World 2008 development thread.
- Thread starter DVS
- Start date
Meh, those are so 20th Century. They aren't nearly as relevent in our globalist world. I say we should have:
Neoliberalism--Promotion of peace through trade agreements.
Wahhabism--Reactionary fundamentalism opposed to the changing times.
Bolivarianism--Extra-patriotism, fidelity to not just one's country but one's neighboring countries and one's continent; Venezuela and Russia could have this.
Progressivism--This is just an ideaology concerned with advancing the conditions of the state, its people, and the world, by extension. What policies are used depends on the state.
Juche--Survivalism at the national level. Belief that a state should be completely self-sufficient, and hostile to any foreigners, with a military to repel them.
ianinsane
Prince
I have a slightly different approach to suggest and would like to discuss it.
It is based on Samuel Huntingtons theory of "Clash of Civilizations". Basically this theory says that in post-Cold War era the main source of conflicts will be the cultural identities of the peoples.
Thus Huntington defines several "Civilizations" who will evoke conflicts with each other. For our game I would use the following "Civilizations" (i.e. Civilizations in terms of Huntington not of Civ IV):
Western (Western Europe, North America, Australia...)
Orthodox (Russia, Greece, Ex-USSR states...)
Latin American
Muslim
Hindu
African (Sub-Saharan Africa)
Sinic (China, Vietnam, Korea...)
Buddhist (Most of East Asian countries)
Jewish (Israel)
Huntington was most critisised for the implication that there could actually be "alliances" of states with the same culture against an alliance of states of an other culture. This seems unrealistic because it would unite states of totally different international interests. But this is exactly the point what makes this theory interesting as a substitute for religions in our game.
This "Cultural Orientation" would, like religions do in vanilla, link civs with the same Cultural Orientation but at the same time would leave them their independence as autonomous civs.
Another nice feature of this system is that you could actually symbolise different ethnics in melting pot cities like NY or London and actual conflicts with an ethnic dimension like in Sudan, Yugoslavia or Israel could be simulated.
I'm not sure how complicated it is to have more "religions" than in Vanilla but one could narrow the list down to 5 or 6 Cultural Orientations. But more is better.
It is based on Samuel Huntingtons theory of "Clash of Civilizations". Basically this theory says that in post-Cold War era the main source of conflicts will be the cultural identities of the peoples.
Thus Huntington defines several "Civilizations" who will evoke conflicts with each other. For our game I would use the following "Civilizations" (i.e. Civilizations in terms of Huntington not of Civ IV):
Western (Western Europe, North America, Australia...)
Orthodox (Russia, Greece, Ex-USSR states...)
Latin American
Muslim
Hindu
African (Sub-Saharan Africa)
Sinic (China, Vietnam, Korea...)
Buddhist (Most of East Asian countries)
Jewish (Israel)
Huntington was most critisised for the implication that there could actually be "alliances" of states with the same culture against an alliance of states of an other culture. This seems unrealistic because it would unite states of totally different international interests. But this is exactly the point what makes this theory interesting as a substitute for religions in our game.
This "Cultural Orientation" would, like religions do in vanilla, link civs with the same Cultural Orientation but at the same time would leave them their independence as autonomous civs.
Another nice feature of this system is that you could actually symbolise different ethnics in melting pot cities like NY or London and actual conflicts with an ethnic dimension like in Sudan, Yugoslavia or Israel could be simulated.
I'm not sure how complicated it is to have more "religions" than in Vanilla but one could narrow the list down to 5 or 6 Cultural Orientations. But more is better.
kbrennan7654
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 204
African? there has to be better than that, we cud probably remove that
ianinsane
Prince
I agree. That term sounds weird. But Huntington uses the term. Nevertheless we'd need an own culture for Sub-Sahara Africa since its neither Muslim nor Western. But maybe one could come up with a better term.
Then I suggest narrowing the list down to the following 7:
Western, Orthodox, Latin American, Muslim, Hindu, African (or better term) and Buddhist or Sino-Buddhist or Eastern.
I'd merge Jewish with Western then.
Furthermore we could have Cultural Capitals (i.e. Holy Cities) and Cultural Landmarks (i.e. Shrine). Although I'm not sure about these terms and would love it if someone came up with better ones here are my suggestions:
Western: New York, Statue of Liberty or Los Angeles, Hollywood
Orthodox: Moscow, Saint Basil's Cathedral
Latin American: Rio de Janeiro, Cristo Redentor or Caracas, Centro Simón Bolivar
Muslim: Mecca, The Masjid al-Haram
Hindu: Varanasi, The Kashi Wishwanath or Mumbai, Bollywood
"African": Addis Ababa, Africa Hall or Addis Ababa, Grave of Haile Selassie
"Eastern": Angkor/Phnom Penh, Angkor Wat or Beijing, Forbidden City (or something else...this is tough)
ianinsane
Prince
I don't know if this is too far out but I just had another idea on this subject. Maybe it's also something to include in a later version of this mod.
This model of Cultural Orientation would give us the opportunity to simulate the complexity of international organisations. We could have an Apostolic Palace-like wonder unique for every Cultural Orientation. This could be African Union for "African", Mercosur for Latin American, Organisation of the Islamic Conference for Muslim etc.
Some of them are already built at game start, some still are to build (maybe the "Eastern" one).
So we could create that network of regional organisations that we have in today's real world. In these organisations, unlike in UN, only those Civs with the adequate Cultural Orientation would be able to vote - just like it works with Apostolic Palace.
This model of Cultural Orientation would give us the opportunity to simulate the complexity of international organisations. We could have an Apostolic Palace-like wonder unique for every Cultural Orientation. This could be African Union for "African", Mercosur for Latin American, Organisation of the Islamic Conference for Muslim etc.
Some of them are already built at game start, some still are to build (maybe the "Eastern" one).
So we could create that network of regional organisations that we have in today's real world. In these organisations, unlike in UN, only those Civs with the adequate Cultural Orientation would be able to vote - just like it works with Apostolic Palace.
True. It's beyond the scope of this mod.
Actually, no it doesn't. It requires a DLL change to get a scrolling religions screen, but not to add more.
ianinsane
Prince
Why do you think that? In what way is it not realistic?
Maybe it is a misunderstanding. "The Clash of Civilizations" is not a fictional scenario. It is a theoretical approach of political science to explain the sources of conflicts in today's actual world.
IMO Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory and the concept of cultural conflicts resembles the mechanism of Civ IV religions in the real world the most accurate way. It is an important factor in international relations.
Just think about all important conflicts of the recent years. The majority of them took place along such cultural borders: Yugoslavia, India/Pakistan, The "War on Terror", Sudan, Chechnya etc.
And furthermore it is a wonderful instrument of implementing ethnic conflicts also within single cities like Paris or London. Just let Cultural Orientations/religions which are not "State Religion" produce
. This can be stopped by developing certain technologies, e.g. "Integration".I think all this would add an amount of realism to this mod that could not be achieved by just replacing religions with political ideologies.
ianinsane
Prince
No. At least not more than in vanilla civ. Don't forget, this isn't about civilizations in terms of Civ IV, it is about a substitute for Civ-religions. So this would mean that e.g. Iran and Egypt would have the same Cultural Orientation (i.e. Muslim) but could declare war against each other at the same time.
I am strictly against the suggestion that was wrote in this thread to have sveral fictional superpowers like an Islamic Union. There have to be nation states to make this mod realistic. But you can't deny a certain influence of cultural orientation on international politics like religions have in vanilla ("we're upset that your have fallen under the sway..."/"we care for our brothers...").
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
But if all the arab world has culture group islam, there still is Islamic Unity. Just not as unified. This problem happens in alot of Earth (insert date here) scenarios. All europe is catholic, so there is no wars. There have been alot of wars in europe. By having all the nations of one area have the same culture group, that basicly removes almost all realism from the game.
(Sorry if I am sounding harsh)
(Sorry if I am sounding harsh)
It needn't be a problem. To accurately portray the world conflict absolutely, you would maybe need to split Christianity and Islam into competing branches, but in the absense of such a radical move, you can merely modify leader XML to make it so that they get pissed at things other than religion, or just lessen peace-weight in the world-builder.
ianinsane
Prince
No problem. We're seriously discussing ideas here.
I am with Bahmo. We need a little simplification because we can't have Catholicism, Protestantism, Sunni, Shi'a, Sufism, Kharijitism and all the other divisions of religions.
Excellent idea to reduce the effect on leader relationships! On the other hand we could slightly raise the effects of civic compliances/differences. This would make it possible to also have something like political ideologies that affect relationships.
Here is another thought why the idea I described would add more realism.
It's an unhappy but nevertheless important aspect in global conflicts: "Ethnic cleansing". Let's say you play Sudan and have Muslim as "state religion"/"cultural orientation". Then you have a city called "Darfur" in the west and there not only "Muslim" is present but also "African". Due to your chosen civic it causes
. You use a military unit in that city and let it perform "Ethnic cleansing" which causes "African" to disappear from that city (like Counter-Reformation in "Total Realism") and also reduces population by one due to genocide. As a result you might get penalties with "African" civs (maybe -2) and even with every other civ (-1).That is unfortunately a very real aspect of many African nationstates. However, "African" and "Muslim" aren't clear ethnicities at all. You're still talking about ideaologies, as far as I can tell. So the way I see it, we should start the states that have an inundation of race or religious civil war as "failed-states," hence they fall into Barbarian teritory.
Purging cities of unwanted-ideaologies could be an option of Totalitarian leaders, with units similar to the inquisitor from Gods of Old, or possibly, just through spies, edited and given a new mission.
Purging cities of unwanted-ideaologies could be an option of Totalitarian leaders, with units similar to the inquisitor from Gods of Old, or possibly, just through spies, edited and given a new mission.
ianinsane
Prince
Well, yes. At the core you could describe Huntington's culture groups as a mixture of culture, ethnicity, religion and ideology. Merged and reduced but nevertheless graphic and traceable. IMO exactly what we need.
Similar threads
