Rename Civ Eras- they're too Eurocentric!

[sir_schwick]

Just for some consolidation for new thread readers, here is how I'm interpretting the results. All techs have these kinds of prequesites.

(1) Technology - That is a given as it has been for a civ games. Eventually however, some of the prequesite techs may have been part of branches of the tech tree that are not common to everyone.
(2) Resources - This assumes that you aren't going to learn to ride horses if you don't have them in the first place. These prequesites are based on having resources or the lack of them. These are usually part of unqiue branches.
(3) Triggers - These are based on a particular need or global progress.

 

[Slax]

I call it "Fluid Technology Tree". Currently Civilization uses a "Static Technology Tree". The Tech Tree is the exact same each game. The same advances always lead to the same next advances. In a "Fluid Tech Tree" techs don't always lead to other techs in the same order.

I like this idea. Simply put, every technology would have requirements or combinations of requirements that could be anything: another tech or two, achievement of goals like battles or diplomacy, availability of resources, terrain, civ type, etc. In most cases there should be more than one way to get to make a tech available.

Hard core players will immediately want to list all the requirements, and this will lead to unrealistic decisions like "I've got to go to war to enable this tech". Also, it may be hard to display the tech progress to the user.

 

[Diogenes183]

Having one giant tech tree is probably more historically accurate. But would it be more fun or less fun? Would it make for a better game? Sometimes two major design priorities, "historical accuracy" and "fun", butt heads with each other. I was very much for eras, but I read some posts and now I'm on the fence.

Other interesting yet unrelated facts about Wheels and/or Theory of Gravity:

The Harrapan civilization (proto-India) had wheel technology, but they only used it for children's toys.

While Newton developed the theory of gravity, Galileo laid a lot of the groundwork. Objects fell too fast for good measurements to be recorded (given the technology of the time). Galileo was able to get a better estimate of acceleration due to gravity by rolling objects down an inclined plane and applying trigonometry to the results. Although it is a long shot, one could argue that some concept of "objects that roll" is a prereq for the theory of gravity.

The concept of a circle was nearly as important to the early development of mathematics as the concept of a triangle.

There are other applications for wheels outside of transportation. Any mechanical device has a wheel is some form, including mideval water and wind mills.

 

[biggamer132]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the "poor man's army" strategy. Your idea, Gatsby, would crush a civilization's chance for success because it started far away from a certian resource. When in Civ III a player could make heavy use of auxillary units to compensate for the lack of a powerful basic unit or lack of a resource, your idea would keep them from researching the units needed to be able to compete. The one tech tree, however, seems like a pretty cool idea.

 

[dylanhatesyou]

Maybe some of us LIKE Eurocentrism.

 

[sir_schwick]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the "poor man's army" strategy. Your idea, Gatsby, would crush a civilization's chance for success because it started far away from a certian resource. When in Civ III a player could make heavy use of auxillary units to compensate for the lack of a powerful basic unit or lack of a resource, your idea would keep them from researching the units needed to be able to compete. The one tech tree, however, seems like a pretty cool idea.

Actually, that does bring up another point about my fluid tech tree. As there are tech trees for having certain things, there would also be tech trees if others had a thing and you didn't. Call it an ingenuity factor, but these would offer alternatives that had one of two slight downgrades:
(1) They cost more, Ethanol fuel is more expensive then Petroleum.
(2) They aren't as effective, advanced bronze composites are still not as good as Iron.

This way you could also simulate, haves-and-have-nots. it could even lead to proxy wars in the later ages when big nations face off with nukes. U give the nations with slightly worse techs your good techs so they can get an edge up.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I really don't see what's Eurocentric about the tech tree, except maybe the Middle Ages. And the stuff that was going on in Europe in the Middle Ages (technology, social structure) was still pretty much the same as everywhere else that was equally advanced. (China, Japan, Middle East)

 

[Jon Shafer]

I don't think that linking tech research to controlled resources is a good idea. Already the civs that get more resources than their neighbors have a powerful advantage, why make that even more of a problem? Sure, it's more realistic if it's a lot easier/only possible to research Motorized Transport, etc. if you only have oil, but that only screws over the civs that don't have oil even more than they already have been.

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't think that linking tech research to controlled resources is a good idea. Already the civs that get more resources than their neighbors have a powerful advantage, why make that even more of a problem? Sure, it's more realistic if it's a lot easier/only possible to research Motorized Transport, etc. if you only have oil, but that only screws over the civs that don't have oil even more than they already have been.

That's part of the reason I was suggesting Ethanol alternatives would be a lot more useful then in real life. Also, hopefully the Civ 4 people will re-do the trade system so no one can horde resources.

Even if you eliminate resource controlled research later on, it should be part of the early game, especially when it comes to horses, saltpeter, iron. Other then that, I could see the problem since human players don't trade.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

Having one giant tech tree is probably more historically accurate. But would it be more fun or less fun? Would it make for a better game? Sometimes two major design priorities, "historical accuracy" and "fun", butt heads with each other. I was very much for eras, but I read some posts and now I'm on the fence.

I like the OBTT idea although I confess I'm not entirely certain how it would play out. Can I beta test it?

While Newton developed the theory of gravity, Galileo laid a lot of the groundwork. Objects fell too fast for good measurements to be recorded (given the technology of the time). Galileo was able to get a better estimate of acceleration due to gravity by rolling objects down an inclined plane and applying trigonometry to the results. Although it is a long shot, one could argue that some concept of "objects that roll" is a prereq for the theory of gravity.

The concept of a circle was nearly as important to the early development of mathematics as the concept of a triangle.

There are other applications for wheels outside of transportation. Any mechanical device has a wheel is some form, including mideval water and wind mills.

Excellent points. The accuracy of Galileo's measurements are mind-boggling given the technology he had for timing (a manually operated pendulum). Development of the inclined plane was, in itself, a huge advance.

I also think a civ needs to develop the concept of zero. The art of storytelling would be a nice cultural addition.

As for Eurocentricity of era names, I can't think of anything better so I guess if OBTT doesn't happen, I'm all for leaving the names as they are.

 

[sir_schwick]

The big part they should change on the current eras is Middle Ages. Most of those technologies in the current Middle Ages were developed during the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. I already mod my games so they will have those era names. It would still be eurocentric, but I don't know enough antrhopology to think of a more appropriate suggestions.

 

[dh_epic]

Not like any amount of historical renaming would make monotheism and feudalism less of a focus. A lot of civilizations don't rest on these discoveries.

Not that the civ era names couldn't be improved, but I think the tech tree itself is more important. Offer some tech tree "uniqueness".

 

[sir_schwick]

The best solution would be to make scientific and religious/cultural and governmental developement seperate entities that could evolve differently. Of course this could mean two tech trees or something equally complicated. Also, by being able to do more Social Engineering, you could truly reflect governments and societies better over time. As for relgioin and culture, I'm not sure what kind of system would help there. Scientific research should be tied to one big tech tree, since history will no re-evolve.

 

[Vizurok]

I think the eras are good in their current form... Splitting them into smaller eras... why not? Get more techs... why not?

BUT I would like to have an Eurocentric tech tree, because the world is/was eurocentric (and now Euro and America-centric)...

 

[sir_schwick]

BUT I would like to have an Eurocentric tech tree, because the world is/was eurocentric (and now Euro and America-centric)...

This may be true for Western audiences, but what about our neighbors to the East. I am sure the Chinese do not view history through the same prespective as those in Europe and the Western Hemisphere. Is there anyone on this forum who is from East-Asia who could shed some light on whether my conclusions are true or not?

 

[Jon Shafer]

This may be true for Western audiences, but what about our neighbors to the East. I am sure the Chinese do not view history through the same prespective as those in Europe and the Western Hemisphere. Is there anyone on this forum who is from East-Asia who could shed some light on whether my conclusions are true or not?

No... Which says something doesn't it?

All kidding aside, the game is aimed at westerners, and the fact is that as Vizurok mentioned, the West has been the most "successful" historically, so it makes sense to tailor the progress of civilization around it. I don't think it'd be proper to completely ignore other areas of the world because of that, but I also don't think Civ 3 has done that, nor that CIV will either. There is focus, but it's not complete exclusion.

 

[Ribannah]

No... Which says something doesn't it?
the West has been the most "successful" historically

How do you figure that?

 

[warpstorm]

We are still around...

 

[Ribannah]

Sure, or we would not have this conversation.
But we started way late, missing out on thousands of years of potential success.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Well, the increase of technology has decreased the amount of time for change to occur. The rise and fall of empires these days is far more rapid than, say, Ancient Egyptian times. Weapons are more powerful, communication is better, etc. So a simple year judgement really doesn't measure things quite correctly.

Now then. The fact that the West has been so dominant in the last few centuries which have seen rapid technological advancement is quite a feat. (For example) American culture, influence, products, weapons, etc. are seen all across the entire world despite there being numerous sources for all of these these days which most people have access to. Did the Roman Empire ever reach this level? Mongolia? Their regional power was quite impressive but they never saw such complete global dominance that the West holds today and the past centuries.