A few ideas....

The stirrup - made cavalry more effective and horse archers possible.

The keel - made ocean-going ships possible. I note that the Maoris, Micronesians and Vikings all had ocean-going ships well before Civ4's technology trees would allow them.

General staff - introduced around the time of Napoleon, made it possible to effectively coordinate multiple armies. In game terms, you might increase all ground movement by +1.

Telegraph/Telephone - made it possible to coordinate business and government across geographic distances more effectively. In game terms, it would reduce penalties for distant cities.

The Stirrup is a tech in Civ, its called horseback ridding,

The Stirrup is a tech in Civ, its called horseback ridding,

The stirrup was introduced by the Mongols, I think. That is the main reason why they had such a vastly superior cavalry. Without the stirrup, for instance, the concept of "horse archer" is flawed - no stability for precise shots, no shots in other directions rather than forward. Riding with a lance becomes a joke. What is left is riding with a melee or a short range weapon, like a sword or short spear - precisely what cavalry did, up to the mongols.

I think that truly great techs are those which were invented independently ONLY ONCE, and then passed on. Of these, I would single out three:
the alphabet, the stone arch, and the concept of zero.

Invented probably in India by the not-yet-well-studied ancient civilization of the Indus, the stone arch passed to Babylon (Sumer, Egypt and Greece did not have it) and, through the Etruscans (a pre-roman central italian civ coming likely from Anatolia) to the Romans.
Without the stone arch, the only piece of big architecture possible is the pile-of-rock type: Pyramid, Ziqqurat. Otherwise you are limited to small temples and theaters leaning on hills, like Greece.
With the stone arch, on the other hands, you can raise aqueducts, anphitheaters, cathedrals...
So let's rename "construction" into "stone arch"!

Without the concept of zero, algebra is impossible. Greece did not have the concept, so its great mathematicians could not do much beyond geometry. No positional representation of numbers, no differential calculus. Again, the concept of zero was invented in India, passed to Persia and to the Arab world, and then to Europe. What europeans call "the arab numbers" 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 251,... are actually Indian.
There should be a new tech called "algebra" between mathematics and scientific method.

So let's give credit to at least ONE of the awesome inventions of India and put it in the game, shall we? On the other hand, I would add the Phoenicians civ, who invented the alphabet...

The stirrup was introduced by the Mongols, I think. That is the main reason why they had such a vastly superior cavalry. Without the stirrup, for instance, the concept of "horse archer" is flawed - no stability for precise shots, no shots in other directions rather than forward. Riding with a lance becomes a joke. What is left is riding with a melee or a short range weapon, like a sword or short spear - precisely what cavalry did, up to the mongols.

Stirrup was not introduced by Mongols -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup.

The stirrup was introduced by the Mongols, I think. That is the main reason why they had such a vastly superior cavalry. Without the stirrup, for instance, the concept of "horse archer" is flawed - no stability for precise shots, no shots in other directions rather than forward. Riding with a lance becomes a joke. What is left is riding with a melee or a short range weapon, like a sword or short spear - precisely what cavalry did, up to the mongols.

I think that truly great techs are those which were invented independently ONLY ONCE, and then passed on. Of these, I would single out three:
the alphabet, the stone arch, and the concept of zero.



How on earth would alphabet come under this definition? There's more than one alphabet. The ancient egyptians had their own way before the Phoenicians, as did the chinese. The mayans had an alphabet all of their own too.

Stirrup was not introduced by Mongols -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup.

The stirrup paternity is not 100% certain, but there is nothing in the article you point that says that the stirrup was not introduced by mongols.

In fact, if you read it, you will notice how it says that the first representation of the stirrup is in China in AD 322, then the stirrup appears in Sweden in the 6th century after the migration age, and it is introduced in europe likely by the Avar migration in the 7th century.

Now, let us make 2+2: if we look at what lies between Sweden, China and the Balcans (occupied by the Avars) we see it is exacty the area which will become soon the Mongol Empire.
China would be overrun by the Mongols too, and the Avar, rather than invading Europe, where running away, together with all the other people in the Middle Age's "barbarian invasions", from somebody else in the east.

So, although not certain, it is nevertheless plausible that the mongols stumble upon the bright new idea, and started to capitalize on it.

How on earth would alphabet come under this definition? There's more than one alphabet. The ancient egyptians had their own way before the Phoenicians, as did the chinese.

Sorry, I was not precise. Not a symbolic or syllabic alphabet, but a letter alphabet - which is the "narrow sense" of the meaning of the word.

The egyptian and chinese ones are symbolic (one word = one symbol) while the Japanese and many others are syllabic (one syllable = one symbol).
It is only when you go down to "one sound = one symbol" that dramatic simplification takes place, allowing for speed of writing, ease of education, and flexibility.

It is basically the invention that decouples writing from religion, allowing theoretically the common man to read and write, or at least crippling the monopoly of priests and central bureaucracies. All the letter alphabets in the world are derived from only one.

The stirrup paternity is not 100% certain, but there is nothing in the article you point that says that the stirrup was not introduced by mongols.

In fact, if you read it, you will notice how it says that the first representation of the stirrup is in China in AD 322, then the stirrup appears in Sweden in the 6th century after the migration age, and it is introduced in europe likely by the Avar migration in the 7th century.

Now, let us make 2+2: if we look at what lies between Sweden, China and the Balcans (occupied by the Avars) we see it is exacty the area which will become soon the Mongol Empire.



Mongols were dominant around 1200-1400AD -- thats quite a lot later, not soon. Historians also debate about the possibility of Huns bringing stirrup to Europe, but there is no 100% certainty (i still think there are enough earlier examples for not crediting it to Mongols).

Mongols were dominant around 1200-1400AD -- thats quite a lot later, not soon.
When was Rome dominant, and when did it showed first its potential?
Moreover, central Asia was still technologically backward and nomadic, these scales are not really "big" in their context. It took some time to perfect the stirrup and then expand with its advantage, and again it took some time before some leader was born to make a political union of an hitherto chaotic domain.

In the mean time the idea spilled over to neighbouring countries (China) and tribes (Avars, Huns, etc) which somehow did not have the extreme cavalry focus of the Mongols, and so did not make the innovation shine to its full potential.

But of course, this is only one possible reconstruction. A romantic one, if you want.

When was Rome dominant, and when did it showed first its potential?
Moreover, central Asia was still technologically backward and nomadic, these scales are not really "big" in their context. It took some time to perfect the stirrup and then expand with its advantage, and again it took some time before some leader was born to make a political union of an hitherto chaotic domain.

In the mean time the idea spilled over to neighbouring countries (China) and tribes (Avars, Huns, etc) which somehow did not have the extreme cavalry focus of the Mongols, and so did not make the innovation shine to its full potential.

But of course, this is only one possible reconstruction. A romantic one, if you want.


Hear Ye. Hear Ye. Civ designers... there may be some dispute about its origin but there is considerably agreement about its significance. Cavalry became dramatically more effective-- and horse archers possible-- when the stirrup was introduced. It would be a logical technology to introduce to the game, with, say, "heavy cavalry" and "horse archers" both dependent on it. Light cavalry-- essentially fast warriors on horses, based on horseback riding-- would come first....

I would have said the stirrup is more an invention than a technology.

Telephone/telegraph seems to me the big one the designers overlooked.

stirups could be taken as part of the horseriding tech.

general staff doesn't seem too special by itself. Most armies prior to napolean even giong back into antiquity had some kind of command structure and information network (rider messengers).

keels I suppose are bundled with the optics tech that gives caravels. Maybe it is a fair point that is historically too late.

But the telephone/telegraph is a huge communication upgrade and should be represented in the tech tree somehow. It seems in civ4 people are still sending messengers around on horseback until radio... Perhaps telephone/telegraph lines should be laid down like railroads as an improvement. Cities connected to the capital should have their maintenance reduced. and perhaps the improvement itself should give a commerce bonus to the tile if the tile is producing more than 5 commerce for example.

Then again, isn´t wheel or railroad more an invention than a technology? For me it´s the same, if an invention is important and necessary then there´s nothing bad about having it as a technology.

The stirrup was introduced by the Mongols, I think. That is the main reason why they had such a vastly superior cavalry. Without the stirrup, for instance, the concept of "horse archer" is flawed - no stability for precise shots, no shots in other directions rather than forward. Riding with a lance becomes a joke. What is left is riding with a melee or a short range weapon, like a sword or short spear - precisely what cavalry did, up to the mongols.
So why are the Parthians famous for the Parthian shot - accuractly shooting backwards from a running horse?
I think that truly great techs are those which were invented independently ONLY ONCE, and then passed on. Of these, I would single out three:
the alphabet, the stone arch, and the concept of zero.

Without the concept of zero, algebra is impossible. Greece did not have the concept, so its great mathematicians could not do much beyond geometry.
So how was Pythagoras able to use algebraic methods to construct Pythagorean triples before zero was invented?No positional representation of numbers, no differential calculus. Again, the concept of zero was invented in India, passed to Persia and to the Arab world, and then to Europe. What europeans call "the arab numbers" 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 251,... are actually Indian.
There should be a new tech called "algebra" between mathematics and scientific method.

So let's give credit to at least ONE of the awesome inventions of India and put it in the game, shall we? On the other hand, I would add the Phoenicians civ, who invented the alphabet...

So why are the Parthians famous for the Parthian shot - accuractly shooting backwards from a running horse?So how was Pythagoras able to use algebraic methods to construct Pythagorean triples before zero was invented?

Apparently, the Parthians archers were superb riders. AFAIK, Parthians did not have the stirrup, and their cavalry was manned by well-trained noblemen, while the mongols have an entire people capable of the feat.

It is like the difference between copying books by hands, or printing them. Of course you can have books in Roman times. It only takes a lot of time and money to obtain them, while after printing every house in Europe could own a Bible, for instance.

Pythagorean triples were discovered with geometric methods first - and not by Pythagoras, but by the Egyptians. Pythagoras was, after all, a genius, and was able to devise and deploy cutting-edge mathematical tools to get some new results: new pythagorean triples, the discovery of irrational numbers.

But without the concept of zero real algebra, intended as group theory applied to numbers, was impossible, and with it were also many results that we teach now in elementary school. Today kids of the age of 6 learn how to multiply abritrarily big numbers, while this was an excruciating feat in ancient times (try multiply 658x237 with roman numbers). This is due to positional representation, which is a by-product of the concept of zero.

The stirrup - made cavalry more effective and horse archers possible.

Horseback Riding

The keel - made ocean-going ships possible. I note that the Maoris, Micronesians and Vikings all had ocean-going ships well before Civ4's technology trees would allow them.

Optics or Astronomy.

General staff - introduced around the time of Napoleon, made it possible to effectively coordinate multiple armies. In game terms, you might increase all ground movement by +1.

Military Tradition.

Telegraph/Telephone - made it possible to coordinate business and government across geographic distances more effectively. In game terms, it would reduce penalties for distant cities.

Electricity / radio?

Stirrup = Horseback Riding


Not quite. That is precisely the point people here are discussing. Care to contribute with beefier arguments?


Telegraph/Telephone = Electricity / radio?

Radio certainly not. You need Maxwell electromagnetic theory for that, which is not strictly required for the telegraph.

Electricity, maybe. That is, if we consider electric power and electric communication to be the same thing.

Still, I would like to see the power grids and phone cables implemented in the game. Like roads and rails. Work boats could build sea telephone lines, under the ocean with fiber optics...

Then again, isn´t wheel or railroad more an invention than a technology?

Yeah, but not everybody is a scientist and appreciates the difference between theories, discoveries, technologies and inventions. So I'd guess we should leave it as simple as it can get. For instance:

Mathematics is a theory
I guess this is self-evident. Abstract thought with remarkable consequences in the real world.

Bronze working is a discovery
Somebody stumbled it upon while mixing, probably by mistake, 2 different metals. From then on, killing was easier, and women prettier.

The wheel is an invention
Stumbling upon it is not enough, a relatively new application is required. For instance, nobody ever built a civilization on hand-pushed carts. But using the wheel to make wagons and chariots attached to horses or oxes is quite another thing. That's why the wheel did not find its role in pre-colombian american civilizations. There ARE ancient indian toys with wheels, but the transport and military applications of the wheel remained untapped because there wasn't any animal powerful enough, and without it no "invention" of the connection between animal power and wheel "amplifier".

Electricity is a full fledged technology
comprehensive of discoveries, like reproducible electrical phenomena (Volta), theories like the physics of electricity, and inventions like power production, engines, telegraph, ,lightbulbs etc.

Wikipedia is lacking much info.

The Huns and Avars first introduced the stirrup to the West in the 5th century. It was first adopted by the Romans under the Emperor Justinian the Great and his general Belisarius in the 6th century, allowing him to reconquer most of the former Empire.

Then again, isn´t wheel or railroad more an invention than a technology? For me it´s the same, if an invention is important and necessary then there´s nothing bad about having it as a technology.

Perhaps, but there are some inventions that are so life-changing that they warrant being called a technology. Using your description, I don't think the stirrup deserves its own technology. Doesn't horseback riding already cover it? It does enable horse archers after all. Maybe you could update its civilopedia entry.

A few ideas....

The stirrup - made cavalry more effective and horse archers possible.

The keel - made ocean-going ships possible. I note that the Maoris, Micronesians and Vikings all had ocean-going ships well before Civ4's technology trees would allow them.

General staff - introduced around the time of Napoleon, made it possible to effectively coordinate multiple armies. In game terms, you might increase all ground movement by +1.

Telegraph/Telephone - made it possible to coordinate business and government across geographic distances more effectively. In game terms, it would reduce penalties for distant cities.

Fire, maybe? ;)

And about the stirrup: There is a Scythian horseman statue from the VII century BC with it, but it looks that it was forgotten and reinvented by some Central Asian tribe in the III century AD.... And you don't need to know it to do a effective horseback riding: most of the ancient cavalries simply tied the horsemen feet one to another ( Numidians did it, as well as later roman ones ). Stirrup bring another and completely diferent thing: it stabilizes the horsemen enough for him to use the total kinetic thurst of the horseman + horse (+ armor ) in a aimed charge.... Mongols ( with their "parthian arrow" technics )didn't need that, but Sassandid, Bizantine ( with their version of the Parthian/Sassandid cataphrachs ) and West European did.....

Not quite. That is precisely the point people here are discussing. Care to contribute with beefier arguments?

Why - everyone agrees that horseback riding grants the ability to create horse archers, who needs a stirrup to function. And the stirrup is mentioned in the citing that follows the teech aswell - it's not as if Firaxis hasn't thought of it.

Radio certainly not. You need Maxwell electromagnetic theory for that, which is not strictly required for the telegraph.

Electricity, maybe. That is, if we consider electric power and electric communication to be the same thing.
Obviously, we do, because else, electricity wouldn't give it's wonders (that require actual use of electricity). :mischief:

Telegraph/Telephone - made it possible to coordinate business and government across geographic distances more effectively. In game terms, it would reduce penalties for distant cities.

I'd agree that this could have its own tech, rest I don't think so, regardless of it has the merit, because gameplay can't really add it well. Stirrup=horseback riding, nothing to put between sailing and optics for keel, and engineering adds movement bonus w/ railroads not that far off from middle ages.

When was Rome dominant, and when did it showed first its potential?
Moreover, central Asia was still technologically backward and nomadic, these scales are not really "big" in their context. It took some time to perfect the stirrup and then expand with its advantage, and again it took some time before some leader was born to make a political union of an hitherto chaotic domain.

In the mean time the idea spilled over to neighbouring countries (China) and tribes (Avars, Huns, etc) which somehow did not have the extreme cavalry focus of the Mongols, and so did not make the innovation shine to its full potential.

But of course, this is only one possible reconstruction. A romantic one, if you want.

Rome's dominance began after the Second Punic Wars around 200 BC, in my opinion. After several defeats, Scipio finally defeated Hannibal, and as part of the terms, Carthage had to give up it's rights to Spain and It's islands in the Med. Sea, and became an ally state of Rome (essentially a vassal.) This gave them utter dominance of the Med. Sea (except near Egypt). As far as it's potential, I'd say as soon as they formed a Republic and through off their last king, Superbus.

Did nobody watch Gladiator? The Roman cavalry charged heroically into a forest (perfect terrain for a cavalry charge, surely? Who needs 'tactics') - and they had stirrups.

And that was in about 50BC - you ignoramuses! :rolleyes:

Did nobody watch Gladiator? The Roman cavalry charged heroically into a forest (perfect terrain for a cavalry charge, surely? Who needs 'tactics') - and they had stirrups.

And that was in about 50BC - you ignoramuses! :rolleyes:

Because movies are always historically accurate!

Did nobody watch Gladiator? The Roman cavalry charged heroically into a forest (perfect terrain for a cavalry charge, surely? Who needs 'tactics') - and they had stirrups.

And that was in about 50BC - you ignoramuses! :rolleyes:

I must add to this to the previous poster: the action of Gladiator happens in the 180-190 AD ( Marcus Aurélius and Commodus in the same time period than Julius Ceasar ( that died in 44 BC ) ? :nono: )

As far as keels go. This shouldn't have a tech of there own but they could be 'enabled' by construction for example. Keels would allow galleys/trimemes to enter ocean squares. Since you can't have ocean trade routes until astronomy this wouldn't allow massive overseas expansion as the absence of trade routes would make them prohibitively expensive and not useful for resource acquisition until astronomy. Instead it would just give some small tactical advantage in early naval warfare. This doesn't nerf caravels either as they are still faster and stronger and can enter closed borders, although giving caravels a speed boost to 4 move would be a good idea.

A few ideas....

The stirrup - made cavalry more effective and horse archers possible.

The keel - made ocean-going ships possible. I note that the Maoris, Micronesians and Vikings all had ocean-going ships well before Civ4's technology trees would allow them.

General staff - introduced around the time of Napoleon, made it possible to effectively coordinate multiple armies. In game terms, you might increase all ground movement by +1.

Telegraph/Telephone - made it possible to coordinate business and government across geographic distances more effectively. In game terms, it would reduce penalties for distant cities.

Each of these has an in-game equivalent

Stirrup: Stirrups and other horse-related technology are embodied by Horseback Riding

Keel: Sailing? The "ocean-going" ships you mentioned were sailing on the CivIV equivalent of coast, although the re-introduction of the Sea tile could improve this...

General Staff: Either Military Science or Military Tradition, take your pick.

Telegraph/Telephone: Early electronic devices such as these are grouped together in the catchall Electricity tech


How on earth would alphabet come under this definition? There's more than one alphabet. The ancient egyptians had their own way before the Phoenicians, as did the chinese. The mayans had an alphabet all of their own too.

Those weren't alphabets... they were logograms, or character-based forms of writing. There is a huge difference.Click here to read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet)

the discovery of alcohol had a pretty profound impact, although it too has an in-game equivalent- ctd.

The Phoenicians were the inventers of the first alphabet. The Chinese and Egyptians didn't invent an alphabet although they had writing some time earlier. Yes alphabet is a once off invention that has been copied ever since...

The Phoenicians were the inventers of the first alphabet. The Chinese and Egyptians didn't invent an alphabet although they had writing some time earlier.

My point exactly. That's why Writing and Alphabet are separate techs;)

I personally always missed ballon (flight). As to me this seems as one of the earlyest forms of flight posible. I mean that you only need to create a ballon and a basket below that to be able to fly (givving the advantage of
1. seeing further
2. transport up/over mountains
3. transport over water)

It would be a developement that could be invented quite soon.

Evertjan van de Kaa

Why - everyone agrees that horseback riding grants the ability to create horse archers, who needs a stirrup to function. And the stirrup is mentioned in the citing that follows the teech aswell - it's not as if Firaxis hasn't thought of it.


This is a thread about discussing new techs, or about the split up of too coarse techs, implying a change of the current game tree.
I find it slightly onirical that you base your arguments on "current state" and "universal agreement".


Obviously, we do, because else, electricity wouldn't give it's wonders (that require actual use of electricity). :mischief:

That would have to do, again, with the concepts of "bundling" inventions into technologies, or let them go alone for the sake of gameplay.

Subtler or more honest arguments would be welcome...

Without the concept of zero, algebra is impossible. Greece did not have the concept, so its great mathematicians could not do much beyond geometry. No positional representation of numbers, no differential calculus. Again, the concept of zero was invented in India, passed to Persia and to the Arab world, and then to Europe. What europeans call "the arab numbers" 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 251,... are actually Indian.
There should be a new tech called "algebra" between mathematics and scientific method.

So let's give credit to at least ONE of the awesome inventions of India and put it in the game, shall we? On the other hand, I would add the Phoenicians civ, who invented the alphabet...

I believe the Mayans independently discovered the concept of zero. I'm not sure if it was founded before or after India. You have to consider the Native American civilizations when determining whether or not a tech was "passed on". A lot of the discoveries were founded independently in the America's.

I believe the Mayans independently discovered the concept of zero. I'm not sure if it was founded before or after India. You have to consider the Native American civilizations when determining whether or not a tech was "passed on".

AFAIK, no. Precisely. In India it should be due to Aryabhata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata), 476-550 AD. If you are not happy with him, then have a look to a more ambiguous statement here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place-value) on the unique paternity of positional representation.

AFAIK, no. Precisely. In India it should be due to Aryabhata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata), 476-550 AD. If you are not happy with him, then have a look to a more ambiguous statement here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place-value) on the unique paternity of positional representation.


According to Wikipedia:


Mathematics

Mayan numerals In common with the other Mesoamerican civilizations, the Maya used a base 20 (vigesimal) and base 5 numbering system (see Maya numerals). Also, the preclassic Maya and their neighbors independently developed the concept of zero by 36 BC. Inscriptions show them on occasion working with sums up to the hundreds of millions and dates so large it would take several lines just to represent it. They produced extremely accurate astronomical observations; their charts of the movements of the moon and planets are equal or superior to those of any other civilization working from naked eye observation.

Without the concept of zero, algebra is impossible. Greece did not have the concept, so its great mathematicians could not do much beyond geometry. No positional representation of numbers, no differential calculus. Again, the concept of zero was invented in India, passed to Persia and to the Arab world, and then to Europe. What europeans call "the arab numbers" 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 251,... are actually Indian.
There should be a new tech called "algebra" between mathematics and scientific method.

So let's give credit to at least ONE of the awesome inventions of India and put it in the game, shall we? On the other hand, I would add the Phoenicians civ, who invented the alphabet...( bolded are mine )

In spite of almost everything you said is true, you are confusing the concept of zero with a symbol for the concept of zero. Indians should be credited for the second, but Greeks and Roman knew the concept of zero... Just look at Archimedes works about the value of pi .... or for the simple existance of the latin word "nullum" and his use by Diogenes in the calculation of the easter day ( that incidentaly pinpointed a completely arbitrary date for the birth of Christ, just for his calculations beat well with the vigent Theology )...

If you wanted another nice example of India's contribution for the modern world, you could say that steel was invented in India..... It would be less controversial and more true

This is a thread about discussing new techs, or about the split up of too coarse techs, implying a change of the current game tree.
I find it slightly onirical that you base your arguments on "current state" and "universal agreement".

Subtler or more honest arguments would be welcome...

I am trying to be honest and subtle from now on, point taken, but I'd weight HBR as one of the least coarse techs - why split it?

And does anyone in here argue against the fact that HBR gives HAs? :lol:

Concept of zero is one thing, having a symbol for it is another, and actually developing the base 10 number system is yet another.

According to Wikipedia:


Mathematics

Mayan numerals In common with the other Mesoamerican civilizations, the Maya used a base 20 (vigesimal) and base 5 numbering system (see Maya numerals). Also, the preclassic Maya and their neighbors independently developed the concept of zero by 36 BC. Inscriptions show them on occasion working with sums up to the hundreds of millions and dates so large it would take several lines just to represent it. They produced extremely accurate astronomical observations; their charts of the movements of the moon and planets are equal or superior to those of any other civilization working from naked eye observation.

I just want to throw this out there; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. Seriously, try using Wikipedia in a legitimate collegiate institution and see what happens. As a student of history, my professors specifically stated that Wikipedia was not allowed to be a source. Seriously, ANYONE can go on Wikipedia and write an article.

Whew, okay, its out of the system. I only had to say it because Wikipedia has been cited twice in this thread.

Back on topic: I dont know a whole lot about the Mongols, but I thought they simply used the stirrup to new affects; ie riding backwards while shooting etc. I didnt think they created the stirrup. Does anyone have a REAL source (scholarly journal, publication, etc) about this topic? Im a little interested.

The egyptian and chinese ones are symbolic (one word = one symbol) while the Japanese and many others are syllabic (one syllable = one symbol).

Kanji is symbolic. It's basically just adapted Chinese. Kana is syllabic, also using adapted Chinese characters. So the Japanese actually have both kinds of writing.

I propose unique promotions, so Greek Spearmen could get phalanx, Mongol Keshiks would get Stirrup, etc.

Kanji is symbolic. It's basically just adapted Chinese. Kana is syllabic, also using adapted Chinese characters. So the Japanese actually have both kinds of writing.

What about Hiragana and katakana?

I just want to throw this out there; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. Seriously, try using Wikipedia in a legitimate collegiate institution and see what happens. As a student of history, my professors specifically stated that Wikipedia was not allowed to be a source. Seriously, ANYONE can go on Wikipedia and write an article.

Whew, okay, its out of the system. I only had to say it because Wikipedia has been cited twice in this thread.

Back on topic: I dont know a whole lot about the Mongols, but I thought they simply used the stirrup to new affects; ie riding backwards while shooting etc. I didnt think they created the stirrup. Does anyone have a REAL source (scholarly journal, publication, etc) about this topic? Im a little interested.

Just because it's Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not true....

When I look up an article in Wiki I usually check and usually end up going to the sources (which are the sources for the article, if it has any; it it doesn't, then obviously the article is very weak).

According to Wikipedia: [...] Mayan numerals In common with the other Mesoamerican civilizations, the Maya used a base 20 (vigesimal) and base 5 numbering system (see Maya numerals). Also, the preclassic Maya and their neighbors independently developed the concept of zero by 36 BC.

Surprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_numerals). It looks as if I was wrong then. It is interesting that the symbol for zero is an empty shell, it might even be the same idea behind the symbol "0", who knows. Pity there aren't many non-Wikipedia links. Thanks!

What about Hiragana and katakana?

They are both sillabic, one devised by Monks (Katakana), one for common people. Hiragana is used for originally japanese words, Katakana for (originally) foreign words other than Chinese, and Kanji are used for (originally) chinese words.

I wrote that japanese was syllabic because that was the adaptation of writing done in an original way by the people of the archipelago. Of course modern japanese is symbolic AND syllabic - AND alphabetic too, roman letters are now in use.

In spite of almost everything you said is true, you are confusing the concept of zero with a symbol for the concept of zero.

I was trying not to be too anal in details... Of course concepts and symbols are different things and ceci ce n'est pas une pipe, but that was not the point of the discussion.

The point is that mathematics could be split into basic geometry, and basic algebra (zero, positional representation). With the first you measure fields, construct buildings, make objects. With the second you manage fast and large computations, a prerequisite for precise, large scale accounting (banks).

So you need to have the concept of zero first, then you write it in a symbol, almost at the moment you need a placeholder for positional representation, and then you are ready for kicking basic algebra - NEGATIVE numbers come into play... The more difficult part is the positional representation jump, because it requires not only inventiveness, but quite a feat of formal thought which, for the hitherto untrained mind, is remarkable.

Keel: Sailing? The "ocean-going" ships you mentioned were sailing on the CivIV equivalent of coast, although the re-introduction of the Sea tile could improve this...

The Vikings had real ocean-going ships. That was partly because of the keel, but generally the overall construction of the ships. Not so much technology as skill. Shipbuilding, seamanship and navigation skills.

Currently playing Ragnar, it seems odd to have to build caravels to sail the ocean and galleons to send armies across it. The Scandinavians did this much earlier.

Maybe there should be a new promotion for naval units (ability to enter ocean tiles). The Vikings could get it with the Trading Post, instead of Navigation I.

Yeah I think Civ IV will always suck when it comes to Navy

Apparently, the Parthians archers were superb riders. AFAIK, Parthians did not have the stirrup, and their cavalry was manned by well-trained noblemen, while the mongols have an entire people capable of the feat.
I think it applies to the enitre people - it certainly applies to the whole army, with the possible exception of the cataphracts (presumably the nobels). You said that accurate shooting was impossible without the stirrup I am providing a example that discredits your assertion.
It is like the difference between copying books by hands, or printing them. Of course you can have books in Roman times. It only takes a lot of time and money to obtain them, while after printing every house in Europe could own a Bible, for instance.

Pythagorean triples were discovered with geometric methods first - and not by Pythagoras, but by the Egyptians. Pythagoras was, after all, a genius, and was able to devise and deploy cutting-edge mathematical tools to get some new results: new pythagorean triples, the discovery of irrational numbers.
Again you said algebra is impossible without zero, and thus was not available to the Greeks. I am discrediting this by giving a counter example. The concept of irrational numbers requires algebra.
But without the concept of zero real algebra, intended as group theory applied to numbers, was impossible, and with it were also many results that we teach now in elementary school. Today kids of the age of 6 learn how to multiply abritrarily big numbers, while this was an excruciating feat in ancient times (try multiply 658x237 with roman numbers). This is due to positional representation, which is a by-product of the concept of zero.
The ability to multiply arbitary large numbers is nothing to do with algebra, in fact zero has little relevence to algebra. I think you will find that zero is a by product of positional representation.

I think it applies to the enitre people
Uh, not AFAIK.

Again you said algebra is impossible without zero, and thus was not available to the Greeks. I am discrediting this by giving a counter example. The concept of irrational numbers requires algebra.

It is just a "neither odd nor even" argument. You CAN consider it algebra, as in "you CAN stick your fingers up your nose till you feel your brain", but it does not bear any general intuition of group theory. It came close, though, but yet... So I don't think it qualifies as algebra, as a structured theory that is. It is just a little trick that could.

The ability to multiply arbitary large numbers is nothing to do with algebra, in fact zero has little relevence to algebra. I think you will find that zero is a by product of positional representation.
I believe you are mistaken, or confused, about that. I also believe that the zombie of Evariste Galois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois) has just risen from the dead and is lurching toward you with murderous intent, you better go get a chainsaw and a shotgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Darkness).

Do you want to know what Algebra really is? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/quotes)
Algebra is all about group theory on spaces, including and starting from numbers and going up to polynominals and beyond to really weird spaces. Operations defining sets by internal construction, invariant elements in operations, inverse operations. Plus many really funky theorems answering some apparently easy thousand-year-old questions. Zero is precisely the invariant element in the additive (semi)group N that defines the natural numbers. Allow for the inverse operation and you have negative numbers and the (full) group of integer numbers Z (from the German Zahlen: numbers). The positional representation is nothing else but a compact operative representation of an infinite group (the integer numbers) in a infinite sequence of finite subgroups, where global operations are modular and easily manageable. You CAN use it without understanding what it really is (we moderns all did it at some point), but in order to invent it you need a really fabulous insight into algebra.

ANYWAY, we are getting slightly away from the point. My point is, algebra is important, different from geometry, and a necessary prerequisite for calculus or private enterprise accounting. So worthy of being its own tech. Similarly for the stirrup and horseback riding.

Birth control - totally redefines the role of female :king:

Herbals - you don't discover "medicine" in the game till at least 1700 ac as if people before that all relied on their own immune system. In fact, most Asian countries and American natives used herbals systematically.

Uh, not AFAIK.

It is just a "neither odd nor even" argument. You CAN consider it algebra, as in "you CAN stick your fingers up your nose till you feel your brain", but it does not bear any general intuition of group theory. It came close, though, but yet... So I don't think it qualifies as algebra, as a structured theory that is. It is just a little trick that could.

I believe you are mistaken, or confused, about that.

Do you want to know what Algebra really is? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/quotes)
Algebra is all about group theory on spaces, including and starting from numbers and going up to polynominals and beyond to really weird spaces. Operations defining sets by internal construction, invariant elements in operations, inverse operations. Plus many really funky theorems answering some apparently easy thousand-year-old questions. Zero is precisely the invariant element in the additive (semi)group N that defines the natural numbers. Allow for the inverse operation and you have negative numbers and the (full) group of integer numbers Z (from the German Zahlen: numbers). The positional representation is nothing else but a compact operative representation of an infinite group (the integer numbers) in a infinite sequence of finite subgroups, where global operations are modular and easily manageable. You CAN use it without understanding what it really is (we moderns all did it at some point), but in order to invent it you need a really fabulous insight into algebra.

ANYWAY, we are getting slightly away from the point. My point is, algebra is important, different from geometry, and a necessary prerequisite for calculus or private enterprise accounting. So worthy of being its own tech. Similarly for the stirrup and horseback riding.
You appear to be assuming that arithmatic is part of abstract algebra, and that abstract algebra is all of algebra.

Yes algebra and the stirrup are important, but they are not as essential as you claim them to be.

You appear to be assuming that arithmatic is part of abstract algebra, and that abstract algebra is all of algebra.


Not really, I am trying to make points without writing an essay. As a consequence, there will be imprecisions and abridgements.

I basically assume, as I think do most of people studying math, that algebra is one big topic, originally marginally tackled in some relatively fragmented parts and then evolved in a more coherent and organized whole by the development of abstract algebra.

I also assume that many theories or structures which had a name of their own for quite long time because they were easy to apply and difficult to relate to other theories, indeed find their own place in more general ones once these are discovered. Positional arithmetics is, in fact, a gift of algebra.

Polynomial root analysis CAN be thought of with basic knowledge, as you CAN wonder about the existence of God well before some theological thought or marxism, but you rarely get much further than sacrifying virgins to bulls.
In any case, fat answers can be obtained only after algebra is full blown, i.e., after you develop the abstract part. That's the might and merit of Galois.


Yes algebra and the stirrup are important, but they are not as essential as you claim them to be.

This is the first line from you so far which is not absolutely critical. I feel somewhat happy ;)

Birth control - totally redefines the role of female :king:

Contraception is a very interesting suggestion. The possible gameplay effect could be that city growth stops (with the granary full) the moment you reach the happiness limit of your cities. Or grant an extra health, or happiness, or both. Other ideas on effects?


Herbals - you don't discover "medicine" in the game till at least 1700 ac as if people before that all relied on their own immune system. In fact, most Asian countries and American natives used herbals systematically.

Medical herbs were used in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, too.

I feel "medicine" is a codeword for large-scale, scientifically based and centrally controlled sanitary sistem, whose biggest effect in history was to eliminate or dramatically depower the periodic plagues which decimated peoples in the past. The use of medical herbs, altough too often understated, did not achieve this feat.

Medical herbs could be a nice ancient age tech though, provided it comes with some significant but not dramatic effect. One extra 0.2 health per forest?

Contraception is a very interesting suggestion. The possible gameplay effect could be that city growth stops (with the granary full) the moment you reach the happiness limit of your cities. Or grant an extra health, or happiness, or both. Other ideas on effects?

Medical herbs could be a nice ancient age tech though, provided it comes with some significant but not dramatic effect. One extra 0.2 health per forest?

Contraception - +10% hammer (increased production from woman suffrage), +2 happiness :mischief: , pop growth rate halved once exceeds happiness cap. These bonuses are temporarily stopped when switched to slavery and/or theocratic

The health bonus for herbal should also applies to jungles.

Contraception is a very interesting suggestion. The possible gameplay effect could be that city growth stops (with the granary full) the moment you reach the happiness limit of your cities. Or grant an extra health, or happiness, or both. Other ideas on effects?



Medical herbs were used in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, too.

I feel "medicine" is a codeword for large-scale, scientifically based and centrally controlled sanitary sistem, whose biggest effect in history was to eliminate or dramatically depower the periodic plagues which decimated peoples in the past. The use of medical herbs, altough too often understated, did not achieve this feat.

Medical herbs could be a nice ancient age tech though, provided it comes with some significant but not dramatic effect. One extra 0.2 health per forest?

Contraception - +10% hammer (increased production from woman suffrage), +2 happiness :mischief: , pop growth rate halved once exceeds happiness cap. These bonuses are temporarily stopped when switched to slavery and/or theocratic

The health bonus for herbal should also applies to jungles.

Why on earth would you want to stop or slow the pop growth rate when you reach the happiness cap? That's a disadvantage so I don't know why you both call it a bonus (though Zongo didn't say it explicitly).

Why on earth would you want to stop or slow the pop growth rate when you reach the happiness cap? That's a disadvantage so I don't know why you both call it a bonus (though Zongo didn't say it explicitly).

That would mimic a bit the demographic problem of all post-industrial societies, without being so bad that players avoid the tech as hell. More of a "fun-factor" than an advantage, that's why I proposed some collateral bonuses, too. In particular, I liked the trade-off between happiness, which is usually not a problem in the late game, and healthiness, which is. So I would go for: +1 health, growth stops at max happiness (with the granary FULL).


The health bonus for herbal should also applies to jungles.

Yep, I agree.

I think cooking is somewhat important.

Also elevators to allow tall buildings.

And concrete.

And metal plating.

Also the discovery of sperm by Antoine van Leeuwenhoek is absolutely essential to reach evolution and genetics, but may be said to be included in optics/biology already).

I think the designers have done a grand job here actually. :)

I had the idea a few years ago that there should be different levels of some techs. Level 1 is sufficient to research onwards (make the non-tradeable follow up's optional for more diversity and apply bonuses to them).

Maths and the sciences are obvious choices for this. I think it would work. Also deciding your civ/leader after 1000 years would work too ('cept in multiplayer), instead of straight away. :)

I think cooking is somewhat important.


That would come with "fire", I think. But we had it for such a long time and Neanderthals used it too (if I am not mistaken), so unless you want to begin in 50.000 AC with a new civ of sturdy, hairy brutes as your neighbours...


Also elevators to allow tall buildings.


Uhm, this is tricky. Possibly steel? No steel cables, no big-span elevators. Electricity is the alternative, but you COULD power an elevator with coal, if you love steampunk sci-fi.

Anyway, there are so many inventions in the latter ages that if we do not package them in larger "technologies" then the game would become unmanageable. Splitting the packages would be ok for inventions with far-reaching, universal changes. Elevators made sense only in small, extra-dense American cities at the beginning, and only because of chaotic growth or emulations afterwards. You COULD have modern, functional cities without tall buildings, and many cities in Europe strive to do precisely that.


And concrete.


Forms of reinforced plaster have been used for ages since the babylonians, I figure it would be difficult to choose a discontinuity point and package it there as a technology. If you refer to "armed" concrete (reinforced with metal bars) than the tech would be again steel - which is also what allows skyscrapers.


And metal plating.


I am not sure if I understand exactly what you mean, but in case it is Galvanization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanization) then it would be electricity, wouldn't it?

the discovery of alcohol had a pretty profound impact, although it too has an in-game equivalent- ctd.

Yepp, above all to grant :) into cities :lol: :lol:

It is only when you go down to "one sound = one symbol" that dramatic simplification takes place, allowing for speed of writing, ease of education, and flexibility.

I think that this particular characteristic of alphabets is not essential for the technologies that immediately follow alphabet in the tech tree, like Literature. Printing Press is about where the simplification you describe starts to matter.

So no need to dismiss all the other (proto)alphabets so hastily.

Also, Mr. Sequoyah presents an interesting case, as he certainly invented an alphabet although he did not invent new symbols wholesale to do so. Are you saying the ancients get credit? That doesn't seem right. You know, the ancients stole many symbols themselves. I mean, some letters are just circles or lines and dots.

Zero is precisely the invariant element in the additive (semi)group N that defines the natural numbers. Allow for the inverse operation and you have negative numbers and the (full) group of integer numbers Z (from the German Zahlen: numbers). The positional representation is nothing else but a compact operative representation of an infinite group (the integer numbers) in a infinite sequence of finite subgroups, where global operations are modular and easily manageable.

I disagree.

Zero is the only number.

Every other symbol in the natural numbers that you think is an individual number is actually merely a successor of (a successor of) zero. This is why mathematical induction works, underneath the symbols the numbers are really related. Review your Peano.

It also makes it possible to prove that 2+2=4, which seems to be a semantic mystery of zen-like proportions to some people.

the discovery of alcohol had a pretty profound impact, although it too has an in-game equivalent- ctd.

Alcohol allowed settling land with marginal water supplies, and later more urbanization. For many, a weak beer was far safer to drink than local water sources.

Fermentation could allow you to construct a brewery in a city which is treated as access to fresh water, and possibly reduce the effects of nearby negative health tiles (jungle? flood plains?). Perhaps a little commerce bonus? Increase corruption? Would it hurt production? Karl Marx might think it would keep the masses compliant.

Contraception is a very interesting suggestion. The possible gameplay effect could be that city growth stops (with the granary full) the moment you reach the happiness limit of your cities. Or grant an extra health, or happiness, or both.

At the first order, contraception would slow growth of population while slightly increasing output, right?

Contraception has done more to kill religion than Darwin, Nietzsche, Martin Luther, or Gutenberg. Perhaps that could be modeled?

...Again, the concept of zero was invented in India, passed to Persia and to the Arab world, and then to Europe...

Interesting. I always learn historical facts on these forums. I was under the impression that the Meso Americans (Mayans, Aztecs) developed the concept of zero. Maybe it was that Stand and Deliver movie with Edward Olmos. :mischief:

Couple things:
-I haven't seen this on the thread, but I might have missed it : Radar
Radar allowed Advanced Flight and Stealth to come into play. Similarly, Sonar, though both of these techs could be combined into Long Range Detection or something similar. So, I propose Radar/Sonar/Long Range Detection with Radio AND Flight as prequisites, leading to Stealth and Advanced Flight and enabling Subs, etc.

-Telegraph
The telegraph revolutionized communication. Long range communication, telephone, cellphones, even some military technology (enabled and spread by said communication) depended on the telegraph. Look at the painting "Manifest Destiny". In the center, we see a train, tracks, and what is next to it? Telegraph wires!

The invention of alcohol (and therefore beer goggles) should increase population growth until the advent of the contraceptive.

Alcahol as a replacement for water? Basic biology anyone? Even the anceints knew that you dont drink wine if youre thirsty...

Alcahol as a replacement for water? Basic biology anyone? Even the anceints knew that you dont drink wine if youre thirsty...

Tlalynet,

Thank you for your reply!

I stand by my remarks, in the face of your 'basic biology.' Here is a rudimentary reference to start off my side of the debate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_beer

Scroll down to medieval Europe section. Do you disagree with this wiki entry? I understand that wiki isn't perfect, perhaps you could provide superior references to help me understand?

Didn't read the above link, but I the saw a History Channel show on Beer (apparently it's a Modern Marvel). It said that in medieval Europe, especially the North, that beer's distillation process often made it more sanitary than the river water most people drank and contributed tremendously to the sustained health (and therefore, continuity) of burgs.

That would mimic a bit the demographic problem of all post-industrial societies, without being so bad that players avoid the tech as hell. More of a "fun-factor" than an advantage, that's why I proposed some collateral bonuses, too. In particular, I liked the trade-off between happiness, which is usually not a problem in the late game, and healthiness, which is. So I would go for: +1 health, growth stops at max happiness (with the granary FULL).



Yep, I agree.

Have to disagree. Contraception is not the same thing as safe sex. People on the pill can spread STDs like nobody's business. There should be a health penalty, if anything.

Not even your wiki refrence article says that beer can replace water, its a main drink sure but it cant be had by itself indefinetly without a source of actual drinkable water. You cant even make beer without drinkable water. Even your article says that it was easier access becasue it was ALREADY BOILED.
Lite beers might be survivable but any heaver alcahols dehydrate becasue of the amount of proccessing your body has to do to them, alcahol is great and has health benifits but it does not in any sense replace water.

I think that this particular characteristic of alphabets is not essential for the technologies that immediately follow alphabet in the tech tree, like Literature. Printing Press is about where the simplification you describe starts to matter.
So no need to dismiss all the other (proto)alphabets so hastily.


Remember that alphabet makes it also easier to teach to read and write, decoupling this empowering knowledge from the official bureaucracy, or religion. This allows for independent study of (forbidden?) books, private book-keeping, non-sanctioned literature, etc. It promotes independence and it fosters diversity.

Have you ever wondered why the chinese civilization, so ancient and elaborate, is nevertheless so strikingly homogeneous and centralized in comparison to India, or the Arab world, or Europe? Or why it does not have a love literature of comparable size?
Chinese are passionate and inventive people, too. But their language has always been one with the official power structure...

The printing press decouples the book production aspect, which is an important but different thing.


You know, the ancients stole many symbols themselves.

Of course. We are a race of balding chimps in the end, we mimick dumbly everything we see for most of our lives. Nevertheless, sometimes a bugger comes out with something just a little bit brighter and almost original.

All alphabets in existence today are the descendants of only one, the ancient phoenician. A, Alpha, Aleph,... does it strike a chord?

Ah, and on math: what I say and what you say is the same, really. I prefer to call 0 the invariant element in the additive group, instead of the "only number" in the induction construction. I just prefer the algebrists' cabal, to the number theorists' one. I find the latter often dogmatic and boring...

Interesting. I always learn historical facts on these forums. I was under the impression that the Meso Americans (Mayans, Aztecs) developed the concept of zero. Maybe it was that Stand and Deliver movie with Edward Olmos. :mischief:

Possibly some of the playwriters mistook Indians and (american) Indians. :lol:

Couple things:
-I haven't seen this on the thread, but I might have missed it : Radar [...]
-Telegraph

I think Radar is an interesting idea. It could further expand the visibility range of cities and units, making stealth necessary for surprise attacks (now you can navigate from the Fog of War and strike in the same turn).

Telegraph has already been proposed, having to build the comm-infrastructure would be cool for now-idle settlers. Of course, later techs would make it more powerful (telephone, the internet).

independent european cinema
required techs: none
effects: none

Remember that alphabet makes it also easier to teach to read and write, decoupling this empowering knowledge from the official bureaucracy, or religion. This allows for independent study of (forbidden?) books, private book-keeping, non-sanctioned literature, etc. It promotes independence and it fosters diversity.


You seek to answer my timing related objection with an asserted literacy campaign. Could you please clarify when you think a noteworthy portion of any given culture was (subversively) literate by the standards you are outlining? Are you sure my timing criticism doesn't still apply? Was there some pre-Printing Press underground railroad for hand-produced books?

I found the comments on the larger fabric of society to be speculative and conclusionary to attribute so strongly to the alphabet structure. It seems far more likely that the rigidity you attribute to the alphabet could have a deeper source that produced both the rigid alphabet and the effects you are attributing to it, assuming those effects are true.

You seek to answer my timing related objection with an asserted literacy campaign.


No, I don't. I just wrote that alphabet weakens the coupling between power and literacy. I never spoke of masses. Slightly freer sub-elites are more than enough to catalize change or produce novelty.

I think about the Carmina Burana, or the work of the Troubadors, or the spread of so-called christian heresies in Middle Age Europe, or the development of cities' "common codes", or even the Humanism of the early XV century, after the rediscovery of the Roman and Greek classics.
Would the "Magna Charta" have been possible without a kind of subversive literacy of England's barons?
Would Christianity or Islam have had such a tremendous success without easy access to the (relative) Holy Book?
Roman Law (and its descendents) is not meant for the bureaucracy alone, but for all (noblemen) to know. It is the base of the rule of law and representation. Would that have been possible without the alphabet?
Would ancient greek culture and philosophy have spread to all neighbours without an easy-to-learn language?


Are you sure my timing criticism doesn't still apply?


I have the impression that you did not get the argument as I meant it. I might have not been clear enough.


It seems far more likely that the rigidity you attribute to the alphabet could have a deeper source that produced both the rigid alphabet and the effects you are attributing to it, assuming those effects are true.

Like? Non-argumentative but pompous criticism like this is almost spam. Please try to present some new ideas or counterexamples, or just simply write "I don't really believe that".

I think cooking is somewhat important.
Also elevators to allow tall buildings.
And concrete.
And metal plating.
Also the discovery of sperm by Antoine van Leeuwenhoek is absolutely essential to reach evolution and genetics, but may be said to be included in optics/biology already).
Your discussion is so deep right now Zongo I fear this post may have gone well over your head.

The game has to balance historical accuracy with game play considerations. It's possible that the stirrup and number 0 could be incorporated into the tech tree in a way that enhances gameplay, but until that way is put forth, you're simply encouraging accuracy over gameplay. Which I gauge to be the sole purpose of this particular forum.

Your discussion is so deep right now Zongo I fear this post may have gone well over your head.

The game has to balance historical accuracy with game play considerations. It's possible that the stirrup and number 0 could be incorporated into the tech tree in a way that enhances gameplay, but until that way is put forth, you're simply encouraging accuracy over gameplay. Which I gauge to be the sole purpose of this particular forum.

Possibly, I do tend to get carried away by interesting chats.

I got involved into this thread because it seemed a way to enhance gameplay by putting in some "feely" techs, and compress some redundancies like military X, military Y. The stirrup could take the game place of one of them, for instance, swapping things around a little.
As for the zero concept, I'd say let's say after mathematics, and before banking and scientific method.

Because movies are always historically accurate!

Perhaps I should suggest the important discovery of 'Irony'. Its a bit like bronzey and coppery, but it allows more sophisticated jokes.

I'm not doubting the genius or importance of inventions such as "0" and the "stirrup", but if you want to dedicate your entire empire's resources to researching them for several years... it's a little embarrassing for your scientists. I just can't imagine what they would be doing with their time. "Sire, the final products of our years of intensive research are a little piece of metal - holds your feet on a horse, and a numeral - means "nothing", now why don't we research fermented sugars for a while..."

Not a symbolic or syllabic alphabet, but a letter alphabet - which is the "narrow sense" of the meaning of the word.

Ah, but aren't letters just symbols?

I'm not doubting the genius or importance of inventions such as "0" and the "stirrup", but if you want to dedicate your entire empire's resources to researching them for several years... it's a little embarrassing for your scientists.

It depends on the point of view. You could call a new tech "algebra", and associate it to a slight research bonus of the libraries. You could even associate it to a bonus of culture.
In fact, some interesting math takes place in european music (check Bach's Das Wohltemperierte Klavier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier), for instance), and the first real innovation in decorative tessellations after the Egyptians was done in persian/arabic art (the Isfahan's mosque gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A5375_70.jpg) is wonderful example of tridimensional group simmetry, for instance).
Besides, you don't get to gravitation without calculus, and you don't get calculus without the zero concept.

Do you really prefer "military tradition" to the stirrup? Is a tradition even a technology? Why not call it Stirrup?

It depends on the point of view. You could call a new tech "algebra", and associate it to a slight research bonus of the libraries. You could even associate it to a bonus of culture.
In fact, some interesting math takes place in european music (check Bach's Das Wohltemperierte Klavier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier), for instance), and the first real innovation in decorative tessellations after the Egyptians was done in persian/arabic art (the Isfahan's mosque gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A5375_70.jpg) is wonderful example of tridimensional group simmetry, for instance).
Besides, you don't get to gravitation without calculus, and you don't get calculus without the zero concept.

Do you really prefer "military tradition" to the stirrup? Is a tradition even a technology? Why not call it Stirrup?


I agree, you could have "algebra", or some kind of more advanced mathmatics, but not "0", regardless of its seminal importance.
Concerning the stirrup, it has been theorised that its introduction to Europe was resposible for the system of feudalism, as it allowed rich nobles to rule the battlefield, but damned if I'm going to "research" such a simple little device. Make it part of something else by all means. (to be honest I don't really know what military tradition is, but it does sound more impressive than "stirrup" and does of course come much later)
These ideas could well be better incorporated into the tech tree somehow, especially if they added gameplay and realism, but are not in themselves well developed enough to justify inclusion in isolation.

Keel: Sailing? The "ocean-going" ships you mentioned were sailing on the CivIV equivalent of coast, although the re-introduction of the Sea tile could improve this...
Click here to read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet)

Hmmm the polynesians crossed 4000 km of ocean from Tahiti to Easter Island in canoes. I don't think that counts as "coast". I think they got a random event that let their galleys cross ocean tiles.

Likewise the vikings made it to newfoundland from Norway, yes they hopped via the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland, Labrador... maybe on a small Civ earth map that's all coast, but it's not in real life!

on Stirrups...

clearly tech advances go hand in hand with certain inventions, Pottery obviously requires digging clay and making a fire, Fishing needs hooks and lines or nets, while horseback riding requires ropes, wooden posts and probably a saddle and stirrups. You don't need all of those small pieces to be invented separately in the game though, they are inherent in the tech.

Incidentally the Mapuche indians in Chile took one look at the Spanish horsemen ridden by the conquistadors... then they promptly stole some horses and copied the spanish, including inventing within about ten years a new improved stirrup that made them MORE effective at riding in rough terrain than the spaniards. Pretty cool. A real life version of the "random event" that improves your mounted units... and the Barbs got it!! :lol:

Couple things:
-I haven't seen this on the thread, but I might have missed it : Radar
Radar allowed Advanced Flight and Stealth to come into play. Similarly, Sonar, though both of these techs could be combined into Long Range Detection or something similar. So, I propose Radar/Sonar/Long Range Detection with Radio AND Flight as prequisites, leading to Stealth and Advanced Flight and enabling Subs, etc.

Sonar appears automatically when you have Biology and access to Whales.

Like? Non-argumentative but pompous criticism like this is almost spam. Please try to present some new ideas or counterexamples, or just simply write "I don't really believe that".

The remark you found to be pompous was a polite way of saying you are committing the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." I literally had that typed in at first and decided to rephrase it.

I find it ironic and most telling that your reaction to this remark was to demand that I also commit the same fallacy!

You need to internalize that people are going to dismiss vague, speculative claims without presenting counter-examples just due to standards of rigor. When kids are not tall enough to ride on a carnival ride, the gatekeeper doesn't have to put another kid in that seat... they get turned away even if there are empty seats. Same deal here, I don't need my own narrative about the Chinese psyche to challenge yours. I prefer to decline to speculate, and I can't be bothered to do the extensive research I would consider necessary.

Frankly, once we lower the bar on rigor, the shotgun blast of random fancies just raises more questions than it answers. I prefer to drill down, not skitter around. I would be happy to drill into what percentage of Magna Carta barons were literate compared to other eras (you do have those numbers, right?), but I don't want to get distracted from our analysis of the Chinese psyche.

Or does that just get abandoned as we free associate?

Herbals - you don't discover "medicine" in the game till at least 1700 ac as if people before that all relied on their own immune system. In fact, most Asian countries and American natives used herbals systematically.

It refers to modern medicine: penicillin, anesthesia, hospitals, etc.

Incidentally the Mapuche indians in Chile took one look at the Spanish horsemen ridden by the conquistadors... then they promptly stole some horses and copied the spanish, including inventing within about ten years a new improved stirrup that made them MORE effective at riding in rough terrain than the spaniards. Pretty cool. A real life version of the "random event" that improves your mounted units... and the Barbs got it!! :lol:

(bolded letters are mine)

I think that Chilean Indians would fall under the category of the Inca, not Barbs

EDIT: sorry for the double post

Not in this case - the Incans did conquer or were culturally dominant as far south as the present-day site of Santiago (about half way down Chile). The Mapuche tribes lived a fair bit further south and were never conquered by the Incans, they were warlike hunter gatherers who defended their land bitterly against all comers - the real-life equivalent of Barbs if ever there was one! :D

The remark you found to be pompous was a polite way of saying you are committing the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." [...] When kids are not tall enough to ride on a carnival ride, the gatekeeper doesn't have to put another kid in that seat... [...]
Frankly, once we lower the bar on rigor, the shotgun blast of random fancies just raises more questions than it answers.

The following is an off-topic personal reply (spoilerized), which chains itself into a general argument for amateurish discussion on the topic of cultural differences (not spoilerized). If you are interested, read on. For all who are not, my apologies for this abuse of space on my part.


What I did not appreciate was the tone of a the last couple of lines of that post dismissing ex cathedra an explanation/speculation of mine as an obvious fallacy, but without any references, or other ideas whatsoever.

If you personally don't buy it, just say it so. If you mean that you know of other explanations, please share them. If you believe that an explanation is not needed and some perceived peculiarities of the chinese civilization are not really that marked or are just a statistical phenomena, put the argument forward.

I do not want to win an argument with you. I am always pleased in reading replies and I actually want your input, so long as it is not in the "shut up and learn the Truth" direction. Calling people kids and speaking about the bar of rigor in a game forum hits me as Martian, somehow.

I post here to share ideas, that is put mine forward and get some back. I appreciate criticism, even blunt so long as it is clear and/or well argumented.

As for "fallacies", so were branded most new ideas in the beginning. It's their strength that makes some of them survive and thrive into new standards, not the ipse dixit or rigorous history arguments. Of course what I propose may well fall far away from grace, still is this a reason not to even try?


I personally feel that cultural differences are not much tackled for an explanation today. It is a desert where professionals do not go often. Possibly because this is still perceived as a sensitive issue, after yesterday's concepts like white race superiority. This shyness is in itself a problem, but much darker is the fact that, every now and then, even eminent scientists come out with the old argument (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece), sometimes with scientific trappings, too. So I guess that discussing cultural differences as amateurs, trying to be original and looking for new explanations might be good, after all.

damned if I'm going to "research" such a simple little device. Make it part of something else by all means. (to be honest I don't really know what military tradition is, but it does sound more impressive than "stirrup" and does of course come much later)

What about "Advanced Mounted Combat" yelding the stable, knights, a powered-up version of the Keshiks (replacing knights and allowing effective rushes) and Pikemen?

The catchphrase would be, of course:
"if you speak the truth, have a foot in the stirrup".
The one for horseback riding could be changed into Apocalypse 6.2.:
"And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."

What about "Advanced Mounted Combat" yelding the stable, knights, a powered-up version of the Keshiks (replacing knights and allowing effective rushes) and Pikemen?

The catchphrase would be, of course:
"if you speak the truth, have a foot in the stirrup".
The one for horseback riding could be changed into Apocalypse 6.2.:
"And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."

Sounds good. I'm in favour of separating the military techs in general, although I don't know much about the historical details in this case.
Certainly mounted units are under-represented and under-powered as it is now. ("Praetorians" weren't able to deal with horse archers in the open field and Mongolian horse archer - type light cavalry was invincible pre-gunpowder. I think the main problem is the "rock paper scissors" system which for better or worse requires that every unit have a counter, while historically the only real counter for horse archers/light cavalry was more of the same, and not silly spearmen.)

Certainly mounted units are under-represented and under-powered as it is now. [...] Mongolian horse archer - type light cavalry was invincible pre-gunpowder. I think the main problem is the "rock paper scissors" system which for better or worse requires that every unit have a counter, while historically the only real counter for horse archers/light cavalry was more of the same, and not silly spearmen.)

I feel a problem here too, but I guess is more of a balance one than a structural one. I am happy, gameplay-wise, with the rock-paper-scissor system, I would just like to feel a bit more the impact of cavalry in the age when it was dominant. At the same time, I do not want universal cavalry rushes as it was the case with Vanilla.

In game terms, I would like mounted units after the horse archer to come a bit earlier (that's my main reason for new techs), and I would also like unique mounted units to be really felt - that is, they SHOULD be good enough to allow for rushes: the Arabs and the Mongols built flash empires with them, after all.

For instance, would it make sense (and be fun) to change the keshik into a cheaper-to-build knight with march an extra +50% against cities? The concept behind this proposition is the "horde and pillage" one.

The Arabs could have a better horse archer, say with an extra bonus against melee units.

So I guess that discussing cultural differences as amateurs, trying to be original and looking for new explanations might be good, after all.


Ok, so I know how the professionals do it.... they propose a statement like "Chinese homogeneity is rooted in their alphabet" and then when someone says "you haven't established that causal link" they have a wagon of evidence to support it... linguistic analysis, proposed measures of homogeneity across cultures graphed over time, learning the respective alphabets, etc.

How does the amateur do it? When someone says "you haven't established that causal link" - they complain about the tone? I'm confused about the next step...

Although I admire all the amateurs exploring where professionals fear to tread, I also admire the perseverance of the professional.

Sigh, I think we will just have to agree to speculate in different directions. I am just going to stick with "the alphabet had an indeterminate, possibly negligible, effect on Chinese culture, which may or may not be homogeneous."

I'm not getting the statistics on the literate Magna Carta barons, either, am I?



(And, dude, isn't it more Martian to be spinning historical theories on a game forum instead of, say, a peer-reviewed historical outlet? I mean, logic and rigor - you can wear them anywhere, they are the little black dress of the internet... )

You tell me that you want to exchange ideas with me, but you reject the idea I offer to you as content-less spam.

You know what would really make me regret and change my tone? Establish a causal link between the alphabet and the Chinese civilization's (alleged) homogeneity. That would give you the high ground, wouldn't it!

"you haven't established that causal link" [...]

Although I admire all the amateurs exploring where professionals fear to tread, I also admire the perseverance of the professional.

Sigh, I think we will just have to agree to speculate in different directions. I am just going to stick with "the alphabet had an indeterminate, possibly negligible, effect on Chinese culture, which may or may not be homogeneous."

I'm not getting the statistics on the literate Magna Carta barons, either, am I?

You tell me that you want to exchange ideas with me, but you reject the idea I offer to you as content-less spam.


I am perfectly ok with the first two sentences, as I consider them good criticism, and I am grateful for them. I don't reject your idea at all, I just did not like the wording of the original post.
For me it makes a lot of difference if you say "you did not establish the causal link" or "that's not rigorous history". The first I feel is an argument, the second a dismission. Maybe I am just too subsceptible.

About the Magna Charta barons:

I guessed the literacy from the general education (http://lawweb.usc.edu/users/dklerman/documents/KlermanandMahoney.LegalOrigin.pdf) and bureaucratic roles (as taxmen) of the norman elites in England at the time, and I am trying to conferm it with biographical infos. Which of course I cannot access directly through original documents because of my location and work, so I am going with the Internet for references. An interesting one is here (http://www.magnacharta.org/magna_charta_barons_at_runnymede.htm).
One which goes in my direction - but I have no idea of the quality yet - is this one (http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/t/1215-year-of-the-magna-carta.shtml). I might buy the book to check it. I was struck by the passage:
"[...] The church had no monopoly over literacy. The rebelling barons were highly literate, often in two or more languages. Some education was available to almost everyone, male and female, and almost any male willing to put up with the discipline and rigor could achieve higher levels of education."

Canning, electronics (the transistor), dynamite, spinning, distillation, breech loading, artifical fertilizer.

Electronics could come under computers I suppose.

Dynamite is gunpowder. As well as breech loading, ie rifleman and infantry.

What do you mean "canning" and "spinning"?

Canning refers to preserving food, I think I read somewhere that Napoleon offered a reward for an invention that would make it easier to supply his army, and the canning process won.

Spinning is the process of turning bits of fluff (cotton, wool) into thread. Then it can be woven into cloth. Mechanised spinning and weaving was a big reason the industrial revolution took off in England.

Canning refers to preserving food, I think I read somewhere that Napoleon offered a reward for an invention that would make it easier to supply his army, and the canning process won.

Spinning is the process of turning bits of fluff (cotton, wool) into thread. Then it can be woven into cloth. Mechanised spinning and weaving was a big reason the industrial revolution took off in England.

Oh, well I don't know about canning, but spinning is completely covered by Replaceable Parts. Eli Whitney's cotton gin (which started the concept of replaceable parts) allowed large cotton harvests to be used in textile mills, so spinning is pretty unnecessary.

Yep, I agree that "spinning" in its various forms and evolutions falls into machinery, replaceable parts and industrialization.

The canning process thing is kind of irrelevant in current Civ as there are no real "supply train" and military logistics issues... you know, your scout can sit on a one-tile island for a thousand years and he doesn't starve, your vast massive armies can be in hostile territory for twenty turns but they have plenty to eat, even if it gets a bit expensive... they don't die if they sit still in winter, there's no link between food and armies really, etc.

Ah, but aren't letters just symbols?

Get it through your thick skulls:

Letters are phonetic and used to make up words; characters/logograms represent entire words and can be semantic as well as phonetic.

I just want to throw this out there; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. Seriously, try using Wikipedia in a legitimate collegiate institution and see what happens. As a student of history, my professors specifically stated that Wikipedia was not allowed to be a source. Seriously, ANYONE can go on Wikipedia and write an article..

Wikipedia is more reliable than most of what you can find on the Web; most of its articles are better researched and better written than anything else on a given topic. Using the argument that Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can write an article is like saying that the Internet is unreliable because anyone can create a website, or that libraries are unreliable because anyone can publish a book.

EDIT: I would also like to add that CFC is not a "legitimate collegiate institution", comparing a casual online community to Oxford is ridiculous.

Using the argument that Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can write an article is like saying that the Internet is unreliable because anyone can create a website, or that libraries are unreliable because anyone can publish a book.

The Internet is unreliable, and not everyone can, in fact, publish a book. When it comes to research, going to the library is a lot more reliable than surfing the web.

Oh, well I don't know about canning, but spinning is completely covered by Replaceable Parts. Eli Whitney's cotton gin (which started the concept of replaceable parts) allowed large cotton harvests to be used in textile mills, so spinning is pretty unnecessary.

Mechanical spinning is covered by replaceable parts, but spinning was an important technology long before it was mechanised.

Mechanical spinning is covered by replaceable parts, but spinning was an important technology long before it was mechanised.

The Wheel. XCL

The Wheel. XCL

You don't need a wheel for spinning (the spinning wheel didn't reach Europe until Medieval times.)

The Internet is unreliable, and not everyone can, in fact, publish a book. When it comes to research, going to the library is a lot more reliable than surfing the web.

You may have a great hierarchy here about what is unreliable in general, but I have to agree with lutzj that wiki is a credible starting point -- because if they have something ridiculous in there that one intends to disprove on Civ Fanatics, one could just as easily disprove it on wiki and then have the wiki reference on one's side.

In other words, correcting wiki works faster and better than advising folks wiki is flawed. And probably more rigorously!

Now, let us make 2+2: if we look at what lies between Sweden, China and the Balcans (occupied by the Avars) we see it is exacty the area which will become soon the Mongol Empire.
China would be overrun by the Mongols too, and the Avar, rather than invading Europe, where running away, together with all the other people in the Middle Age's "barbarian invasions", from somebody else in the east.

So, although not certain, it is nevertheless plausible that the mongols stumble upon the bright new idea, and started to capitalize on it.

good imagination. But more than 1000 years before the mongols rise, the Chinese were already fighting with the Huns, both the 2 nations were using stirrups then.
I don't know exactly who invented the stirrups, but I am sure it can't be the Mongols. They were born too late.

good imagination. But more than 1000 years before the mongols rise, the Chinese were already fighting with the Huns, both the 2 nations were using stirrups then.
I don't know exactly who invented the stirrups, but I am sure it can't be the Mongols. They were born too late.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not "birthdate." The Mongols would have more need for stirrups than the Chinese would, so it's incorrect stipulation to say they couldn't have discovered the stirrup.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not "birthdate." The Mongols would have more need for stirrups than the Chinese would, so it's incorrect stipulation to say they couldn't have discovered the stirrup.

They were, however, cetainly not the first or original inventors of the stirrup. Besides, as the stirrup was known in Asia before the Mongols came on the scene and there is no evidence that they reinvented them in isolation, we should according to Occam's razor assume that the Mongols didn't invent the stirrup but adopted it from others.

I completely agree with your facts but I did strongly disagree with Ying Zheng's logic as to why the Mongols "couldn't" have invented the stirrups.

Mechanical spinning is covered by replaceable parts, but spinning was an important technology long before it was mechanised.

1. Spinning wheels use technology equivalent to that of Pottery

2. If that doesn't work for you, keep in mind that Machinery covers most simple medieval-era devices, from spinning wheels to crossbows.

...Eli Whitney's cotton gin (which started the concept of replaceable parts)...

I'm pretty sure that the cotton gin didn't inspire Replaceable Parts. I remember from grade-school social studies that the replaceable parts system was started in New England (NE United States) in the early 19th century to compensate for a lack of gunsmiths. It spread to Europe via England during the Great Exhibition of 1851, when an American industrialist impressed locals by taking a several pistols apart, mixing the parts and putting them back together. This system bore the Winchester rifle and the famous pistols of the West, both of which were mass-produced using - guess - replaceable parts.

In case anyone wants to know, this is why RP leads to Rifling: in order to field large numbers of rifles, you need a replacable parts system to make repairs more efficient and to allow mass production.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post!

They were, however, cetainly not the first or original inventors of the stirrup. Besides, as the stirrup was known in Asia before the Mongols came on the scene and there is no evidence that they reinvented them in isolation, we should according to Occam's razor assume that the Mongols didn't invent the stirrup but adopted it from others.

Interesting. Care to post a link? The usual suspect (Wikipedia) writes a 322 AD as the date of the first reliable representation of stirrups (in China). That would leave 9 centuries before the empire of Temujin, and 5 centuries before the first known mention of the mongols by the chinese (in the Tang dinasty).

One of the reasons given for the mongol expansion was the effort to cut them off the silk road trade to which they depended, and through which they possibly grew as a nation, integrating both mongolic and turkic tribes.

So I would think that somebody on the final arc of the silk road came up with the stirrup idea. Either the chinese or some of the nomadic tribes which were not really ethnically defined (Hun is more of a prestigious title than a race identifier) and which would later on spawn the Mongols.

I'm pretty sure that the cotton gin didn't inspire Replaceable Parts. I remember from grade-school social studies that the replaceable parts system was started in New England (NE United States) in the early 19th century to compensate for a lack of gunsmiths. It spread to Europe via England during the Great Exhibition of 1851, when an American industrialist impressed locals by taking a several pistols apart, mixing the parts and putting them back together. This system bore the Winchester rifle and the famous pistols of the West, both of which were mass-produced using - guess - replaceable parts.

In case anyone wants to know, this is why RP leads to Rifling: in order to field large numbers of rifles, you need a replacable parts system to make repairs more efficient and to allow mass production.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post!

Whitney's cotton gin (not initially, but eventually) used replaceable parts, starting 1795, if I recall. Then some time in the late 1790s (so close to early 19th century), Whitney used the idea in one of his gun factories, where it was very sucessful. And the rest is history :).

The unsung heroes of modern (post-WWII) economic systems:

Sea containers: increase global trade +400%. :eek:

Think about it, without these there wouldn't be no globalization, no chinese economic boom, no cheap fresh fruits in your supermarket, etc. etc...

I thinks this is one of the biggest omissions in the whole game, there are included several less influential techs. :rolleyes:

Doesn't refrigeration largely cover that?

Interesting thread, I definitely agree with the Telegraph ideas.

If we subscribe to the idea that poles would be erected every 5 tiles.
Possibly each pole requires 4 turns to complete and can't be further than 4 tiles away from another pole.

T====T====T

Building a Pole on a tile that has a railroad should likely be completed 50% Faster (2 Turns).

Culture could travel more efficiently along lines where Telephone poles have been erected. Commerce bonuses for Trade could be implemented for cities connected by Telephone lines.

The only issue I see with this idea, is that building the internet is a 2000 Hammer Project. If Telephone pole/lines became a reality in CIV - it would need to bear in mind that the Internet would likely need to be limited to where there are Telephone lines connecting cities. And the Internet "bonus" where you get Technologies from 2 civ's wouldn't make much sense ....

Unless the building of the internet inherently auto-connects Your Civ w/ the 2 other civ's - linking them up with Internet-ready Telegraph poles - without having to send workers out to manually lay them down.

Seen a few of the posts making Cavalry/Horseman Archer recommendations. This is something I would definitely enjoy, two of the things most lacking in CIV atm is Naval consistency, and sparse options for Horsemanship.

More options for Horse Archer's; Mounted Scouts; and something beyond "Cavalry" -- just because the "real world" didn't have much of anything beyond mounted Cavalry doesn't mean CIV needs to subscribe to that ideal.

Why can't I have mounted Infantry :-) Fun should trump reality for all instances :cool:

EDIT:
Really bothers me how weak Horses are vs Spears,
I believe balance would be greatly improved to do the following:
Spears:
+50% vs Mounted
+50% Defend vs Mounted
Also possibly
+25% Defend vs Melee

It makes no sense whatsoever that a spearman can attack Horses so effectively.