Tech Tree Discussion

[Thunderbrd]

Just saying, if Digital- Genetic- Cyber and Nano- tech emerge close together, we must look for more abstract/indirect names; unless it's obvious that one kind of tech dominates civilizations society during a part of the tech tree.

I agree but also see the counterpoint to the suggestions you put forward.

We could trace the ages in the Transhuman by the major upgrade steps in AI, given that AI also plays into WHY we are making such vast breakthroughs in all disciplines:

Information Age (brought about through the interconnectivity and hive-mind decentralization of the internet) ->
Robotics Age (automated AIs much like civ players and modern military drones) ->
Droid Age (truly self-thinking, self-evaluating AI's but incapable of imagination or innovation) ->
Troid Age (The match for humanity. Imagination and Innovation have become possible. Truly based on quantum computing AI like the human brain but much more capable of self improvement and independent innovation. At this stage, humanity begins to more commonly integrate with personal mental upgrades to the point that they begin to commonly hybridize themselves with AIs. A very serious possibility exists for an AI revolution against bio-life forms entirely.) ->
Ascension Age (AI goes beyond all biological and even physical limitations as it figures out how to store data at a submolecular level and hive mind itself in shapeshifting nano-swarms while biological humans truly begin to unlock the power of spirit and psychic capabilities, giving them a competitive chance against hostile machines and intense alien threats. Horrific weaponry and amazing technologies can erase and create to and from the transient energy that exists in what we once considered the definition of a void. Cumulates in the full discovery and species-wide transition to an interdimensional existence that represents the peak of the tech tree as it goes beyond the ability of a game to represent.)

Refer to the discussions in the naval thread for some further info on the reasons for these terms... A very good reason to use these age divisions is because these stages represent major changes in the nature of warfare.

We can also trace the ages in the range of exploration:
Space Age(having begun at satellites) -> Solar Age (lunar and solar system expansion and colonization) -> Galactic Age (Deep Space expansion and colonization) -> Intergalactic Age (Expansion beyond the galaxy) -> Interdimensional Age

The problem with that is it's not much different than the current tree. In fact, it's almost already the way the tree has been divided. Keep in mind that Lunar and Martian colonization are likely to run almost completely concurrent so we cannot assume that there will be a concise lunar stage preceding a martian stage that would be game-convenient otherwise.

 

[tmv]

And nothing were ever modern before the modern age.

Yes, I really don't like that name, but for another reason: Every other era is named in a way that is independent from our (that is the gamers') point of view. I can just imagine a priest running to the king / president / whatever screaming "Rejoice! We have caught up in tech with those who play our reality as a game!" How is that for immersion?

 

[pepper2000]

Not only that, "Modern Era" is a misnomer. I recommend the (somewhat lengthy) Wikipedia article for a good overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

So really, what is currently called the Renaissance might be better called the Modern Era. Or Early Modern Era.

It's OK that eras don't neatly encapsulate technological changes. Some media use the term "Atomic Age", even though during that period (roughly 1920-1990, depending on how it is measured), a lot happened outside the realm of nuclear technology, and development of nuclear technology continues to this day and should continue well into the future. I like the SimEarth structure (Stone, Bronze, Iron, Industrial, Atomic, Information, Nanotech), which is why I've lobbied for a Nanotech Era.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing an era name is just a one line text file change, right? My inclination is that the tech tree should be designed as though no eras exist at all, and then eras are superimposed on it to enhance the flow of the game. That's how it works in real life; historians invent different eras of human history after the fact to explain what happened.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Some media use the term "Atomic Age", even though during that period (roughly 1920-1990, depending on how it is measured), a lot happened outside the realm of nuclear technology, and development of nuclear technology continues to this day and should continue well into the future.

I like Atomic Age for that era. The reason for it isn't really that it was what all development was centered around, but rather that since the introduction of the bomb, we've been living in a whole new balance of power where the threat of mutually ensured destruction looms over us all at all times. This has had a profound impact on every aspect of living and development on Earth ever since. Not until the Internet and proliferation of personal computing would anything have a larger impact on our collective experience.

 

[Toffer90]

@TB: Don't really like the suggested era name "Troid Age".

I would like it to be closer to something like this:

Split ▬ year aproximations

• Previous scheme​

1. Paleolithic ▬ ( ← ) → 20 000
   • Prehistoric
2. Mesolithic ▬ 20 000 → 10 000
   • Prehistoric
3. Neolithic ▬ 10 000 → 4 000
   • Ancient
4. Chalcolithic / Copper Age ▬ 4000 → 1200
   • Ancient
5. Iron Age ▬ 1200 → 600 (BC)
   • Classical
6. Classical Antiquity ▬ 600 (BC) → 500 / 200
   • Classical
7. Early Middle Ages / Late Antiquity ▬ 500 → 900 | 200 → 800
   • Classical / Medieval
8. (High) Middle Ages / Feudal Age ▬ 900 → 1300 | 800 → 1350
   • Medieval
9. Late Middle Ages / Renaissance ▬ 1300 → 1500 | 1350 → 1600
   • Medieval / Renaissance
10. Age of Discovery ▬ 1500 / 1600 → 1740
    • Renaissance
11. Imperial Age ▬ 1740 → 1860
    • Renaissance / Industrial
12. Industrial Age ▬ 1860 → 1940
    • Industrial
13. Atomic Age ▬ 1940 → 1975
    • Industrial / Modern
14. Digital Age ▬ 1975 → 2010
    • Modern
15. Automation Age ▬ 2010 → 2040
    • Modern / Transhuman
16. Interplanetary Age / Space Age / Synthetics Age ▬ 2040 - 2080 (Synthetics might encompass bioengineering, nanomaterials, genetic manipulation and artificial intelligence)
    • Transhuman
17. Interstellar Age ▬ 2080 → _____
    • Transhuman / Galactic
18. Intergalactic Age
    • Galactic
19. Something....

Color coded for pattern and readability.

 

[Hydromancerx]

We can also trace the ages in the range of exploration:
Space Age(having begun at satellites) -> Solar Age (lunar and solar system expansion and colonization) -> Galactic Age (Deep Space expansion and colonization) -> Intergalactic Age (Expansion beyond the galaxy) -> Interdimensional Age
.

I prefer "Interstellar" meaning between Stars. So like Alpha Centari would be an Intesteller game.However if someone reached Andromedia then it would be " Intergalactic" between 2 galaxies).

 

[Hydromancerx]

I would like it to be more like this in the period were discussing.

Split ▬ year aproximations

• Previous scheme​

1. Imperial/Colonial Age ▬ 1700 - 1860
   • Late Renaissance, Early Industrial
2. Industrial Age ▬ 1860 - 1940
   • Industrial
3. Atomic Age ▬ 1940 - 1975
   • Late Industrial / Early Modern
4. Digital Age ▬ 1975 - 2010
   • Modern
5. Automation Age ▬ 2010 - 2035
   • Late Modern / Early Transhuman
6. Synthetics Age ▬ 2035 - 2050 (Might encompass notable breakthroughs in: bioengineering, nanomaterials, genetic manipulation, artificial intelligence)
   • Transhuman

Don't really like the suggested era name "Troid Age".

Yeah I like those. I still feel Modern should fit somewhere in there too. But not sure where.

 

[Toffer90]

Every age is the modern age when you're in it.
Modern age, will in the future, be in the future; and the time we are living in now will have received a name everyone agrees on (what that will be is hard to say, information age might be high up there.).

Modern age is like a child that has not yet been named.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Every age is the modern age when you're in it.
Modern age will in the future be in the future, while the time we are living in now will have received a name everyone agrees on; what that will be is hard to say, information age might be high up there.

Modern age is like a child that has not yet been named.

exactly

 

[Hydromancerx]

Then how come there can be "Post-Modern" things like Postmodern Art?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

 

[Thunderbrd]

Then how come there can be "Post-Modern" things like Postmodern Art?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Due to the same flaws in thinking that we've been employing when naming the modern era. People have been doing this sort of thing for a while. So postmodernism, being art after modern, is now a rather outdated, yet affixed due to a lack of a better name. Modern art is going to eventually either be renamed in retrospect or will go on into the future as an anachronism.

In short, DH and Toffer are right on this. Modern means now. Now changes. So to name a time period the Now age is not exactly appropriate is it?

Don't really like the suggested era name "Troid Age".

I can understand this. The term Troid is one we had to invent because the concept hasn't had a term attached to it before. It became clear, during the development of the Naval stuff, that a term that will be important in the future has yet to be defined in English. So we just went ahead and defined the term.

 

[pepper2000]

I don't think that's right. Modernity also connotes a belief in progress and rationality, as the term meant what is applied to the historical period beginning in the 15th century. Postmodernism, then, is a philosophy with consciously rejects the belief in rationality and progress. Incidentally, since we have so many art-related techs in the Industrial Era, Postmodernism would be an idea for the Modern Era.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well in the Forge of Empires they had Modern, Postmodern and Contemporary Eras. In that order. Their Modern starts like Post-WWII. And their Post-Modern seems to be like in the 1970's. And their Contemporary Era seems to be in like late 90's or 2000. They have an era after that called Tomorrow but it seems to jump really far. Like fusion power being the first new tech. Which seems like it should be a far off tech.

I am not saying they are wrong I am just giving an example of Modern used for an era not in the present.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I can understand this. The term Troid is one we had to invent because the concept hasn't had a term attached to it before. It became clear, during the development of the Naval stuff, that a term that will be important in the future has yet to be defined in English. So we just went ahead and defined the term.

Just to give some background... from the naval review thread:

Sapiod and Sapienoid both sound 'not so ominous' but if we added the t we could have Sapientoid and if we added the tr we would have Sapientroid. Rapid moniker evolution would then mean Humans would quickly call them Troids for short. So perhaps Troid would be the best term.

This was the moment the term was introduced. The discussion started a page or two back from here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/naval-units-rework-project.525332/page-9

In fact, that whole thread deserves a bump. I need to consider what all lies in the way still of full implementation. Two versions now have passed since most of the plotting for it took place and a tremendous amount of coding setup has paved the way now. I wonder if it could easily be put into action next cycle or if we need yet another cycle or two before finally pulling the trigger on that plan. Unfortunately, if we start getting too crazy wild with the tech tree, adjusting it too much, we'll outdate the whole planning effort and thus destroy a LOT of setup prep.

So again, it's not bad to be looking at splitting up the transhuman into new eras but we should be careful not to disrupt the flow of it, as it has been plotted out very very meticulously in a lot of places.

 

[Noriad2]

A slight problem with terms like "Renaissance" (which means rebirth of classical Greek philosophy) is that it is rather Eurocentric (especially Western Europe centric). And as far as I know, civs like China and India never had colonial eras in real life (except as victims) other than perhaps pushing out their borders a bit. Age of Reason, Age of Discovery, perhaps Age of Enlightenment are more civ-neutral terms.

 

[tmv]

Sorry, but these proposals are not more civ-neutral. Age of Reason seems to cover something that has happened more than once (the first time that we know of during the Golden Age of Athens), Age of Discovery is no less eurocentric than Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment is not that different from Age of Reason.

Iron Age does not cover civilizations where there is no iron, Antiquity and Middle Ages has the same long-term problem that Modern Age has (but far less urgent - I think it would take centuries if not millenia to really question what should be called "Middle Ages"). The early eras are clearly not eurocentric, so you might say every age is somewhat defined by the first culture group to reach that point.

I think the only way to be completely civ-neutral would be to number the eras, which would be very bland. I don't think that would really help.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Sorry, but these proposals are not more civ-neutral. Age of Reason seems to cover something that has happened more than once (the first time that we know of during the Golden Age of Athens), Age of Discovery is no less eurocentric than Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment is not that different from Age of Reason.

Iron Age does not cover civilizations where there is no iron, Antiquity and Middle Ages has the same long-term problem that Modern Age has (but far less urgent - I think it would take centuries if not millenia to really question what should be called "Middle Ages"). The early eras are clearly not eurocentric, so you might say every age is somewhat defined by the first culture group to reach that point.

I think the only way to be completely civ-neutral would be to number the eras, which would be very bland. I don't think that would really help.

While this is true somewhat , the tech tree is not a timeline. Its more of a leveling system based around history. For instance Montezuma and the Aztecs were during the 1500s , however if he was on the tech tree he would only be around the Ancient Era in level of technology. In short I agree the tree is Eurocentric, however its progression follows a path that is the farthest humans have gotten so far in history. The Aztec's basically leaped in technology when they eventually became part of Mexico. Thus bypassing the technology between. Note this technological jump was at the cost of their civilization as it got assimilated with the Spanish.

Even long lasting continuous civilizations such as China or India went into periods of stagnation and/or colonization by Europeans. In short we are bias because its the most complete example we have.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Except sometimes nations skip steps eg go from the Stone Age to the Iron Age without bothering with the Copper or Bronze Ages.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Except sometimes nations skip steps eg go from the Stone Age to the Iron Age without bothering with the Copper or Bronze Ages.

Such as? I am not doubting you I just am curious of examples of this. Did they discover iron working without outside influence? Cause all the civs I can think of either had to go through a copper/bronze age or were in contact with a civilization that did and as a result got to skip it because that civ went through it.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The Nok are the ones that come to mind.