Tech Tree Discussion

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I do think Druidism is too early and think it should likely even be after Shaminism but its true nobody has ever been able to date it's origin or even get a guess at it from what I can tell. I understand why you want to change those early religions to a more generic system. Kinda a shame though since I do like those religions.

Druidism dates to 1772 AD or there abouts. The ancient name is not known as it was never recorded. A Druid was a shaman btw. The ancient version of European Animism dates from about 40,000 BCE, with Animism at around 100,000 BCE. Some Oceanic Animism (and one Atheist) date to around 40,000 BCE with all the other regions currently dated to around 12,500 BCE. This is based on archaeology and there are some regions where warfare or lack of interest mean studies are not complete.

AAranda made Druidism/Shamanism to represent two branches of Animism one based on animals the other on plants. The split between Americas and Europe for these religions was done later. I would prefer if we could have a region split so that the plants and animals of that region have meaning to the religion rather than every plant or animal. Give it a bit more flavor so to speak. Eventually I would want to have other/real Animism religions to add more flavor but that is turning out to be a very large project for something that covers a small time frame if you are not playing a long game. One reason I have been looking at including or excluding some religion stuff based on game speed.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Final statement on this subject, and then I'm dropping it, who says they are the "best" sources? That is subjective from all points of view or basis.

The sources with the most research and empirical evidence-based conclusions behind them are the best sources. This is not to say they can't be wrong but it's better than going off of any other hunches or guesses. Even interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations, often which are incorrect and also often which are shown to be more accurate than one who writes it completely off as a source would think as well. The wording in that book and other ancient works is not so definitive, particularly when translated to modern languages, that it's possible to say we know for sure exactly what its telling us, so while it may yet be proven completely true, that probably isn't going to mean all assumptions about it's intended messages will be accurate. So all knowledge to be gained from ancient texts needs to be taken as but one source of evidence.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Druidism dates to 1772 AD or there abouts. The ancient name is not known as it was never recorded. A Druid was a shaman btw. The ancient version of European Animism dates from about 40,000 BCE, with Animism at around 100,000 BCE. Some Oceanic Animism (and one Atheist) date to around 40,000 BCE with all the other regions currently dated to around 12,500 BCE. This is based on archaeology and there are some regions where warfare or lack of interest mean studies are not complete.

AAranda made Druidism/Shamanism to represent two branches of Animism one based on animals the other on plants. The split between Americas and Europe for these religions was done later. I would prefer if we could have a region split so that the plants and animals of that region have meaning to the religion rather than every plant or animal. Give it a bit more flavor so to speak. Eventually I would want to have other/real Animism religions to add more flavor but that is turning out to be a very large project for something that covers a small time frame if you are not playing a long game. One reason I have been looking at including or excluding some religion stuff based on game speed.

Interesting. From what I've read, and not recently, Druids were what the Romans encountered when they faced the Celts. Yes, they were shamans but they were also a bit more of a society than you usually find in most forms of shamanism. Trying to trace their 'origin' was kinda impossible because there's really no point where they could say 'now' they were Druids as opposed to just Shamanists. It was an evolution of a lot of early religious views coalescing in that region. So yeah, the modern 'druid' term very well could be dateable no earlier than 1772 AD but we know it goes back to who the hell knows when before then. It's said it was the Druids that constructed the stone circles of England, most notably the Stonehenge, and that of course far predates anything AD.

I'm interested still to see what you end up doing with the earliest religions. There's definitely a lot that can be done to better reflect all the many myriads of variations you find all over the world despite there being singular underlying themes of connectedness with nature. If we do that, we should still strive to create the more modern 'Druidism' as a concept.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Druidism is a modern (1772 CE/AD) take on what the ancients were. As far as we know J. Caesar called the leaders Druids not the people, so it was not a religious grouping. Also it was mostly those in Wales and Britannia.

Btw as far as I know AD is the Cristian usage whereas CE is the more democratic usage so as to include all the other religions and non-religions. It aims to be inclusive and reduce the push for differing dating systems.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Druidism is a modern (1772 CE/AD) take on what the ancients were. As far as we know J. Caesar called the leaders Druids not the people, so it was not a religious grouping. Also it was mostly those in Wales and Britannia.

Yeah, that fits.

 

[raxo2222]

This is correct and what T-brd and I agreed upon when it was made/set up this way. And after change from 50,000 BC start to 200,000BC start. Which I still don't like nor think is necessary.

I also do not like the BCE CE annotations.

Which is incongruous to the BtS Game in general that Uses Religions for Base game play and for Dating. And since when does the "non religious" version take precedence? Who on the Team voted for or against the original method of dating. And lastly when did this Vote occur? I think someone is being presumptuous.

I meant secular. For me it doesn't matter much if its BCE/CE or BC/AD, but I can edit my timetables to BC/AD system.

 

[raxo2222]

I noticed that and liked it.

Strongly appreciated.
You also were working on keeping things much cleaner and more rational in progression which is huge. I like a lot of what you've done. I point out what I see but it doesn't mean I'm not deeply impressed with this initial draft.

I've noticed that myself and it drives me crazy. Changes there MIGHT mean some changes to some things in the traits I'm doing but that's not that hard to edit for after the fact.

Pretty good proposal though I might try 12000 BC as the shift point from Prehistoric to Ancient, as has been loudly argued for previously by some and make Classical 2kBC to 500AD(EDIT: Noticing Yudi's post, perhaps to 800AD instead). How would that go?

So calendar like this?
He claimed to be historian, I think @JJGarner is in related field too - he even does letsplays now.
Prehistoric: 200 000 BC - 12 000 BC
Ancient: 12 000 BC - 2000 BC
Classical: 2000 BC - 800 AD
Medieval: 800 AD - 1400 AD
Renaissance: 1400 AD - 1750 AD
Industrial: 1750 AD - 1900 AD
----
Modern: 1900 AD - 1990 AD
Information: 1990 AD - 2050 AD
Nanotech: 2050 AD - 2150 AD
Transhuman: 2150 AD - 2300 AD
Galactic: 2300 AD - 3000 AD
Cosmic: 3000 AD - 4000 AD
Transcendent: 4000 AD- 6000 AD

 

[Thunderbrd]

Looks good to me at least.

 

[raxo2222]

Looks good to me at least.

I would lose step down in prehistoric era, though I could use 50 000 BC as date timescale change, it could be 75% (or 50%) of prehistoric era.
That is dates would go fairly quickly 200 000 BC -> 50 000 BC (8% of game) and then from 50 000 BC to 12 000 BC in next 2% of game.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I would lose step down in prehistoric era, though I could use 50 000 BC as date timescale change, it could be 75% (or 50%) of prehistoric era.
That is dates would go fairly quickly 200 000 BC -> 50 000 BC (8% of game) and then from 50 000 BC to 12 000 BC in next 2% of game.

That would make sense. The first 150k of that was a time of very slow development taking up most of the very first columns of the tech tree.

 

[Yudishtira]

So calendar like this?
He claimed to be historian, I think @JJGarner is in related field too - he even does letsplays now.
Prehistoric: 200 000 BC - 12 000 BC
Ancient: 12 000 BC - 2000 BC
Classical: 2000 BC - 800 AD
Medieval: 800 AD - 1400 AD
Renaissance: 1400 AD - 1750 AD
Industrial: 1750 AD - 1900 AD
----
Modern: 1900 AD - 1990 AD
Information: 1990 AD - 2050 AD
Nanotech: 2050 AD - 2150 AD
Transhuman: 2150 AD - 2300 AD
Galactic: 2300 AD - 3000 AD
Cosmic: 3000 AD - 4000 AD
Transcendent: 4000 AD- 6000 AD

You've got to be kidding.

TB typed 800AD by mistake, 800BC is when I suggested Classical should begin. Medieval starting at 500AD is already at least a few decades late.

Industrial has a whole column of the 20th century, so I suggest an end date of 1918 or 1920.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A few decades doesn't mean much anywhere around 500BC to 500 AD so might as well just call the end of it 500 AD.

As for the start, I haven't reviewed the techs carefully enough on that to make a firm suggestion on that. 2000 BC may well be too far back. Perhaps 1000 BC might fit better. There's a lot of wiggle room there if I'm not mistaken. Things like Iron Working, Currency, Mail coming just afterwards... When do they say the Iron Age officially began?

 

[Yudishtira]

I suppose going back to exact 1 year turns is out of the question. Going from 2.5 to less than one at 600AD (actually at 601AD) just underlines how messed up the current 'streamlined' calendar really is.

 

[Snofru1]

I´d also vote for Classical being from 800 BC to 500 AD. Iron Age starts around 1200 BC in the Middle East.

 

[raxo2222]

You've got to be kidding.

TB typed 800AD by mistake, 800BC is when I suggested Classical should begin. Medieval starting at 500AD is already at least a few decades late.

Industrial has a whole column of the 20th century, so I suggest an end date of 1918 or 1920.

Oh so he never noticed typo.
Also first two columns of modern era are techs from 1900's and 1910's
Lifestyle techs weren't always here, so techs neighboring lifestyle tech could be misplaced in wrong era.
Prehistoric: 200 000 BC - 12 000 BC
Ancient: 12 000 BC - 800 BC
Classical: 800 BC - 450 AD
Medieval: 450 AD - 1400 AD
Renaissance: 1400 AD - 1750 AD
Industrial: 1750 AD - 1900 AD
----
Modern: 1900 AD - 1990 AD
Information: 1990 AD - 2050 AD
Nanotech: 2050 AD - 2150 AD
Transhuman: 2150 AD - 2300 AD
Galactic: 2300 AD - 3000 AD
Cosmic: 3000 AD - 4000 AD
Transcendent: 4000 AD- 6000 AD
In those links there are screenshots of tech tree in whole era.

I suppose going back to exact 1 year turns is out of the question. Going from 2.5 to less than one at 600AD (actually at 601AD) just underlines how messed up the current 'streamlined' calendar really is.

Then go create some techs and remove beelines going outside era so we can end up with nice round amount of techs per era.
Timescale sizes and points of shift are direct result of our current tech tree - that is constant tech pace should mean tech leader achieving new era roughly at timescale change.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I´d also vote for Classical being from 800 BC to 500 AD. Iron Age starts around 1200 BC in the Middle East.

If that's the case, then perhaps 1200 BC should be the dating for the Classical, given that Iron Working is one of the first techs after Classical Lifestyle. Besides, 12000BC to 1200BC for Ancient would have a nice ring to it.

 

[raxo2222]

If that's the case, then perhaps 1200 BC should be the dating for the Classical, given that Iron Working is one of the first techs after Classical Lifestyle. Besides, 12000BC to 1200BC for Ancient would have a nice ring to it.

Sounds good
Prehistoric: 200 000 BC - 12 000 BC // 50 000 BC would be at 5% of game, where Prehistoric ends roughly at 9.7% of game (tech leader).
Ancient: 12 000 BC - 1200 BC
Classical: 1200 BC - 450 AD
Medieval: 450 AD - 1400 AD
Renaissance: 1400 AD - 1750 AD
Industrial: 1750 AD - 1900 AD
----
Modern: 1900 AD - 1990 AD
Information: 1990 AD - 2050 AD
Nanotech: 2050 AD - 2150 AD
Transhuman: 2150 AD - 2300 AD
Galactic: 2300 AD - 3000 AD
Cosmic: 3000 AD - 4000 AD
Transcendent: 4000 AD- 6000 AD
What do you think about Medieval lasting from 450 AD to 1400 AD?
I'm tempted to push medieval end to 1450 AD.
And what do you think about Nanotech/Transhuman timeframe?

As for Galactic and later eras civ can grow much faster thanks to AI and nanotechnology than it could before (Borg Confederate, grey goo and other such fast multiplying stuff).
FTL discovered in later part of Galactic era means time starts getting irrelevant - dates are in Earth reference frame by the way.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

@raxo2222 if you need help to shift techs around eras so they conform to the new timelines I can help.

 

[Thunderbrd]

@raxo2222 if you need help to shift techs around eras so they conform to the new timelines I can help.

Be wary. The one thing we can NOT do is move a Lifestyle tech x-grid position or it will create the need to reconfigure the entire costing base. I really don't think we want to spend all year doing what we just did last year.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Anyone ever consider just thinning a few techs per Era out. Combining their effects to similar tech or their Prereq/postreq tech?. We still have some very weak Techs in each era. And the back end of the Tree is an Unknown glut.