1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Bin the date for now

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Victoria, Nov 16, 2016.

  1. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,503
    May one remove the date from said software display as building an ironclad at the time Jesus was born is a little disconcerting.

    One believes having the year displayed is encouraging derision.
     
  2. Namaspamus

    Namaspamus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    I thought like you at a time then changed my mind.

    If, say, the Roman empire had stood for a few more centuries, maybe we'd have walked on Moon by 1400 AD.

    Or not, of course, but the pace of human tech development isn't carved in stone. And ironclads aren't to frighten Jesus
     
  3. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,152
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Yes, during the decline of Rome scientific progress slowed (but didn't stop), but by the High Middle Ages it was progressing far faster than it ever had under Rome and the rate of progress has only increased since then. If anything, Rome's cultural and political hegemony over the Mediterranean and Europe would have in all likelihood slowed progress compared to the more culturally and politically fragmentary Medieval Europe.
     
    FangoriousFae and CaiusDrewart like this.
  4. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    I still think, like I argued for Civ 5, that the year should be generated by the average progress of the top X players on the map, instead of just being a number that is off for about 97% of all players.

    That would give a somewhat smooth year curve that does a reasonable job of representing the average progress of the World you're playing.
     
  5. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,397
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Don't forget about how the Chinese view historical technological progress as well.
     
  6. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The years are just silly. The AIs are routinely hitting Medieval Era 1500 BC or earlier on standard speed in my games. I don't expect an exact match between the game and history, but if every single game is going to be absurdly off like that, they should readjust things.
     
  7. Namaspamus

    Namaspamus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    I don't say it would have happened this way, only that it could have. We don't know, and it's not really the point. Rome is only an exemple, what I mean is that human "tech progress" pace isn't set in stone (nor as linear as a Civ tech tree)

    This could surely make the matter of a very long debate... I really don't look forward for it, but saying "in all likelihood" here sounds a bit too affirmative to me.

    "Had Cleopatra's nose been shorter, the world's face would have changed", etc, etc...

    How did they?



    Edit: Also as the AIs teching speed depends of difficulty, maybe they should have about "real history tech pace" in Prince/King, slower below and faster above
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2016
  8. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,397
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    The Chinese split era not by "Ancient," "Classical," "Medieval," etc., but by dynasty. In China, their equivalent of Ancient Era was Warring States period and earlier, Classical Era being Qin and Han Dynasties, Medieval Era being Three Kingdoms to Yuan Dynasty, Renaissance Era being Ming Dynasty and the first half of the Qing Dynasty, Industrial Era being the second half of the Qing Dynasty, Modern Era being the (unified) Republic of China, Atomic Era being the People's Republic of China under Mao and Deng, and the Information Era being the People's Republic of China since the June 4 incident at Tiananmen Square.
     
  9. smartcanuck1988

    smartcanuck1988 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    276
    I don't see the problem with the date. It's purely flavor in my opinion to (roughly) compare the progress of the game world with the real world.
     
  10. RealAntithesis

    RealAntithesis Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    239
    I liked the idea that the years progress according to the average technological advancement of the civs. So if the average of all civs are powering through the eras, then the years would be going by more quickly. This would more or less align the game somewhat with historical precedent, if that's important.
     
  11. Namaspamus

    Namaspamus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks. And from technological progress point of view, Chinese history must feel very different from European one too, with completely different periods of progress and stagnation. I guess.

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

    @Zaarin I didn't want to discuss the credibility of "Tech progressing faster if Rome had stood longer" as it's all fiction, but I found myself thinking about it so here's why I thought it's somewhat credible, from my limited historical knowledge:

    Nowadays science and technology are very closely tied. But back in Roman times I don't think it was the case. I'm not sure what you mean by "science" exactly, but I think it's not really scientists who were "teching" by then. It was workers and engineers however they were called. The very word "science" (also "arts") din't mean the same as today, because people viewed them differently.
    It's trade, economic forces and what we would call today "development" that were teching and spreadin new techniques. I heard that it's for trading that people began to write and count. Dunno how true it is, but it's not scientists who invented the wheel, or caravels, or metallurgy.

    Sure there might be more exceptions to this than I think, and later from Renaissance and Industrial eras the role of science in tech progress becomes huge. Also the role of maths in many techniques was certainly important.
    I still tend to think most new techniques came from "eureka moments" of random people. And mostly that then the diffusion of these new techniques was essential, as technique is a cultural thing, even for chimps or so I was told. It's collective.

    Romans were good engineers, and valued engineering. In all their empire they brought new techniques for construction, urbanism; shaping cities, building roads and sewers and aqueducts wich some are still standing. I also tend think their somewhat pacified empire was more favorable to exchanges and trade than the often warring kingdoms that followed. All that we'd call today development creates the conditions for technical progress.

    You say that the greater cultural diversity of fragmented Europe has favored "progress" more than the Roman hegemony... it's interesting to hear and I want to believe it, I'm not fond of Rome and love the Middle-Ages. But I don't see how.
    I know little about science in medieval Europe, but the image I have (with slight caricature) is people discussing Aristotle and the Ancients ad nauseam in Paris and Oxford universities (in the limits allowed by Church), making no significant progress until Copernic, and certainly not popping any tech. Is that terrible misconceptions? Probably, but how exactly?

    Would my speculative long-lasting Roman empire have done better? Of course it would have it's fictional it can do anything we want.

    I warned it'd be long! And I realize what I wrote is very schematic, I'm not saying it's true only credible to me so far.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2016
  12. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,152
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    Yes, that's a huge misconception of science in the Middle Ages. For one thing, there were no extant copies of Aristotle in Medieval Europe until the Late Middle Ages, and there were only a handful of copies of Plato. While both Plato and Aristotle were revered names in Medieval Europe, the obsession with Graeco-Roman...everything was more a trait of the Renaissance than the Medieval period. The idea that the Church was somehow opposed to scientific progression is also a modern myth--yes, they forced Galileo to recant, but the missteps of the Renaissance-era Church should not be taken for the historical attitude of the Church as a whole. Natural philosophy (as science was called then) was a highly respectable field of study in Medieval Europe, and Medieval Europe saw the invention of the water clock, the flying buttress, the scientific method, gunpowder (yes, China invented it first, but that's not terribly relevant to the history of gunpowder in Europe), universities, etc.

    Also don't forget that a scientist can come to a wrong conclusion and still be a great scientist. At the same time Copernicus was positing heliocentrism (and despite being more or less right, many of the principles of his theory have proven to be wrong), Tycho Brahe was positing a modified geocentrism. Though wrong, his model was mathematically brilliant, and Tycho Brahe's meticulous data and observations were the finest in the field of astronomy for centuries--in fact, they were so excellent that his student Johannes Kepler was able to use them to refine many of the errors in Copernicus' theory and develop his three laws of planetary motion.

    If you're interested in the theory of how cultural diversity promotes faster technological and scientific progress than cultural hegemony, try reading Jared Diamond's Germs, Guns, and Steel. I'm not sure I'd say I 100% agree with Diamond's conclusions, but it's an intriguing hypothesis at any rate.
     
  13. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,397
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gunpowder was invented accidentally in China as an attempt to discover the elixir of immortality.
     
    Namaspamus and Zaarin like this.
  14. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,152
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    So was arsenic and mercury poisoning. :lol: Considering Roger Bacon was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and Bacon was an alchemist, I wouldn't rule out the Philosopher's Stone being its origin in Europe either... ;)
     
    God of Kings likes this.
  15. Dicemechanic

    Dicemechanic Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    UK
    Personally, I love the date counter. It's a great guide - if you're at 1970 and still using muskets, you know you've messed up somewhere. Similarly, always loved rolling tanks over the battlefield in the late 19th Century.

    Of course, to get this little emotive kick, the counter has to be aligned to a reasonable benchmark for play. In Civ 6, it isn't.
     
    HF22 and smartcanuck1988 like this.
  16. Namaspamus

    Namaspamus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    Some things I disagree with but you said exactly what I wanted to know, and it was worth it for me to post here.
    Water clocks, no, they had been around for a while in several civilizations. Maybe more precise ones were made in Medieval Europe, but that's not where they seem to have been invented.
    Flying buttress, universities, yes.
    Gunpowder... I don't know much about how it spreaded in Europe, but I'd say the fact it's been invented in China is relevant when it comes to calling it an invention of European Middle-Age or not.

    Now about scientific method it's very interesting, and this is a decisive thing. I'm not sure how to express it, but I feel like from Renaissance science's target is locked, and that it will lead scientific progress to accelerate inexorably from this point. And that has probably a lot to see with the finalization of modern scientific method. I need more infos now but basically that's exactly what I wanted to know. After a quick research I begin to see I was overestimating the role of Ancient Greeks (wich is real) in the development of these methods and underestimating the role of Medieval Europe's scientists.
    I'm also told in the earpiece that Arabic scientists such as Hasan Ibn al-Haytham (aka Alhazen) are not to be forgotten here. A quote from this last guy:

    "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and ... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."

    I like this.

    Definitely agree. Also some of today's "conclusions" might look poor someday, and it's not the fault of scientists.

    I might, and note it at least. I'm also on the tracks of some good "history of techniques", or something like that.

    Now that's cute
     
    Zaarin likes this.

Share This Page