The Culture-Spreading Model

[sir_schwick]

but one difference between mine and yours is that in mine the culture points only move around, they don't make any new culture points themselves... I haven't checked mine but I'm confident that if i added up the population by breed i'd only ever have the amount that was being created in the home region. If we want culture to naturally reproduce i'd prefer to have a term in the equation explicitly for that.

I just figured the 'spreading' factor as the culture in the home city divided by the resistance. Since the breed in the new city will also start sending some culture back, it creates a positive feedback loop. Fortunately most games do not go beyond 700 turns, so the point it becomes explosive growth is never reached.

In the base model it will take a few days to create, I include 'self-replication' as part of the formula and will include functions to make variable growth and culture specific resistances possible.

Just from these spreadsheets I can observe that the imported culture still takes a while to warm up and gain any presence in a city. Also, region B benefited the most from the culture and still managed to remain dominant. Also, even if missionary units could deliver 10 units of your culture to an enemy city, that 10 culture would have little effect.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is an update on "Culture Flow ABCD 1 Simulation", or what I am calling the appendum of spreadsheet, reamen, and GIF, plus test folder for trying out new variations:

For version 0.0.0.1 I have just completed outlining the Readme. It would help if anyone could get me a little copyright thingie for the CFC, so I can state their copyright.

ON the spreadsheet, I just finished setting up the labels, rows and columns. A lot of it will use color coding to help sort out data so nw actual numbers have been put in yet. This will probably take a few more hours plus time to write the Readme.

 

[refill]

It might be good to consider a lot more city improvements that add culture to cities after Cathedrals and Collesseums have been built in the middle ages. To think up a few, how about Newspapers, Restaurants, Sports Stadiums, Theatres, Clubs, Franchises, Art Galleries and Ice Rinks? In the current game all the work for a culture victory is done very early on with Ancient Era wonders and with cultural city improvements largely being rush built. When I play for culture wins now, I spend a lot of the later stages hitting enter and spacebar. And I don't take over many opposition cities with culture because those cities that have ancient cultural city improvements will not flip.

Also, other threads have often mentioned that people really want each civ to be more individual, with a focus on more UU's and culturally linked Wonders. Culturally linked city improvements might be an additional way to achieve this individual feel. Anyone for Celtic Themed Pub Chain?

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is another update on the spreadsheet. I have just finished entering in the core formulas and setting up the spreadsheet itself. A couple extra numbers that might prove useful have yet to be complete. Also, almost none of the graphs are in place yet. Hopefully I will finish the basics by the time I go to sleep.

 

[dh_epic]

Refill: a lot of people are looking for ways to individuate their Civ, but very few people want that to be hardwired. (e.g.: The Aztecs don't really have much going for them by the middle ages, or India postpones key advancements until late in the game.) What they really want is the ability to individuate the Civ as they play.

Also, the entire point of this model isn't so much to add more culture to the game as changing the way it works. The old cultural victory hinges on your ability to pump culture out, so you really can get away with one city with a bunch of ancient age wonders. The new model would require you to interact with other civilizations in creative ways to spread your glorious culture. What good is a culture if only one city cares about it?

Schwick, where the sheet at, homie?

 

[GoodGame]

Considering how much excess work (by how much longer this thread has gone) it is to sort ethnicity from culture, especially in an abstracted citizen, it's probably better to completely drop considerations of ethnicity and just consider culture.
Then a citizen's tribe is inherently their culture-type. Then the foreign-tribe people in a CIV3 city already represent a mixed-culture city. The only problem then with CIV's model is that the city is automatically owned as one culture, rather than a possible 'battlezone' or 'hybrid-zone' of culture.

So maybe an easy fix for CIV4 is to separate the cities from the tribe that founded them---i.e. let them exist even independently of the founding civ without conquest.

So a peacefully cultural-hybridizing city would actually be generating a third, new culture, from which could potentially spring a brand new tribe? The alternative is that the city becomes a battlezone with one culture oppressing the other by the guardians of the peace (military police), so that culture doesn't revolt, and eventually 'flips' to the dominant culture (as CIV3 works now).

So the solution is to allow a chance of peaceful hybridization in the absence of a military garrison (and even in the presence of one, which could lead to a true war of independence for that 'new' tribe/culture?

 

[dh_epic]

It's really not complicated to seperate ethnicity from culture. Civ 3 does it now.

 

[GoodGame]

It's really not complicated to seperate ethnicity from culture. Civ 3 does it now.

I have to say CIV3 doesn't. How do you figure? There is a difference between tribe and culture, but we pretty much agree that the CIV3 culture is really just 'cultural strength/projection'.

 

[dh_epic]

They're independent. You can have anywhere from 10 to 1000 points of your culture in a city, and have 2 or 12 foreign pop-heads.

 

[azzacanth]

I simply can't read 12 pages of this thread to see if this has been brought up already. But, I had two ideas reading the initial post. Firstly, in the case of a conquered civ, eradicated, etc. Shouldn't the culture hybridize? Obviously there are traces of moorish culture in spain. But isn't that spanish culture now? Obviously there are traces of native american (ie aztecs, mexicala, etc) culture in mexico. But isn't that Mexican culture now?


The other idea is less specific to this thread, I may post it seperately or if I can find the appropriate thread, to post it there.

 

[dh_epic]

Azzacanth, it's no problem. It's a pretty dense thread, and a discussion I like to keep having. Keeps everyone on their toes and keeps new ideas coming.

"Dead" cultures should both (1) assimilate and (2) hybridize, given enough time. But a "dead" culture should not disappear or erode instantaneously.

Assimilation. As far as I know the Aztec language isn't doing very well, and people of Aztec ancestry have adopted Spanish. This is a perfect example of assimilation, and we could see Aztec culture points disappear gradually in a game like Civ.

Hybridization. Some Aztec culture has survived, including a sense of history. For a while, then, you could say that the Spanish colonies had some Aztec culture in its borders, even if there is no more Aztec nation. This combined culture in a Spanish colony makes this region distinctly different from mainland Spain. This is an example of "hybridization". The Spanish-Aztec culture doesn't get lumped into Spanish culture, but a new kind of Latino culture. The model accounts for this as well.

If you tie this into other suggestions about "regions" or "provinces", and then add the idea of "civil war", you can see how this lays the foundation for colonialism AND independence. This is a discussion I also welcome.

(As a side note, the Greeks didn't have a Nation for a while, either, at several points in history. They were conquered by the Romans, and by the Turks. They have been victims of Empire. But their culture persisted, even if it was forever changed by their conquerors. And one day, that strength of culture allowed them to re-emerge as an independent Nation. With a culture spreading model in place, I don't think this would be much of a jump for the next Civ.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Darn, DH_Epic, you got in before me ! Needless to say, though, I agree with you on this matter. I personally think that it should be VERY HARD to assimilate foreign nationals as long as any trace of their nation still survives, which is why a model of hybridization is so important. Under such a model, you may for a long time still have those of the Aztec Culture and those of the Spanish Culture existing side-by-side. At some point, though, there is likely to be a crunch to create a new 'Latin American' Culture (which is still part of the South American Culture Group). Should the Aztecs be wiped out forever, though, then their culture will become an ever smaller part of the total 'cultural melting pot', with the rest being dominated by a mix of Spanish and Latin American. It is at such a point where those of the 'Pure' Aztec Culture will be at most danger of being assimilated-becoming whichever culture predominates in the city at the time. Is that how you see it too, DH? Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

The model does kind of take care of itself. If Spain conquers Portugal or France or Italy, more Spanish culture would flow into the new Spanish territories. But that doesn't mean Portugese, French, or Italian culture would disappear. It would erode, it would stop being pumped out and fall behind the Spanish hegemony.

But it would forever differentiate those provinces of the Spanish Empire from the core province. At least slightly. This would be even more pronounced for Spanish provinces across the Atlantic Ocean, that don't receive as much outpouring from Spain itself.

There are a lot of variables. Distance, time, also the question of whether the conquered people produced enough of a culture to leave a mark on that province long after they're gone.

The great thing about the model is that you don't spend a lot of time counting points, but you get the overall sense of similarity, difference, assimilation, and transmission.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would take a model like this but have three different types of 'culture'

1. Civ identity (includes all Civs that started in game or were created by mergers or splits whether they have an empire or not..also includes 'Local') this is the Civ 'player' the culture feels comfortable with

2. 'Religion' (Non-Civ based Cultural Identity...minimal 'real effect' except for additional relatedness between various cities and civs)

3. Government..real effect ie the people in that city will want a certain type of government

For each of these I think the model should Largely be Drift and Osmosis ie Largely random changes with some effects that push them in particular directions.

Culture should primarily be the means by which you truly 'get' cities. A military can occupy and suppress a city but that should be inefficient unless the city is eventually assimilated. The methods of making a city 'useful' should be
1. having a strong culture and assimilating the city
2. forcing the city to your culture (almost as bad as raze/recolonize because a city in that position will be very rebellious) (basically the military option)
3. appeasing the city (essentially the diplomatic option)

The advantages of #1 and #3 is that you don't have to militarily control the city to do that.

In my perspective all ways of "Winning" the game should involve 'domination' of the globe (or leaving it) the issue is in what way do you dominate those cities, by making them like you are (cultural), by making them like you (diplomatic), or by unmaking and remaking them (military)


As for Hybridization, I'd prefer to leave it out...I'd actually prefer random drift
So that every turn some fraction of the culture points in a city change from one type to another (where both the type eliminated and the type it turns into are proportional to their ratios inside the city)

So that in a City with
600 Spanish points and 100 Aztec points and 300 Local points

5 points (based on techs+buildings) have a 60% chance of being subtracted from the Spanish and a 10% chance of being subtracted from the Aztec and a 30% chance of being subtracted from the Local (to clarify only 5 points and exactly 5 points are eliminated..it merely 'rolls' to see from who)

8 points (5 that were eliminated +3 from neutral cultural buildings) then have a 60% chance of being added to the Spanish and a 10% chance of being added to the Aztec and a 30% chance of being added to the Local.

This means the ratios would Roughly remain the same but would wander about

Governmental culture from whatever Civ controls the city is slowly added as well (meaning that even if it wandered down to 0, there would be a new source)

The Aztec culture eventually, randomly, gets eliminated even if Mexico City Declares independence from Spain (in which case some of the Local culture become Mexico culture and it now increases)

When an EU civ is truly formed, a small fraction of Spanish, etc. culture in those cities becomes European (and Spanish culture slowly, randomly changes away into other forms as there is nothing to encourage its growth anymore... just like the Aztec)


Essentially you would have 4 types of effects from techs /buildings
1. Randomly subtracted (the 5 in the example)
2. Random added (the 8 in the example)
3. Directional adding (can be paired with Randomly subtracted for a zero-sum change)
4. Osmosis

The Ratio of Culture points would then Determine what the Citizenry makeup was.

This model can also be used for religions (with the directional adding being based on not what Civ you are but what religion the building is built as..or what religion you are sponsoring for effects...or sometimes just as an effect assigned to the religion)

For governments... the government that you are would probably get directional adding, but some events could add to other governments.

 

[dh_epic]

The foundation of the model is osmosis. So we're definitely in agreement there.

But I find myself surprisingly into the "local culture" thing. Cities producing local culture is an important step to modeling conflict between your own citizens, and even planting the seeds for seccession. Local culture may be more important the hybridization, in this regard. I know other people have pointed it out before, but you're the first to suggest something truly constructive. Thank you.

The question, then, is how do you minimize the amount of "local culture" that a city produces? Obviously, the further out from your capital, the less national and more localized the cultural production. In theory, though, a perfectionist player should be able to build slowly and intelligently enough to keep his empire unified. ... how?

 

[mhIdA]

Local culture don't exclude hybridization or osmosis. If local culture is tied to assimilitation of a good hut/barb camp/minor civ or a captured city. What is more powerfull? Local culture, hybridization or osmosis. With a situation like that a city could have a strong sense of autonomy or independence, even they coexist peacefull. If remains strong factions of a culture in a city and coexistence is not peacefull the weak cultures could leave or fight.

 

[sir_schwick]

Cultural Corruption and in fact all corruption could work under a 'local diversion' model. Instead of losing those shields, culture, or trade, they are simply diverted to the local city and their whimsy. This means that their are no more failed states, just states you have to negotiate with to produce what you want produced.

 

[dh_epic]

True, it doesn't have to exclude hybridization effects either.

Sir Schwick is smart in comparing local culture to corruption. In which case, it's a matter of making choices that not only improve culture, but reduce cultural corruption. Buildings, wonders, governments. But how about branches on a tech tree, or social engineering, or new kinds of weariness? Those could affect 'culture corruption' or 'localization' too.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

An idea I would put forward is that 'Civ Cultural Effects' (including buildings/techs/governments/settings, etc.)
do one of two things

1. Increase 'osmosis' generally good because Osmosis can unify your people (all of your cities a little unhappy because they sympathize with the Egyptians is better than one city Seriously annoyed.)

2. Increase how much culture generated in a City is Random (ie doesn't affect the balance one way or another) or Directed (towards/away from you of course)

So if your people are very unhappy with your civ a certain amount of your culture may actually be decreased and randomly sent arount (if they are all Solid babylonians, then the culture balance won't change much but any local or foreign culture would have a tendency to increase under those conditions)

 

[dh_epic]

Happiness would have an impact for sure. If your people aren't happy, there's less culture generated. This would be especially true of people suffering war weariness.

But I also want to see war and hostility have an impact. If Caesar is absolutely livid with Egypt, then a lot of Romans will start to hate Egypt too, and cultural osmosis will slow down. (That is unless Romans hate Caesar! Then they might actually embrace Egyptian culture!)