the winds of progress blow in and the dust of ancient stagnation pass.
I would not want to integrate it into player stats as much as I would into some kind of World Stats, that details demographics and economic trends to an extent. Actually the "Macrocultural" updates was something that did come to mind, perhaps at the end of every decade in a more modern NES; more of just a recap of some of the significant cultural developments of the time...My problem with this was I didn't know a way to make it have any real meaning to the players and not just writing for my own enjoyment (which I suppose is fine, but not quite what I was looking for).
This is more of a modern phenomena where the popularity of certain aspects of one's culture actually do contribute somewhat to the economy (though the two play off each other to an extent), such as the United States with music, television and movies, or Japan with video games, and to an extent television and music as well, especially in Asia. I suppose a good way to look at it would seem that you don't need prosperity to contribute to your culture (Or vice-versa), but once you do have both high culture and powerful economy, it does help with its dissemination, which is more what I am emphasizing rather then the strength of the culture itself. I will admit I don't know exactly how much those factor into the overall GDP of a nation, and might be negligible; it was just a thought)
You just need to tie it firmly to the happenings in the updates. If you have a musician who turns out prodigious pro-Imperialist content that might shape the context of the period such that the nations affected might be induced to do some conquering. Chuck in a few lines and you have a potent casus belli walking around propagandizing your plebs. Of course the next one that comes along might be a raging hard peacnik and then your in trouble
Quantifying that will of course be a pain in the ass... its better to just put fingers to keyboard and tap out roughly what Author A) means to the nation or what Artistic Tradition B) means.
Quantifying that will of course be a pain in the ass... its better to just put fingers to keyboard and tap out roughly what Author A) means to the nation or what Artistic Tradition B) means.
Dude, you sound like Harvey Dent. (Spoiler alert? Nah.)
Meh, sometimes. While a lot of literature can be on important social/political/etc. trends (The Octopus, Fathers and Sons, The Jungle, Lysistrata, and so forth...a whole host), some of it doesn't have a very obvious connection at all.I tend to notice that literature follows the prevailing notions of useful things like Kingship and the role of the Monarch and that's how I'm working it... or trying to
The Rāmāyaṇa is a good example of rewriting to suit the prevailing political climate (Kingship got a major inclusion in later versions ). It's just a single means of working cultural elements in, in such a way that they add to the broader narrative without sticking out to obviously
). It's just a single means of working cultural elements in, in such a way that they add to the broader narrative without sticking out to obviously Then what's up with the Argonautika?The Rāmāyaṇa is a good example of rewriting to suit the prevailing political climate (Kingship got a major inclusion in later versions
(Or the Questions of Ptolemaios Philadelphos...)You just need to tie it firmly to the happenings in the updates. If you have a musician who turns out prodigious pro-Imperialist content that might shape the context of the period such that the nations affected might be induced to do some conquering. Chuck in a few lines and you have a potent casus belli walking around propagandizing your plebs. Of course the next one that comes along might be a raging hard peacnik and then your in trouble
Quantifying that will of course be a pain in the ass... its better to just put fingers to keyboard and tap out roughly what Author A) means to the nation or what Artistic Tradition B) means.
Of course, but I'd also like some way for the player themselves to decide what Author A) means and also how Author A) will affect a nation 500 miles away twenty years later. (Yes I know very very difficult). Regardless I would need some sort of way to keep track of all this, even if it was "For mod's eyes only" stats of some kind.
Last off topic discussion I had involving Batman got me a warning from the mods. Be careful.
