The Culture-Spreading Model

[dh_epic]

That would work. What would work too is leaving culture unto itself (as a collection of social norms, ideas, and values -- from language to food to what fork you use, let alone if you use a fork). Culture flows automatically, but gets a boost every time you trade luxuries, even technologies. It also gets a boost if you manually send a philosopher/missionary/artisan to an enemy city and they aren't killed / turned away.

Then when you're calculating how similar/different two Civs are:

- You multiply cultural difference by the hardwired ethnic differences in the game -- which they've already hardwired for civ 3.

- Then multiply that by the religious differences -- something you'll be able to choose in Civ 4, as they've already stated. Whether you're Christian or Muslim.

- And if technology doesn't already have a huge impact on who generates more culture anyway, you might as well multiply that in too. Being more advanced makes you more different.

Ultimately meaning that you will be more similar to another Civ if you're closer to them geographically (more flow), send more philosophers and artisans their way, have a simillar level of technology, and if you're part of the same hardwired culture group.

And if you're more similar to them, their people are more likely to whine when you're in trouble, forcing them to bail you out, and vice versa. Your civs will experience more war weariness when fighting one another. And yet, it will be easier to occupy their land, seeing as you're familiar with their customs and blend in quite nicely.

 

[thesmith]

I don't really understand why two civs who are part of the same cultural group shouldn't fight one another, with their citizenry cheering them on merrily. The bloodiest and most brutal wars in history have been between civilizations that have lived near each other for millenia. Germany has been the focus of horrible wars -- the Thirty Year's War, World War I, World War II -- fought with neighbors with which it shared cultural traditions, exchanging scientific, philosophic, and artistic ideas. Japan's occupation of Manchuria was brutal, but almost every aspect of Japanese culture originates in some way from importations from China, many traceable to the 3rd and 4th century.
By the same token, these wars were fought between nations with similar levels of technological development. Having similar technology does not produce understanding in and of itself. Otherwise, the Soviet Union developing the bomb would have meant peace with America, not the 40 years of the Cold War.
The European Union is not a sign of countries coming together because of mutual understanding, it was a compact created after the Second World War to prevent anything like that war ever happening again, given the long history of bloodshed between Germany and France. It works, but it has worked through hard work.
Groups should exist, but merely as a diplomatic function, say because at that moment they share a religion -- France understands that Spain needs to conquer the Aztecs, for the good of the church and those foreigners not exposed to the Gospel. This does not prevent France and Spain then fighting a brutal war with one another. It merely means that Spain's standing does not drop with France the way it does with the Maya. These things should be handled outside of cultural influence. (Which is not to say that two nations sharing a religion, next to one another, would not exchange more culture than those far apart)
Finally, culture reflects the history of a nation: A French citizen remembers the Romans and Franks, Clovis, Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, Voltaire, Marie Antoinette, Napoleon, the Impressionists, the Resistance, Haute Cuisine, Camus and thinks, yes, this is me. An Englishman thinks of Anglo-Saxons, the Norman Conquest, Robin Hood, the Hundred Years' War (and burning Joan of Arc), Shakespeare, Elizabeth I, Locke, the Industrial Revolution, Empire, Victoria, the Blitz, the Beatles and thinks the same thing. But he thinks of these things through time, through their history: how many times have you heard "[this nation] was the first to ...." The game models this with its steadily increasing culture over time. It is good. This system can be tweaked to make the game more interesting. Too much loses playability.

 

[mhIdA]

Kayak
Cultural features don´t have absolute values. In language you can´t say iranian have the value of 9 and the english valued 1. Simply dont make sense for me.
A example of my quality model:
If you are in border beteween germany and france you have some french words in german side and some german words in french side and some mixed french-german words. Implemented that in the french city you have 2 CP german culture and in german city you have 2 CP french culture and 1 CP of french-german culture in both cities for a given total of 100 CP in each city. This CP are assigned to language, and are measured by the # of citizens, improvements and luxuries in city radius.
In this sense we dont need assign numbers to language, religion, etc.
Think in the example of 'spanglish' in US. Or the Tex-Mex music. in Texas.

 

[mhIdA]

The mixed CP of the 3 kinds is given by distance and # of citizens in each 2 cities, roads, RR and the relations between the 2 civs among time.

 

[Suki]

lurker:"The first is to incorporate my idea for 'carrot and stick' into your culture sliders as well-namely that the amount of 'interest' you gain from a setting improves over time, the longer you leave that setting in place. At the same time, moving your settings within a 5 turn period actually causes you to lose x% of the culture you have accumulated-with x being based on how soon before the 5 turn limit you move it. This would actively discourage those who use MM techniques to win the game, whilst still allowing discerning players to move their settings according to need."

isn't that exactly what I said about how social engineering components should, on top of flowing like culture, have some momentum, and efficiency penalties for mislaignment.
and hou similar you feel to someone else depends not only on national culture but as much on social engineering

lurker:"but build the concept into existing concepts of Civics"

existing concept of civics? is there one? last i heard they had mentioned the word civics with no indication of what they meant by it and imaginations started going wild. But either way, culture shouldn't be something you control directly but just with social engineering(civics?) and cultural institutions.

Khan:"But rather than sliders, I'd rather have play style as a way generating Evolution,Growth & Benefits or Growth, Transmission, & Assimilation or whatever"

yeah, me too, I'm all for removing all hardwiring, the more temples you build the more religious your civ. The more mills and factories you build the more industrious you become. Plus of course a few points you can distribute as you see necessary

epic:"The culture-unit was part of the original idea, and it's been met with mixed reviews. It's not central to the culture-flow concept, but it's definitely a nice bonus if you can make it work."

the way I see the cultural units is that they should be on the same kind of playing field as great leaders.

thesmith:"refugees"

like i just said i'd prefer to see the cultural units as rare and powerful things, i'd prefer that the game deal with refugees as nothing different than the usual migration that can happen between cities, which will spike if things suddenly go wrong for one city...

mhIdA:
" The Divided or Multicultural City:
- A city with 50% of 2 civ belongs to civ who found city.
- A city only flip from native civ to foreign civ if the foreign citizens became 2/3 or 3/4 of their population.
- A city whre no civ have at least 50% of their population became a no civ city"

it can't be a hard limiter like that, the way i see it every city will have a mix of at least a little of every other culture on the map. And more inportant than how much of which culture is in a city is how well aligned the culture of the city is with the average of that and other civs.
and that there should be a hystrious band at culture flips; you have go significantly in one direction to flip and significantly back to flip back, actually it's just another form of the momentum...

mhIdA:"Jews and Arabics"
couldn't you say that ythey both use the same "ceremonial burial" tech but each developed different monotheism's
anyway I think culture produced by religions should be kept seperate from national culture. and techs should produce culture based on how much their being used and who developed it (if you get map making from the persians, you'll be making persian style maps, if you then give it to the chinese they'll be making persian style maps as well, obviously how much culture a tech produces should depend on the tech)

@Brinko
soloution:culture shouldn't decide borders. projection of power should. international agreements should. but you should loose terratory with the lost city, if i had a city on the moon i could say the region around my city is mine. if it was whyped out by an asteroid impact i can't claim that that area still belongs to me.

Kayak:
"Values 1 2 8
Customs 2 1 10
Religion 3 1 10
Cuisine 4 1 8
Language 1 1 9"

no way man. cultural space is not one dimensional, it has as many dimensions as therer are distinct cultures. also i think the culture stamps on techs would would more than do what you're trying to here. and if you don't give them their own direction, at least make the culture stamps more prominent on religious techs, and language techs also.

@Thesmith:I agree, none of it should be hardwired, and there should be some difference between what two groups think of eachother and how similar they are, but similarities should effect opinions at least.
france and england too with their hundred years war when their hardly different culturally..

 

[Suki]

Kayak
Think in the example of 'spanglish' in US. Or the Tex-Mex music. in Texas.

or the franglais here in quebec

but i don't see much use in defining "frenchgermian culture" in this example, doesn't having french and greman culture there imply the muxing, I'd only make hybrids if, like one of us was saying earlier, it was good for the data compression.

I just read over that other post, it's all over ther place (I've been saving up), if there's anything you'd like me to clarify with charts graphs or examples let me know

 

[dh_epic]

The Smith, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about implementing something that leads to greater brutality in war. I'm talking about justification and support.

When there is a key difference between two civilizations, the war is more justified. When there is more similarity, the war is seen as more barbaric. This has nothing to do with brutality.

You could get away with nuking Iraq. You couldn't get away with nuking Ireland.

In fact, some wars become so justified that they aren't even seen as war. Columbus didn't conquer America or war with the Aztecs, he "discovered it". This is because the Aztecs were so primitive that they weren't even worth mentioning.

Or how Africa wasn't conquered, raped, and pillaged. It was colonized. This is because the Africans were savages who NEEDED to be "civilized" by the enlightened Europeans.

DURING the second world war, the Germans were somewhat sympathetic. They were seen as civilized people who faught with honor and who you'd be able to get along with once the war was over. This manifested itself in the movies of the time. The Japanese were seen as much more ferocious. They were a faceless enemy with no morals. Absolutely barbaric. There was talk about wiping them out completely.

Of course we're less relativistic these days and try to avoid a subjective point of view on these matters... but back then, people were much more supportive of such conquests.

But the idea that finding some key difference (not just culture, but political ideology or religion) between Civs justifies the war, makes people more supportive of it, that's very helpful. That or the idea that the other guy started it. Self defence makes people much more supportive of war.

Straight up conquest where the reason for war is expansion, you can really only pull that off as an empire. But if everyone around you is "a barbarian", suddenly expansion is your moral obligation to the world, and you can pull it off as a Republic. That's how Rome did it.

 

[mhIdA]

ThesmithIn history the major part of conflits was between nearby, and that make sense. For a litlebit of land or/and resources, due to famine, dries that implies the deslocation of entire nations. When people of same ethnicity embrace different religions. This is same reasons why people/civs with geographically close tend much more fighting a war among them.
Different tribes of a nation tend to fight against each other and only came together when a outside people treath theyone. We see this in afghanistan against Soviet Union. Generally only when appears a great leader (Shaka of Zulus, gingis Khan in Mongolia, Xin king in China) who reunite all tribes of nation they stop fighting to each other and they leave to conquer the known world.

 

[thesmith]

dh,
I was definitely not trying to justify making war more brutal in the game. I was trying to point out that culturally similar groups do fight wars. Quite vicious wars. With the full support of their citizenry.

I know this is part of your original model, it's just the part I don't like.

One of the reasons the Conquistidors were so successful with the Aztec empire was because the other tribes hated the Aztecs, despite the cultural similarities. As subjects, they saw themselves replacing one master with another. There was no reason to help the Aztecs out: the Aztecs had been sacrificing their people to the Aztec gods for a couple centuries.

When two cultures are more similar to one another, sometimes the war is considered more justified: the Hundred Years' War was a war between two groups of French noblemen who excused their actions with the same notions of chivalrious war. The shared concept of chivalry actually encouraged war.

I think your personal concept of culture does not make a distinction between culture and race. I should add its a distinction a lot of people do make, including myself. Race is a messy issue, and racism has nothing to do with cultural or geographical distance. Hutus kill Tutsis and Tutsis kill Hutus even though they've shared their land for centuries (to the point where they speak the same language), the war in Yugoslavia was undoubtedly racist, but everyone spoke the same language and had the same heritage, and like I said, Japan was hugely influenced by China, but did horrible things, like the Rape of Nanking, because they were a 'superior race'. Or, to take another example, there was definitely something racist about Britain's treatment of the Irish, but the two nations are almost identical if you're talking about genetic heritage. Race is also knotty because a) it upsets people (often justifiably) too much to be in a game like civ (whose point of view are you going to take, the Jews or the Arabs? White or African Americans?), and b) because, if you're trying to be uber-realistic, it's impossible to say when racism started and pure national prejudice was left behind (and how would you model a post-Industrial idea of racism in a commercial game: "Sire, our scientists have discovered eugenics"?). How do you model that in the game? I don't think this is something the cultural idea can model. I don't think it's something a game should play with anyway. But that's an opinion, you're entitled to disagree. I just don't see a company looking to make a profit taking that risk.

But I'm glad we agree that justification for wars can come from other notions: political points of view and religions. I just differ with you in that I believe that the diplomacy stuff and the cultural stuff should be kept separate, that using religious or political similarities and differences can model the "cultural groups" of civ3, and that political/religious similarities alone should control the AIs' reactions to your civ. Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China had almost no cultural similarity but believed each others' wars were justified, politically. Colonialism can be modeled from religious prejudice, which was a large part of colonialism before the colonists began to try to excuse their actions with notions of racial superiority.

And I never liked the cultural groups in civ3, and I don't think there should be too much more hard wiring than what's in the game already (cultural traits and special units are about it for me, anything else would have to be really cool).

I think the question is, then, if you don't give culture this reason to be in the game, why should it be there? But if it can cause new nations to appear or can cause secessions or many of the other ideas discussed here, if it's another factor that makes the game more interesting without requiring too much micromanagement, then I think it still has quite a reasonable place in the game.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Culture does need to be revamped. Cultural builldings aren't the only thing that spread culture. Money, technology, and governments are all major roles.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, thesmith, I don't really think anyone here is saying that culture (and culture groups) should be the be all and end all of civ relationships-but they should form part of the equation. Ultimately, though, if a nation with a similar culture group has a government despised by other nations in said culture group, or if they have treated members of their populations in a hideous fashion, then this should be a major issue. Its more that, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, two nations of the same culture group will get along better than 2 nations of very different culture groups!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie is onto what I'm trying to say. Not that culture is the sole determiner of whether your people will be supportive of war, let alone that it will make it impossible to fight someone similar to you. But it's part of the equation. Sometimes I've simplified this aspect of the cultural implications just to focus on the intricasies of how culture works.

Aussie is right. At the most simple level -- if all other things between nations are equal, culturally similar nations will be more forgiving and sympathetic to one another than culturally different nations. But why stop there? That's just the basic case. Lets look at many of the other things that wouldn't be equal, and culture is a much smaller factor.

I'm no historian, but the 100 years war was instigated by the English, was it not? To me, this is a tremendous novelty that Civ 4 ought to incorporate. One of my favorite devious strategies is divide and conquer. An individual nation could have a very small cultural divide (say East and West) that's held together quite nicely. But as the nation falls on hard times, luxuries are scarce, people are hungry, and so forth, the different cultures (as opposed to ethnicities/races -- I'm talking about Northern US and Southern US, for example) begin to irritate one another. At this point an outside Nation could take advantage of a kind of espionage -- propaganda and so forth -- to instigate a civil war. Now that's fighting dirty!

The preceding was an example of how small cultural differences can be exacerbated by tough times, and outside tampering. Another factor in how cultural differences manifest is whether there is an external threat.

If you and me are fighting, we only see the things that make us different. We disagree on the cultural model, and we fight tooth and nail about it. It may even get a shade personal. Suddenly, someone rolls up and says to you "you know what? Civilization is a stupid game anyway. I can't see why anyone would want to play it." Suddenly, even though we spent the past 3 months arguing, I'm rushing to your side to defend you. "Me and thesmith disagree about a lot of things, but someone to walk in here and disrespect a great game is pretty ignorant." Suddenly, the entire Civ community is unified against this one person.

Cultural difference is relative. If your universe is a few city states, then you're probably going to be arguing with the other city states. If your universe is the entire planet, things are going to get more regional. If your universe is the actual universe with stars and planets and so forth, you again start to notice more similarities with those on your own planet.

This is how Sparta and Athens can suddenly ally with Persia looming. And you can even say this is how you can suddenly see a dotted outline of European influence, when the Near East and Islam loom in the distance. (Yes, religion should be a factor, either as a part of culture, or something seperate as it seems to be in Civ 4.) And you can see small amounts of Arab unity with Israel on the scene.

Now you would know that Sparta and Athens still had some tension after their first wars with Persia. And while Europe had internal wars after the crusades, they particularly had a few internal wars during the crusades. (So much for unity.) And we also know that Arab unity isn't exactly working out these days. These nations aren't prohibited from going to war. Their people just can't help but look at the bigger picture now and then and unify.

It's also easier to justify war when you have dictatorial control over your countrymen, and probably treat some of your countrymen as bad as you treat your enemy.

So already we're not just talking about culture, but external threats, religion, and even the amount of tyrrany of your rule.

Culture does not operate in a vacuum.

 

[Suki]

so what if you seperated out people's opinions from the culture, and made culture something like a long term memory, and current opinions the short...

like in creatures if an organ gets damaged, the currentHP (short term memory) gets knocked down and then falls back up towards the maximumHP (long term memory), while the maximum hp falls down towards the currentHP, just at a much slower rate...

let me make a graph..

the pink is their current opinion of civX, the blue is how much culture from civX they have. That jump is where civX does something hurtful, changing the public opinion from 50 to -20. It's only temporary but the public opinion never fully recovers, but ends up reaching a new equelibrium at 30 (the decay rates are 5%:2%)
and the drop in the long term opinion, is just the amount by which that event has been written into their culture, or the amount of backlash against civX culture because of that event
example: civX although an ally decides not to help out your war effort, sure tension from that doesn't last very long but the populace has converted to now calling Xfries "freedonfries"...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That sounds like a great idea, Suki ! Lets see if I understand it correctly though. If civx harms its reputation again BEFORE it can be repaired (say down to -40) then, when it equilibrates again, the culture will have come down to say 20 or 15-is that how you see it?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Linking cultural fame to your reputation/favor with another nation is a very interesting idea. It's definitely something that should be in there.

To me, though, reputation/favor should not work the same way that it did in the past Civs. In the past Civs, the AI is guided by how much they favor you, while the player can pretty much do whatever they want. I'd like to see that changed.

You, as the state, as the leader of your country, can do whatever you want with another nation. If they've been absolutely slaughtering your people, if they've been backstabbing you, you should still be able to trade technologies if you're really desperate enough to do so. Maybe you can look at their reputation -- how often they've backstabbed -- as a guide for how to deal with them, but that's your choice.

But your people determine how much they like the other nation. That has nothing to do with how much you like the other leader, although they generally won't be too far off. How much they like the foreign nation should be a factor of how many nasty things they did to your people (or culturally similar people, politically similar, religiously similar, politically similar, etc.). But it should also be a factor of how much they like your culture. If they LOVE French Fries, then they might actually be pissed off if you start something with France.

In fact, there should be a factor of how much your people like YOU. If they like your enemy better than they like you (e.g.: Nazi Germany in resistance), you're probably gonna be in a lot of trouble. If they love you, then a French invasion will be met with hostility -- destroy all French Fries! Begin the Cultural Cleansing! But if they hate you, then a French invasion might be met as a liberation!

The key to all this is a seperation between the leader of a nation and his people. Leaders can get along, while their people hate each other. A leader can hate a foreign leader, while his people LOVE the foreign nation and hope to become a part of them. Tying this in with cultural effects and similarity would make international relations ten times more interesting.

 

[mhIdA]

Suki
This is only an example, but there's the Alsatie-Loren french region whereas the city of Strasbourgh in wich changed from German and France several times who have same features from both cultures. This take us to importance of borders in the divided/multicultural cities and in the spread-culture itself. Cities in borders tend to have more interpenetration of culture. Another example lying to religion is Boznia where croats are catholics, serbs are orthodoxs and bosnians are muçulmans. Others examples is the crioulo language in Cabo Verde and Guinea-Bissau mixed by portuguese and africans. In Brazil the mixed of portuguese, african and indians also create a miscigenized population, wich give some antropholist saying about a new race, and the brazilians have also many words - mainly plants and animals - taking from native language, and they have a large italian and spanish of immigrants communities. They also have a great influence from US culture, specially in many words, that they have aportuguised, the importance of music, movies and TV in those days.

Artists
Unless the anglo-saxon artists who can have garanteed market almost in every world, in music, TV and movies the others culture artisits have more dificulty in been accept by others cultures. So, the importance I'd to the migrants, and give the portuguese migrantion as example, wich allow the portugueses artists go to countries like France, US, Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela and Australia. The idea is the emmigrantion and the migrant unit is an issue I'd like be implemented in Civ, cause is part of the movements of population that had so many importance across the history. And in the past decades with the improvement of transports they became a real problem for many societies in Europe, mainly due the cultural/religion differences between immigrants and natives.

Similarities/Differences
In early stage of history similars cultures nearby tend to fighting each others, this is the main part of Europe history even til recently, the wars that Aztecs had with their neighbours, wich allow the spanish conquest due taking advantge of that, and the many civil wars in Afrca in these days. As we see in Europe the wars is more issues between the kings and they different alliances, wich mean is more a question among the rulers than properly between peoples. Only we the advent of democracy in major part of West Europe the countries stop that wars, but that is the present historic moment.
On other hand any time the turks intend to advance in Europe several european/christian coutries ally to face them, or in the Reconquest of Iberia Peninsula against the arabs.

Assimilation/Integration
The major key to integration wich are relatively easy to occur, because the immigrants and their descendants more easilly in learn the language of the hostage countries, than other features. The assimilation occurs when the immigrants and/or their descendants become miscigenized, and in the begin occurs a hybrid culture in a part of society. Then 3 events can occur: a city flip, a multicultural city or an assimilatation - gameplaying strategies .

 

[dh_epic]

I know it's a blurry line between ethnicity and culture, but take a very simplified example of the rivalry between the Hutus and Tutsis. I may have the two confused, but the parable still stands:

Hutus and Tutsis are basically the same ethnicity. They would have a hard time telling each other apart. But the Tutsis were the people closely aligned with the belgian colonists. As such, they embraced some aspects of belgian culture more quickly than the Hutus. Once the Belgians left, the Tutsis and Hutus were significantly different. And with the country falling on hard times, a form of civil war broke out.

This is why it's important to seperate culture from ethnicity. Ethnicity changes when large groups of people fully migrate and "get it on". Culture changes simply by a transmission of ideas from a few intellectuals.

The main point: Being infiltrated by a new ethnicity can lead to the emergence of a new culture. But not the other way around -- mere ideas and values can't change someone's ethnicity.

Similarity/differences can include ethnicity, or culture, or both. We could get along because we both pray to the same god and wear the same clothes. Or we could get along because we're both black. Or for all of the above.

... you could then add political differences. Or add religious differences. Or modify culture to include religion in its "flow". Anything

Also, mhIdA, I'm not sure if you agree or disagree, but part of the point of this cultural model isn't to re-live history but to re-write history. Anachronisms are bad, but rewriting history completely would be pretty cool. Why not let China embrace Islam? Why not let them assimilate their British neighbors? If that's how the game goes, then so be it. I'd love to play the game where Africa colonizes Europe.

 

[Kayak]

no way man. cultural space is not one dimensional, it has as many dimensions as therer are distinct cultures. also i think the culture stamps on techs would would more than do what you're trying to here. and if you don't give them their own direction, at least make the culture stamps more prominent on religious techs, and language techs also.QUOTE]

I agree that culture is not one dimensional, the propblem that I was trying to address is that the computer is one dimesional. It needs numerical values in order to represent all of the issues that we are discussing here. I was attempting represent differences and similarities between different cultures by use 5 representative variables. The numbers were just chosen represent similarity or difference bewteen different culture groups. After all some are more similar than others. If two cultures intersect the resulting hybrid will will not be 50% one and 50% of the other. It will adapt aspects of each. How do you give the computer a way to see this?


@Suki I like your Idea. I think short vs long term thinking is important here.

@mhIdA The Alsace Loraine region is a perfect example of how nationalism will intersect with the culture model. Nationalism and Tribalism are closely related and they would work in similar ways.

 

[sir_schwick]

Define culture as an amalgam of various customs, cuisines, philosophies, etc. Lets define these differences, how many the number, as vectors. Now each vector would be calculated, spread, treated as an idependent entity, although the origins of the vectors may be the same. Now apply the vectors and their strengths to the demographics in a city. Now you have a culture that is unique to the city, but shares a lot in common with cutlure X, Y, or maybe even a Z as well.

 

[Suki]

If civx harms its reputation again BEFORE it can be repaired (say down to -40) then, when it equilibrates again, the culture will have come down to say 20 or 15-is that how you see it?

yeah, they should always be falling towards eachother, just the current-opinion opinion one falling faster, of course there's always the usual flow of culture in and out..

but that's your choice

causing extra general unhappieness in your cities.. but that's great..I don't know why i didn't think of also having your population's opinion of you in there also..

ok, so how would you go about seperating ethnicity or race from culture?

I agree that culture is not one dimensional

underlying math and visualisation are important to me
you put different cultures at different places on a scale from 0-10
I put the different cultures in different directions
this is the difference i mean: