Ancient tech tree looks mighty weird

[easy]

Have you guys ever thought about this? Now in the game, regardless how poor your technology is, when you exchange technology with other country or occupy other civilization's city, you can take any technology they have. The result for this is some civilization doesn't have some very very basic technology, they don't even can write but they may have tank and nuclear weapon!!! I think it's really ridiculous. I think they should be some restriction on what technology can you accquire.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Ribannah, I suspect agriculture would be a prereq for printing simply because it was necessary for there to be landless workers, e.g. scribes.

As for the original topic of wheel preceding horse riding, the game designers might only be looking at the practical application of techs within the game. That is, you can build chariots with domesticated horses; Riding them is different. Your idea of separate tech branches would put the argument to rest, tho.

I side with S.Kroeze on the horse riding issue. A pony would be about as useful in battle as riding a large dog. It might be able to hold a warrior, but it isn't going to improve what he could do on foot. Size matters...

As for what real civs did not have the wheel, think about that list of places. The wheel in the Andes or central African rain forest is not going to be useful for anything in game terms.

Regarding alphabet and writing, there was a thread here a few months ago about this very topic. Writing does not require an alphabet. While an alphabet (or rather, symbolic system) is used to write, it is not a necessary condition. The separation between these two concepts is actually quite blurry. Writing is one way to record information, a symbolic system is a tool to do that.

The monarchy question seems to have been addressed already. Warriors provided the earliest central leaders. Add religion to provide a way to elevate the leader above mere mortals, et voila! Monarchy. Again, a simplified origin for game purposes.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Ribannah, I suspect agriculture would be a prereq for printing simply because it was necessary for there to be landless workers, e.g. scribes.

Scribes simply wrote by hand, many of them still do. There is a conceivable line from Agriculture to Printing though, it runs:

Agriculture -> Pottery -> The Wheel -> The Plough -> The Mill -> Printing

But not a direct link just because almanaks were printed.

I side with S.Kroeze on the horse riding issue. A pony would be about as useful in battle as riding a large dog. It might be able to hold a warrior, but it isn't going to improve what he could do on foot. Size matters...

I'm only saying that Horseback Riding is older than Mounted Warfare. Still, in mountainous areas ponies can be a great asset to war parties - not so much in actual battle, but for fast movement, which is often more important in warfare. Large horses are useless in such terrain. Big is not always better.

Regarding alphabet and writing, there was a thread here a few months ago about this very topic. Writing does not require an alphabet.

I quite agree. The wondrous thing (hence: a wonder IMHO) about the Alphabet is that it is (supposed to be ) phonetic instead of symbolic like the earlier scripts.

The monarchy question seems to have been addressed already. Warriors provided the earliest central leaders.

I'm not sure that this is actually true. I might agree that loyalty of warriors to a sovereign (which could be part of a warrior code) helps to establish Monarchy. It seems more important for the protection of landlords though (Feudalism).
I think that for a Monarchy to work, it is more essential to have laws, in order to outgrow Despotism or Anarchy.

Add religion to provide a way to elevate the leader above mere mortals, et voila! Monarchy. Again, a simplified origin for game purposes.

I already said that religion is indeed needed, but Ceremonial Burial seems quite sufficient. What Polytheism has to do with it is beyond me, however. It hardly has meaning beyond creating an artificial contrast to Monotheism anyway. I still say dump them both. Choice of religion could still play a role as part of the cultural thingy in civ3.

[korn469]

Harlan please reply

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.

i think i have figured out what the T's are...the T in the red box is a place holder for the tech's picture, and the other T's are wonders, buildings, and the ability to build fortresses (under construction)

so that gives us

Bronze working: 1
masonry: 3
pottery: 1
ceremonial burial: 1
mysticism: 1
code of laws: 1
literature: 2
map making: 2
construction: 3
currency: 1
the republic: 1
monarchy: 2
total: 19

monotheism: 1
feudalism: 1
engineering: possibly 1 (not a T)
theology: 1 possibly 2 (crossed out)
invention: 1
music theory: 1
education: 1
banking: 1
astronomy: 1
democracy: 1
metallurgy: 1 possibly 2 (crossed out)
economics: 1
navigation: 1
free artistry: 1
theory of gravity: 1
magnetism: possibly 1 (crossed out)
military tradition: 1
total: 15 possibly 19

ancient and middle ages total: 34 possibly 38

and that is buildings, wonders, and governments

civ2 ancient:

buildings:

granary
palace
city walls
temple
aqueduct
colosseum
marketplace
courthouse
library
harbor
total: 10

wonders:

hanging gardens
colossus
pyramids
great wall
oracle
sun tzu's war academy
lighthouse
great library
king richard's crusade
marco polo's embassy
total: 10

governments:

monarchy
republic
total: 2

ancient total: 22 (three more than civ3 and most likely monarchy and the republic are in civ3 btw does barracks require a tech?)

civ2 middle ages:

buildings:

cathedral
bank
university
coastal fortress
total: 4

wonders:

copernicus's observatory
magellan's expedition
leonardo's workshop
shakespeare's theatre
isaac newton's college
michelangelo's chapel
j.s. bach's cathedral
total: 7

governments:
total: 0

middle ages total: 11 (four less than in civ3 possibly as many as eight less, however the government democracy moves to the middle ages in civ3)

total: 33 (civ3 has one more but democracy has been moved to the middle ages in the tech chart, but there is the possibility that civ3 could have as many as five extra buildings, wonders (mini-wonders too), and governments in the ancient and middle ages)

additionally, the elephant, crusader, caravan, and diplomat do not appear to be in civ3 and the explorer is a possible

[down th' pub]

"...which the Vogons caught and sat on. They were no good for riding, their spines snapped instantly, but the Vogons sat on the anyway..."

[Wernazuma III]

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.

One can use almost everything as currency, not only metals. The aztecs e.g. used cocoa bean as currency. They had kind of a gold and copper currency too, but din't know anything about bronze.

I think Horseback riding should not be integral part of the tech tree. Horse-techs should be "dead end". One doesn't need horses for other techs (again:e.g. aztecs)

And the alphabet-Writing thing makes me
The line should go Writing --> Alphabet --> Literacy
The Gilgamesh-Epos was written in Cuneiform - not really an alphabet

[Wernazuma III]

Only one civilisation only 'discovered' Horseback Riding in the military sense: the Assyrians. Then quick as lightning this 'technique' spread all over Eurasia. Chariots were used in the Middle East, Egypt, southern Russia, Greece, the Asian steppe, China and India -I am not 100% sure about the last. This is the same region as that of Cavalrymen.

I don't think you're right about India. AFAIK, in most parts of India, horses can't be bred well, so they imported them from Arabia et al. Horses were very expensive, so the portuguese could gain quite an extra money from that. That's why I doubt that chariots were used there.
It is commonly accepted though that the chariot was used earlier for militaric purposes than horseback riding as you state. But I would look for the development of Horseback riding - and the invention of Cavalry - in the russian steppes.


If I were asked, I'd suggest that the Wheel doesn't become a prereq. until later in the game but would have some effects as speeding up movement and allowing roads (and through that is needed to push science and trade) - but that's my aztec point of view...

[Rommel393]

ok i agree with the wheel as a prerequisite to horseback riding. one thing that has always bothered me in civ2 and that i hope they change in civ3, is that horsemen are worst than the chariot. Horsemen were much better than charioteers. On several occasions Egyptian chariot invasions were stopped by Sumerian horsemen. And lets not forget Ganges Kahn. He conquered much of Asia and even some of Europe with armies consisting of purely horsemen and archers on horseback. Horsemen should be a very good unit and be kinda like the tank of the ancient age.

[Rommel393]

quote:

Only one civilisation only 'discovered' Horseback Riding in the military sense: the Assyrians. Then quick as lightning this 'technique' spread all over Eurasia. Chariots were used in the Middle East, Egypt, southern Russia, Greece, the Asian steppe, China and India -I am not 100% sure about the last. This is the same region as that of Cavalrymen.

The assyrians did discover horseback for military but they were only the first, not the only ones to do so. Since the assyrians discovered it their descendants had it too. Such as the persians, babylonians, and sumerians. Hittites are also a possibility there.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ribannah

I'm only saying that Horseback Riding is older than Mounted Warfare. Still, in mountainous areas ponies can be a great asset to war parties - not so much in actual battle, but for fast movement, which is often more important in warfare. Large horses are useless in such terrain. Big is not always better.

I suggest you catch a wild equus przewalskii, ride on it without saddle and stirrups, and cross the Alps while catching game by shooting arrows.
When you succeed I will be convinced!

I don't think you're right about India. AFAIK, in most parts of India, horses can't be bred well, so they imported them from Arabia et al. Horses were very expensive, so the portuguese could gain quite an extra money from that. That's why I doubt that chariots were used there.

As I said before, I am not sure about India, yet I believe the Aryans, who destroyed the marvellous Indus civilisation, used war chariots. They were after all of Indo-European descent and the war chariot (with the battle-axe) was typically for their culture. This civilisation was concentrated in the Punjab, a rather northern part of India. The Aryans came out of the Eurasian steppe and are related to the Persians.

A question for our linguists: How many letters are in the 'Chinese alphabet'?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
I suggest you catch a wild equus przewalskii, ride on it without saddle and stirrups, and cross the Alps while catching game by shooting arrows.
When you succeed I will be convinced!

Phew! Just came back. It was ccccolllllddd high up in the Alps!
I'm glad you didn't ask me to conquer Rome, too.

Hey, now it's your turn, to do the same with a Chariot.

A question for our linguists: How many lettres are in the 'Chinese alphabet'?

IIRC there are some 3,000 commonly known, and a lot more that are less common. The Chinese script is not an alphabet though, as it is basically symbolic.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
I think Horseback riding should not be integral part of the tech tree. Horse-techs should be "dead end". One doesn't need horses for other techs (again:e.g. aztecs).

Dead-end techs on isolated long branches in the early 2/3 part of the tech-tree is not good for gameplay. They tend to be ignored alltogether, and only researched as a last mop-up routine, then theres hardly any other techs left to be researched. They found that out in Civ-1 already with the chivalry-tech, if I remember it correctly.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ralf
Dead-end techs on isolated long branches in the early 2/3 part of the tech-tree is not good for gameplay. They tend to be ignored alltogether, and only researched as a last mop-up routine, then theres hardly any other techs left to be researched. They found that out in Civ-1 already with the chivalry-tech, if I remember it correctly.

I'm aware of the problems of dead end techs (the "Chivalry effect" of Civ1), but it could be compensated with good military advantages by horsemen - better than those given in Civ2. And of course Horseback riding would still be a prereq. for Stirrup which is prereq. for Chivalry --> Dragooner --> Cavalry, so it would not be completely isolated - just no absolute necessity.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Ribannah

Scribes simply wrote by hand, many of them still do. There is a conceivable line from Agriculture to Printing though, it runs:

Agriculture -> Pottery -> The Wheel -> The Plough -> The Mill -> Printing

But not a direct link just because almanaks were printed.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. You don't need a separate tech to create surplus workers - that's what food surpluses are for. Technological advances of ANY kind were only possible after societies created enough food to let brainy people think about the world around them rather than looking for their next meal. This settlement was permitted by the development of agriculture, which we already have in the form of the basic tech, "irrigation" - all tribes start off with the ability to settle.

The printing press does need a "demand-pull" from literate people looking for cheap (i.e. mass-produced) books, but in the context of Europe this was met by the priesthood and nobility. You don't need a mass of surplus workers to create the demand for books. The true scribes (i.e. monks) involved in the manual copying out of the bible were a tiny minority of the European population.

Likewise, the key technological (as opposed to social) development required for the printing press was not mass-produced paper; it was moveable type, which requires machinery/metal working skills. The early printing presses did not need mills to generate power - they could be worked by hand.

[DarkCloud]

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

Originally posted by Rhysie


I disagree... It is logical to assume that the first training of horses developed in order to have them pull wheeled carts and chariots, and the training of horses to allow a rider would follow on from such basic training as pulling a wheeled object.

Therefore

Wheel -> Carts/Chariots -> Horse drawn carts/chariots -> Ridden horses

Yes, but the wheel is more powerful than Horseback riding in Civ.
It would be IDIOCY to research a weaker tech after one that replaces it.