Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

[star mouse]

Re: Re: Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
What bothers me is that Alphabet and Writing are still in the wrong order!

In some cultures, the earliest use of writing was for accounting purposes, such as who grew the grain in storage. I think of this use as "alphabet", where certain symbols acquired specific meanings. You cannot write down complex histories with symbols that only mean "ox", "goat" or "amphora of grain".

Only later did this alphabet expand into a general-purpose tool that could be used to record histories. I think of this phase as "writing" where the "alphabet" is put to general use.

What bothers me is that Bronze Working doesn't appear to be a prerequisite for Currency.

[tniem]

I would make Alphabet a wonder rather than a discovery, available with the discovery of Writing.

Um, except you would give only one civ the chance to have an alphabet throughout the whole game. Sure this is realistic and will add a level of fun to the game.

In some cultures, the earliest use of writing was for accounting purposes, such as who grew the grain in storage. I think of this use as "alphabet", where certain symbols acquired specific meanings. You cannot write down complex histories with symbols that only mean "ox", "goat" or "amphora of grain".

But it is not an alphabet. It is a picture.


Here are the definintions for each from Miriam Webster.

Alphabet is a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order

While, writing is to form (as characters or symbols) on a surface with an instrument (as a pen)

Now which one do you think comes first?

[Nenad]

So, in civ2 horseback riding was a prereq for a wheel, and in civ3 will be oposite?

[Urban Ranger]

Is it just me or does the science guy looks like Sid?

[Kenobi]

Re: Re: Re: Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

Originally posted by star mouse

What bothers me is that Bronze Working doesn't appear to be a prerequisite for Currency.

You don't need metal to create currency - many cultures around the world did OK with things like pig tusks, jade, shark's teeth etc. instead of metal coins.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Middle Age part has some peculiar links, too. I'm glad that art and printing made it in, but .....

Why not:

Literacy + The Mill (!) -> Printing

Polytheism + Philosophy -> Arts (instead of Music Theory)

Arts + Democracy (better: Nationalism) -> Romanticism (instead of Free Arts)

Printing has nothing to do with the mill. Also Arts should be ancient. A lot of arts we know (singing, dancing, painting, etc.) date back to antiquities lost in the mists of time.

Chariots indeed had preceded horsemen in warfare. Horseback riding and the domestication of horses are two different things.

[korn469]

urban ranger

it's no coincidence that your science advisor looks like sid, all of the advisors are based on the firaxis staff

what bothers me is that the entire tech tree and all of the ages are too biased toward western civilization, (disclaimer i'm from the US)

iirc one of the major civilizations in the new world hadn't applied the wheel to any vehicle and as far as i know the Byzantines didn't experiance a middle age nor did sanitation in ancient rome lead to refrigeration

but hey i realize that it is hard to make a tech tree and as long as it is balanced and fun i could really care less

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

Originally posted by Kenobi
You don't need metal to create currency - many cultures around the world did OK with things like pig tusks, jade, shark's teeth etc. instead of metal coins.

Also seashells.

Coins weren't exactly minted out of broze the most early ones were from copper, lead, or their alloys.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

Originally posted by star mouse
In some cultures, the earliest use of writing was for accounting purposes, such as who grew the grain in storage. I think of this use as "alphabet", where certain symbols acquired specific meanings. You cannot write down complex histories with symbols that only mean "ox", "goat" or "amphora of grain".

The earliest writings wereglyphs or pictograms a la Egyptian writings. Later on symbols representing abstract concepts were added, making them into ideograms. The Chinese used this system exclusively. Now tell me they couldn't write down complex histories.

Alphabets are only used in phonetic languages, which were a later development.

[Harlan]

Regarding the Horse Riding vs. Wheel dispute, I too was very confused about this for a long time. I think the reason for the confusion is one factor most people don't realize: horses used to be very small, too small to ride. For instance, I found this on the internet:

"Homers Iliad in 800 B.C. details the first account of horses used in battle situations: 'Homeric heroes fought from two horse chariots from which they dismounted to fight from the ground with swords and spears.'. These horses were not however ridden, they were too small."

People were also smaller: 5 feet would have been tall for a man back in classical times, so horses were very small indeed.

However, some people, especially the people who in the steppes of Asia, were probably riding horses much earlier, maybe 3000 to 2000 B.C.

Why? The vast steppes of inner Asia were ideal for horse breeding and developing horse riding expertise, since they would be so fantastically useful there. The vast plains could also support larger sized horses.

But these areas could not naturally develop advanced civilizations. The centers of civilization (China, Middle East, India) used most land for agriculture or as pasture for cows, goats and other food producing animals, so horses tended to be ever smaller there (just as animal populations on islands tend towards dwarfism). In fact, finding and keeping stocks of large horses was a contast problem for most civilizations for thousands of years.

Thus, all the major civilizations went through a phase of chariot riding, until horses could be bred that were large enough to ride. Some barbarian areas probably skipped the chariot phase altogether, but these were clearly exceptions to the rule due to their very barbarianness. You can't have an advanced civilization without extensive agriculture.

Since Civ3 is about the development of advanced civilizations and not barbarian civilizations, the tech tree is correct on this point, though perhaps Horse Riding could be called Animal Husbandry or Horse Breeding instead, since advances in breeding were the real key.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Nenad
So, in civ2 horseback riding was a prereq for a wheel, and in civ3 will be oposite?

Dont make such a big fuss out of it. Read S. Kroezes historic background reply further up about horsemen. The Civ-3 team obviously had that in mind then they did the change.

-------------------------------------------------------

A general word of advice:

The Civ-3 tech-tree is an abstraction - a simplification of our historic progress. Try to remember that. The tech-tree designers MUST cut corners - especially since their overal goal also was/is about balancing the game in terms of gameplay, just as much.

[Kenobi]

Re: Re: Re: Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

Originally posted by Ribannah

Theology as a prereq for Printing is imho ridiculous. The Bible was multiplied by machine not because of a few scholars, but because of the many common folk who could read.

S. Kroeze: I did not say that Monarchy was not related to religion. I think Civ2 has it right with Ceremonial Burial as a prerequisite. I would rather remove the less essential Polytheism altogether and replace it with Mythology.

With regard to Alphabet: just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean I find it OK! I would make Alphabet a wonder rather than a discovery, available with the discovery of Writing. Possible prerequisites for Writing are Storytelling and Herbal Lore (but that would mean extending the tech tree to the left).

The history books on Horseback Riding are quite vague. The fact that we can only prove its use from a relatively late date, doesn't imply that it didn't exist much earlier. Other animals (camels, zebras) were used as mounts quite early as well, the advance Horseback Riding could include those.
Note also that early on horses were mainly used for scouting and messages, not as regular cavalry.

Rhysie: Horses were used to pull sledges first, wheeled carts came later.

I think the printing press tech evolution works well in a European context. The bible was the most copied (best-selling?) book in the middle-ages in Europe, and copied laboriously by hand, mostly by monks. The first use of the printing press in Europe was mass production of bibles for the educated classes (priests and nobles), not for the (overwhelmingly illiterate) common people. It was only after the spread of printed books that most people gained the opportunity to read. This does not explain why the printing press took off in China, however, where wide-spread literacy amongst the nobility and bureaucratic classes probably created the demand for printed books.

On the subject of chariots/horses, I agree with Rhysie: horses had to be domesticated, trained and - importantly - bred before they could be ridden. The horses that pulled chariots in ancient times were no larger than our smaller ponies. It must have taken many centuries of breeding before horses were large enough to ride and to act effectively in combat. Their first use must have been as a work animal, then a chariot-puller, then a war steed.

On the subject of alphabet/writing, I don't have a firm opinion on which came first, but it seems pretty clear that the use of written symbols came out of a need for accounting first. This suggests that trade or accounting were necessary advances before either of alphabet or writing.

Apologies for the long post. May the Schwarz be with you.

[Rhysie]

With regards to horse units being better than chariot units, this does make sense to me - Horse units are easier to steer in that they have a faster turn rate, they have less weight to pull (unless it's a multiple horse chariot, in which case it's much more expensive to run and its a bigger target to hit) and horse units are also more mobile in that they can pass over small walls, through wooded areas, over mountains etc. without the chariot tipping over or getting stuck.

Of course, chariots do have some advantages, such as being able to handle multiple humans, so that some can be dedicated to weaponry, and probably being easier to control and thus easier for a single 'pilot' to use weaponry at the same time, but from the fact that chariots haven't been used for a _long_ time, and yet mounted soldiers were common right up until the first world war (When they were shown to be pretty much useless if I remember my rusty history well) would indicate that the advantages of a ridden horse outweigh the advantages of a chariot.

[Harlan]

A couple of thoughts I'm surprised that no one else has brought up so far (as far as I know).

One, am I the only one, or does anyone else find the whole Polytheism and Monotheism thing annoying? There is no reason why Monotheism should be considered more advanced a religious form than Polytheism. The Hindus and many other groups today do just fine with Polytheism. Much better would be to have, say, the development of a religious heirarchy be one religious "advance" and the development of a holy book(s) be another.

Second, I'm surprised more haven't commented just how similiar Civ3's ancient tech tree is to Civ2's. Its nearly exactly the same techs, just slightly slimmed down, and the ages defined slightly differently, and a few techs renamed (i.e. Literacy now Literature, University now Education).

As far as I can see, ignoring the moving of techs between ages, the Ancient Age loses:

Seafaring, Bridge Building, Trade

The Ancient Age gains:

nothing

The Middle Ages lose:

Navigation, Medicine, Leadership (I'm assuming Military Tradition is essentially Conscription renamed)

The Middle Ages gain:

Printing Press, Free Artistry, Music Theory

Firaxians also answered a question about how the game would deal with managing so many cities and units at the end of the game, by saying their solution was trimming down the tech tree at that point. So we're ending up with a smaller tech tree, and if anything, less units and buildings. Again, looking at the two parts of the tech tree we can see, there is an overall loss of general units (like the Explorer, Legion, Elephant) with the only compensation being the exclusive unit you get.

This is not what I was expecting from Civ3! I thought I'd be getting more detail, more stuff, not less!

[Jon Miller]

Go is an extremely good strategy game

yet there are only two peices (and the board could hardly get simpler)

complexity can be found in areas other than the number of peices

BTW on the horseman vs Chariot debate

Chariots were very expensive

perhaps there cost will be exrteme in Civ3

(they were basically the tanks of their era)

Jon Miller