Some forgotten-but-important technologies

[Lord Chambers]

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.

 

[Zongo]

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.

 

[TommyTankRush]

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.

 

[Abdic8]

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..."

 

[Mattimeo]

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?

 

[Zongo]

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, for instance), and the first real innovation in decorative tessellations after the Egyptians was done in persian/arabic art (the Isfahan's mosque gate 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?

 

[Abdic8]

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, for instance), and the first real innovation in decorative tessellations after the Egyptians was done in persian/arabic art (the Isfahan's mosque gate 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.

 

[Airefuego]

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

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!

 

[Airefuego]

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!!

 

[Airefuego]

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.

 

[occam]

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?

 

[lutzj]

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.

 

[lutzj]

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!!

(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

 

[Airefuego]

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!

 

[Zongo]

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.

Spoiler :

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, 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.

 

[Zongo]

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."

 

[Abdic8]

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.)

 

[Zongo]

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.

 

[occam]

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?

Spoiler :

(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!

 

[Zongo]

"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:

Spoiler :

I guessed the literacy from the general education 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.
One which goes in my direction - but I have no idea of the quality yet - is this one. 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."