The Culture-Spreading Model

[dh_epic]

Finding a way to move from individual cultures like Roman and Greek, to hybridize form Greco Roman... to combine with German and French to form European... to split off into America and form "Western"... it's certainly a gameplay challenge but not unresolvable. To me, it would work automatically, not unlike the way file-compression works.

Imagine a few French cities and a few Chinese cities, right next to each other. There's been some cultural intercourse over the past few centuries, and so some French people have embraced Chinese ideals, Chinese food, Chinese customs, and vice versa.

Paris: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (20 French Culture)
Beijing: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (20 Chinese Culture)

Cologne: FFFFFFFFCC (8 French, 2 Chinese)
Taiwan: CCCCCCCCFF (8 Chinese, 2 French)

Normandy: FFFFFCCC (5 French, 3 Chinese)
Tibet: CCCCFF (4 Chinese, 2 French)

We can apply a substitution of F+C=VV (French + Chinese = 2 hybrid culture points "V")

Now:

Paris: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (20 French Culture)
Beijing: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (20 Chinese Culture)

Cologne: FFFFFFVVVV (6 French, 4 ???)
Taiwan: CCCCCCVVVV (6 Chinese, 4 ???)

Normandy: FFFFFCCC (2 French, 6 ???)
Tibet: CCVVVV (2 Chinese, 4 ???)

And this would all happen automatically.

What would the implications be? Well take a look at Normandy and Tibet. They're kind of disputed cities, no? In fact, if France invaded Tibet, or China invaded Normandy, they'd be able to convince the international community that they're taking what is rightfully theirs and it is not an act of aggression. Or if France is being a jerk to a city, they might join China having a lot culturally in common with them. Or a new "V" civilization might emerge as a splinter of China/France.

It's quite simple to implement.

 

[Trade-peror]

This culture system is interesting. For your example, I would like to know what 1 "unit" of culture stands for. Does it represent 1 citizen of that culture? If so, then might it make more sense that rather than F+C=V, that F converting to C would make V and C converting to F would make W? Otherwise, French people embracing Chinese culture and Chinese people embracing French culture would be of the same culture!

 

[Jon Shafer]

The 'units' are just that... they're generated by whatever means there is of generating them. Just like a city needs 10 "culture" to expand borders now in Civ 3.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, thats how I read it too Trip. The way I see it is that once a foreign culture reaches a reasonable fraction of the native culture, then you have a chance of a cultural 'crunch'-amalgamating the twin cultures into a more 'regional' variety with slightly less loyalty to either of the parent cultures.
The other possibility is that the ratio of cultures would also effect the proportion of NEW population created that belongs to one culture or another.

So, in the case of Cologne post 'culture-crunch', 60% of all NEW people that originate in that city will be French, whilst the other 40% will be of this new 'Sino-Gallic' ethnicity. All other things being equal, of course.

In fact, this is probably the point at which ethnicity and culture divide-as the city is still predominantly FRENCH in culture, but conists of three distinct ethnicites-Gallic, Sino and Sino-Gallic. It is an abstraction still, but one which comes closer to representing how culture and ethnicity really work!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In regards to 'all other things being equal' that would be where nationalism and birth rates come into it. For instance, if France had a high Nationalism, then the amount of Chinese culture required to result in a 'culture-crunch' would be much higher (also, the amount of Chinese culture getting in would be less). In addition, there would be a higher chance of any existing, and new, population belonging to the Sino ethnic group 'becoming' Gallic-in line with the culture of the city-or simply disappearing all together (due to forced assimilation policies).

Birth rates would have an effect as well because, if the Chinese nation had a higher than average birth rate, then more new people of 'Sino' extraction would appear than the division of culture would seem to indicate!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Exactly -- culture points are not particularly different from how they are in Civ 3 except that they're now tied to national origin, and they naturally move between cities by a "cultural osmosis". This cultural osmosis can be aided or hindered by how you interact with other empires.

Of course, it's not as simple as "once France takes on Chinese culture, it's a part of French culture". The idea here is to create a system where Greece can leave its mark on America. Look at all the cultural pecularities America owes to ancient Greece. Clapping at a performance originated way back when, and is now one of those things we take for granted in our society. Is clapping American, or is it Greek? The distinction is blurred by history.

A culture point is an abstraction that represents a single "meme" of this kind, such as clapping, or noodles, or abstract art, or Plato's theory of the world. Abstraction is just a necessity in a game like Civ, and thus it renders all culture equal.

In a Civ session that plays out as the real world's history, it's conceivable that some of those ancient Greek cultural aspects (like clapping and words like "rhetorical" or "helium" and the basic storytelling form) will mix with so many other cultures that they will congeal together with other cultures to become "Greco-Roman", "European" or even "Western" culture points. The points that aren't "cancelled out" make up that nation's unique cultural identity.

So sure, if France and China are neighbors and cities begin to transmit words back and forth (the word "laissez faire" breaks into Chinese culture, and mahjong catches on in France)... Enough of these kinds of exchanges, and the system may see fit to say "well, that's no longer unique to France, and that's no longer unique to China. But they are unique to a few French and Chinese cities. Let's designate those as a new hybrid culture that France and China share, but few other Civilizations have embraced".

You could even do three way hybridization, or four way if there's enough "cancelling out".

 

[Trade-peror]

Thanks to all who tried to clarify for me, but note that I asked

For your example, I would like to know what 1 "unit" of culture stands for.

rather than what a culture point means in general. I would not even fathom trying to precisely quantify something as abstract as culture, so I agree with all of you regarding that matter. However, in dh_epic's example, I wanted to know whether it was two different culture points being blended into two hybrid culture points, or two people of different cultures being blended into two people of a hybrid culture.

 

[dh_epic]

Trying to be helpful. Pardon my rants. I can sometimes get really passionate about something I care about, so I love going into detail.

But the key with culture is to seperate it from ethnicity. The idea that two nations can be ethnically different, but one nation can culturize/civilize the other on its own terms. The ethnicity of the other nation stays largely the same, but they start to embrace the music, the fashion, the attitudes and life philosophies of the "civilizer". Like Alexander Hellenizing the Near East (BC), or China Civilizing the Mongols (Middle Ages), or Europe Christianizing the Vikings (Dark Ages), or the Americanization of Japan (20th Century).

That's what culture is about. Not about building something up within your borders, but transmitting something, almost like a virus. Does yours have what it takes to spread beyond international barriers?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, T-P, I think that what he was trying to say is that 1CP in the model presented here is very similar, if not identical, to a CP in civ3. What changes here is the many in which Culture travels in this model. Notably via a passive flow, from areas of high to low-which will normally effect cities at the margins of a nation. Then there is the 'semi-active' forms of culture spread, via immigration and trade, where every unit of population and/or trade goods brings a % of that nations culture with it. This kind of 'culture' will effect the city to which the immigrants move or, in the case of trade, effect all cities in the nation that are on the trade network.
The active form of culture spread is where you use your intelligence network to 'plant' a cultural enclave in a foreign city. This can then become a conduit for increased culture flow into that city (and possibly beyond, via the passive method mentioned above).

As for regionalism. I think that DH_Epic IS referring to culture points from two different civs HYBRIDIZING to form a wholly new kind of culture, and that a certain % of new-borns in that city will identify with this new regional culture. If you need evidence of such a thing in real life, look at the Borders of Switzerland, and/or the Basque region between France and Spain, or the Tirolean peoples on the borders of Italy and Austria! Of course, thats NOT to say that the other forms of culture do not exist anymore-as they will continue to grow alongside this new reigional culture (but this regional could end up 'drowning out' the old cultures which created it!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Synergy67]

This in an intriguing debate on culture and its possible roles in Civ 4 and beyond. Maybe it would be helpful to think again some more about what culture really is and does in nations. It includes values, beliefs, religion, science, leisure pursuits, philosophical perspectives, customs, and many other things. It makes countries uniquely flavored, and it also strongly shapes the way things are thought about and how they get done. It affects how desirable that nation is either in terms of international respect or as a place others might want to live.

One way to make culture more important and not just be able to ignore it completely by going the warfare route is to have culture and cultural commonalities fairly strong incentives between nations to cause them to favor one another...the desire to collaboratively preserve and promote your way of life in the world. Religion and political systems would figure most strongly into this, but would include other factors.

So, if a nation in Civ is going to go the militarily aggressive route and neglect cultural development, those nations devoting more resources and pursuits to culture should naturally be inclined to band together in resistance and opposition, diplomatically and culturally. Moreover, conquered cities should for a long time be hard to handle and subdue...they should be very likely to try to revert to the culture they came from. Strong and costly military or other kinds of suppression could work, but it should be punishing to the conqueror enough that it’s not a convenient or easy route to take continually in the long run and hope to win.

Also, I think culture shouldn’t just be quantitative (if I have enough more culture than you, your border city is likely to flip), but the kind of culture shaped by religion and government would affect diplomacy significantly. Moreover, I think cultural strength and richness over time should translate into a happier and smarter population and maybe more productive as well, and definitely more effective commercially. Other local advantages would likely apply as well, but I’m not thinking of them at the moment, except that I think rate of growth could increase as well...as in immigration. Other nations may begin to lose population from cities and not just border cities necessarily, to a culturally dominant nation with much more favorable conditions, which typically result from long periods of peace and building.

To neglect culture in the long run would mean much of the world disfavoring you highly and losing increasing population to defection and emigration. You could rule with an iron fist, but the tighter you squeeze, the more is going to slip through your fingers ultimately. There are reasons no one has ever successfully conquered the entire world. Civ is kind of fun in that that is a possibility, but it should not be easy at all to accomplish. The resistance factors should become very high the closer you get to doing it, rather then the reverse. It is amazing at times what oppressed underdogs can do when they band together in the face of dangerous oppression to resist great powers. Subversion acts like sabotage, terrorism, and other covert activiites can grind down a superpower’s means to just conquer everything. This kind of resistance would be fostered by a strong, desirable culture. If you lacked much culture yourself, when attacked by others, your own resistance would be poor and your populations would be more readily assimilated by enemies.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I think the easiest way to think of things is THIS:

1) Ethnicity is a factor of both (a) your culture group (Western European, Eastern European, South Asian etc) and (b) your 'nationality' (Greeks, Romans, Chinese, French).

2) Culture points, on the other hand, reflect only your nationality and/or religion.

Therefore, if you have a hybridization of culture points, this will change the national identity of a city's citizens, whilst not completely changing their ethnicity-as their culture GROUP will remain the same. So, to use DH_Epics example of Cologne, the people of this city will identify themselves as 'Sino-Gallic', yet will still be clearly identifiable as belonging to the Western European culture group. One from a city like Shanghai, though, will retain their East Asian culture group-even though they identify as 'Sino-Gallic' as well! For the sake of avoiding racial discrimination, I think that 'cultural hybridization' would end at that point. Now, the question which should be asked is, what if Cologne were to be captured by China?? Although the national identity and ethnicity of the existing population should remain as is, should all new 'Sino-Gallics' belong to the East Asian Culture group, or to the Western European culture group-or should there be a split between the two?

Lastly, I think that how closely a culture group is to another should influence the level at which cultural hybridization could occur. So, for instance, a West European city which borders a nation from the East European culture group would require a lower ratio of foreign to native culture, before hybridization could occur, than a West European city bordering an East Asian nation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Suki]

I guess I missed this thread the first time it was around, I'm glad it got bumpped or I might not have ever.

this ended up very long, I read the whole thing...

anyway, i had thought of this and worked out a lot of the basics for this a long time ago,
but did a few things very differently..

first was treating the automatic part of the culture flow differently
osmosis is flow of solvent across a semi permiable membrane..
I think the culture should just be flowing *out* from each city (plus maybe a little bit of leak or decay), so it ends up a lot more like heat transfer or diffusion,

second i also combined the automatic and semi-active modes; culture flows out but out to where? well that depende on local geography, roads, sea ways, and *trade routes*. not just tile distance but terrain distance, path length, how hard it is to move a unit from one to the other.

I also did most of my thinking about how much of which cultures have accmulated where in terms of vectors, one direction for each existing culture, so the so it's easy to think of the total cultural length that a city has, or the angular difference between two cities cultures, or the projection of one culture onto another.

I think it might really affect things in an interesting way if each technology you develope gets your "culture stamp" if you trade to other civs, anyone using your version gets cultured by it, it gives you a slight far reaching culture influence for each culture (CORRECTION: not culture, TECH) you get out there. Of course two civs using the same versions appropriate techs would have an easier time cooperating, language is the most obvious, but there are many examples like, SI vs imperial unit systems, or this arabic numbering system.
and obviously there would be a cost or temporary inefficiency associated with transition periods, especially for larger empires. (I also suggest the same thing for social engineering but that's another thread entierly)

I also gave each religion (and by different religion I mean, once for each time a religion was developed), check this out, it's own cultural direction so while you build the temples for their happiness you kindof let the cat out of the bag, and all the same emergant behavior can happen with religions as with nations... and terratorial disputes and culture flips happen for purely religious reasons... and vatican city is counted by many as it's own country

and i agree that your borders should not be set by culture, they should be set by agreements with other nations and your ability to affect those areas by having closer higher population cities and military units, but i really do like the way you've been treating the disputed terratories and the more soft culture flipping, in fact it's this way that a lot of the "barbarians" should be produced late in the game: sympathyrsers in enemy cities aiding your cause with some of those shields lost "to corrption"
there should be a bigger interplay between corruption, unhappieness, war wearieness, barbarians, and culture.
as far as war wearieness goes it could almost be a "what your population thinks of their population"

Lurker- I like that cultural outpost you suggested.

and who was it who suggested the possibility of anti-culture, and it maybe forming it's own civ, that's really nice, I'm sure it would be rare but very interesting when it did happen. this also suggests to me negative war wearieness, unhappy because you're not whyping that jerk off the face of the earth, or happy because you are.

@Trip
i never saw someone say this outright: the reason it's good to accept someone else's missionaries is that it means they'll accept yours. (of course except for cultural great leaders i think all the culture movement and such is bect left as virtual units like sullply lines, trade routes, espionage...)
Trip- "so what culture doesn't do much.."
other than just win you the cultural victory, like I said it can sortof be a "what your population thinks of their population", it would kindof add a momentum to the cooperation between the two of you, the leader wouldn't be able to suddenly turn his back on you without a large outcry from his population.
and towards the end when you're taking him over, as nicely as possible of course since your people have sympathy of theirs, their people will cause far fewer partisans, geurillas, insergents and terrorists, than they would have otherwise.

sidwick-"everybody has a different view of borders"
kindof a soft culture flipping, nice..
also , , like I was saying about producing geurillas, you could even have different views of who owns the city, Rome sees Toronto(Rome)-corruption 30%, Zululand sees Toronto(Zulu)- corrption 70%, everyone else sees Toronto(disputed), of course only if you were at war..

lurker #66- "why not give a number insted of the pop heads"
because that would go against the reason that civ has done so well in the first place, because insted or giving numbers (text based) it gives pictograms (GUI) and you know, even young children, and the mathematically impared play this game, and plenty of in between, at best you'll get a number beside the picture, or ideally a toggle button

oh, and that "local culture", independence, new direction, mutation bit someone mentioned I think is essential to making this whole thing work. and i think just it can replace the whole "corruption increases with distance from the capital"

 

[sir_schwick]

Here are some ideas for the mechanics of 'culture diffusion'.

Remember that your cities had a 'cultural influence', which was basically how far out their radius went. That would be the rate all 'culture vectors' of that culture from that city would go out. Suppose the influence was 2(not uncommon early). It would try to travel as far as possible each turn, assuming one MP, a lot more for harbour to harbour or airport. EAch turn it did not reach the target city, it would reduce in strength by one. That means a CI 2 city would have to have its culture reaching another icty in two turns to diffuse. ALso, if it reached on the secnod turn, it would only add 1cpt, while reaching on the first turn would add 2cpt. Cities send culture to every city it can, each turn.

This means that harbours, airports, and river cities will often have much more cross-hybridization, becasue of lots of strong incoming culture.

 

[dh_epic]

Suki,

Thanks for getting it right off the bat! The main reason why someone would accept your culture peacefully, to let missionaries and philosophers in is because you would hopefully do so in kind. It's an unwritten contract between free nations: "if i let you grow your flowers in my garden, then i can grow my flowers in your garden, and we both get to spread our flowers!" If someone breaks that contract by blocking someone's "flowers", or by pushing their "flowers" too aggressively, suddenly that can be cause for a war.

I do think, however, that the discussion moved to a different problem. Not with my model so much as with culture in general: why even bother, if military is the be all and end all? I sympathize with this point, but to me it's not enough to convince me this idea is without merit. I think it would be a huge step in the right direction. That argument is akin to "well you might cure some new diseases, but cancer will still be around, so why bother improving medicine at all?"

I also appreciate some of the examples from Aussie Lurker, particularly about the borders of European nations. You can see a certain amount of cultural "blurring" when you look at peoples' eating habits, or the architechture of the towns.

And one more thing Suki -- I'm a big fan of giving a culture bonus for tech trades. It's one thing if a nation comes up with Fascism themselves. But when everyone learns Fascism from Italy, you can consider that a cultural export, and thus has some Italian nuances and examples embedded in it. I'd even like to see techs of this sort have a "chain reaction" where if someone in trades a tech they received from somebody else, there's still a cultural bonus for the original inventor.

The idea is very flexible. And some people are more into the passive aspects, others into the idea of actively pushing it through units. Some people are into how they can define conflicts and allegiances between culturally similar or culturally incompatible nations. Others like exploring the new mechanisms that can be tied to new cultures in your borders, or your culture flying into someone else's borders. I'm not a purist, so beyond the idea of culture spreading between nations, it's pretty much fair game.

 

[Suki]

Here are some ideas for the mechanics of 'culture diffusion'.

Remember that your cities had a 'cultural influence', which was basically how far out their radius went. That would be the rate all 'culture vectors' of that culture from that city would go out. Suppose the influence was 2(not uncommon early). It would try to travel as far as possible each turn, assuming one MP, a lot more for harbour to harbour or airport. EAch turn it did not reach the target city, it would reduce in strength by one. That means a CI 2 city would have to have its culture reaching another icty in two turns to diffuse. ALso, if it reached on the secnod turn, it would only add 1cpt, while reaching on the first turn would add 2cpt. Cities send culture to every city it can, each turn.

why not just treat it like electricity (or heat transper or diffusion.. they all work the same way) but not in a continious sheet but with the cities as nodes and resistors strung in between them, and the voltages at each node being the cultural values of each city and the resistances being exponentially proportional to the distance or path length to the adjacent cities, but over a certian value the resistance is counted as insinite-no culture flow

this way culture is always in the cities and not floating around the map, otherwise you need to give each square a culture value and and calculate flow from there

this way the flow doesn't cause any culture to be lost, no culture's lost in the current system except through war, but we may want to add a but of leak or decay..

and if you want to figure out the cultural ownership of a square just do like it does now, exponential decay out from cities and see who has the most at that sqware

oh and obviously now culture's contained in the people not in the buildings that produces it

And one more thing Suki -- I'm a big fan of giving a culture bonus for tech trades. It's one thing if a nation comes up with Fascism themselves. But when everyone learns Fascism from Italy, you can consider that a cultural export, and thus has some Italian nuances and examples embedded in it. I'd even like to see techs of this sort have a "chain reaction" where if someone in trades a tech they received from somebody else, there's still a cultural bonus for the original inventor.

yeah, that's what I meant, it only gets your culture stamp if you were the one who developed it, so you trade the tech with your stamp, and it keeps your stamp wherever it goes
and in a culture war there's nothing stopping one side from going, "enough of this X tech you invented, we'll make our own"

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually I was hoping terrain would have its own cultural value. urban areas were not the only place that culture developed or was harboured. Remember the countryside of Wessex(that author who wrote Mayor of Casterbridge), or the terrors of the Aegean. Thsoe things are definitely in the terrain and people who choose to live a rustic lifestyle.

I do like the electrical flow idea, except with all terrain it would flow faster through some terrain than other, because of mentioned factor.

Cultural 'ownership' should not exist. Cultural dominance is another story. In fact disputes over ownership would make what is a rather bland border system interesting.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Suki,

There are a lot of analogies for culture flow. Diffusion, osmosis, now electricity -- really any one will do so long as you don't get bogged down in particulars. But probably the best one I can come up with is life itself -- that of bacteria.

You create improvements (temples, libraries) to feed your bacteria and help them multiply.
You create units (philosophers, artists) to transmit your bacteria to another nation more quickly.
You create improvements and choose policies (censorship, propaganda) to starve other peoples' bacteria.
Natural barriers (mountains, rivers, oceans) can inhibit bacteria from moving.
Exchanges between nations (resource trade, tech trade, immigration) give bacteria an opportunity to spread.

(Also, did you know that in microbiology labs, groups of bacteria are sometimes called "cultures"? Feel free to google bacteria culture to see what I mean.)

To me, those are the mathematical principals that culture points would use to transmit. Greater distances and obstacles would reduce the flow of culture, while roads might speed this transmission. Plus bonuses for positive relations (trades), and penalties for hostiliy between nations. (The Americans thus rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries", to spite the icy relations with France.) Improvements, too, can affect how much culture you generate, let alone how culture is transmitted or received from others.

The actual numbers would need tweaking to make the game fun and competitive, and make culture a long term strategy. You'd know the math is wrong if someone can achieve an unstoppable cultural lead too soon, and no one can ever generate enough culture to turn the tables.

The implications of culture points, of course, are much different from bacteria. But I'll make one more important observation before the analogy breaks down. Bacteria can be friendly, or they can be hostile. When the bacteria begins to assault the host, it only makes sense that the host retaliates in a form of self defence. Such is how it is with culture. It's fine to accept a few ideas and customs from a neighbor, but once it begins to feel like an assault to wipe out my culture, you're damn right I might have to use drastic measures to control my neighbor and his cultural hegemony.

 

[Khan Quest]

What an excellent discussion. I'd like to read your ideas about how the Golden Age would inflence culture. Would it surge out like a tsunami? Would it dominate/supress other culture in the same city? Would it similarly affect hybridization? Wipe the slate clean?

 

[dh_epic]

The implications of a culture flow model are definitely the fun part of the discussion, once you accept the model itself. Of course, I'm not pushy about what I think the implications should be, and that's why I love discussing it.

What would a Golden Age do to help your culture points?

Obviously more culture would be generated. That's the simple answer, although there would be more mathematical particulars if you're interested.

America hits a Golden Age. Suddenly America begins generating more culture (10% more? 20% more? It doesn't matter, for the sake of this conversation). With that culture growing faster, it also encourages a faster spread. A higher concentration in some areas would just naturally lead to more diffusion to areas of low concentration.

I also believe that certain cultural threshholds would lead to natural bonuses. If you accumulate a certain amount of culture in a city, culture begins to multiply naturally (For every 50 culture, you automatically generate 1 additional culture point in "interest"). If you accumulate an even higher threshhold of culture, it might naturally begin to assimilate another culture. (For every 250 culture, you automatically convert one random culture point of another culture into one of your own.)

So a natural biproduct of more cultural growth would also be more cultural transmission and flow, not to mention small amounts of cultural assimilation.

What would a Golden Age do to your international relations?

One important thing that I take for granted is the idea that your people would do more to push you around in Civ 4. If they really hated another nation, they might viciously demand that you go to war with them. If they really liked another nation, treating that nation badly could alienate you from your people. While they wouldn't be able to overturn your decisions, they could make your life very difficult.

It depends on Locke's assertion that "Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time."

Imagine a scenario between America, China, and Britain. Britain's people are very culturally similar to America, not to mention they follow the same political system. China's people are not only culturally incompatible with America in many ways, but its political system is also very different. Not to mention that Britain has friendly ties to America, whereas China's relations to America are icy (for the sake of this example).

The British people love America. Relations are gracious, they share alliances, and also share a lot of culture. Because of this, the British people are very supportive of nearly everything that America does. If America goes to war with someone, the British people demand their state supports America. If Britain does not at least provide some support, Britain experiences a kind of "peace weariness". The British people also make huge demands for American cotton, American movies, and American music, forcing the government to make huge trades to bring happiness to their people. America is in a golden age, and the quality of their luxuries reflect this.

China, on the other hand, by virtue of propaganda, continental divide, and overall cultural difference receives the golden age in a different way. The people become scared of America's hegemony and are thus more supportive of any anti-American policies. If America puts sanctions on Egypt, then the Chinese people would become even more supportive of giving aid to Egypt to spite the Americans.

Of course, this would be complicated if China had received a small amount of American culture. There would be a small contingent of people who are very pro-America who give the Chinese government a hard time. China might very well have to supress portions of its population.

The short of it is that a Golden Age in America would make America's supporters more loving of America. Supporters abroad would want to get their hands on any American products, and smile with glee if they're helping American activities around the world. Detractors would feel hostility towards American supporters, even in their own borders, and would support any activity that spites America.

Each government would have to find a way to cope with these sentiments in their borders -- appeasing their people, or hoping that this whole phase will pass over.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

What DH_Epic says in the last part of his most recent point is something that I have been thinking about. That cultural effects in regards to international relations should depend on a similarity between culture groups AND the current reputation of the nation in question, with other nations. To use Epics analogy, if America has a poor reputation with China (for whatever reason), then a boost in America's culture will in fact deepen suspicion in China (something which can only be overcome by bridge building between the two nations). Also, due to the culture group differences, the Chinese people will be far less impressed by America's culture than, say, a fellow Western European civilization (for arguments sake, America could be broadly defined as belonging to the West European Culture Group).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.