Technologies that aren't... am I the only one bothered?

With the addition of "Poetry and Literature" and "Guilds" as new technologies, I can't help but wonder... what exactly do they consider to be a technology? I understand that I'm opening the door for a lot of criticism towards me for being whiny, but I'm honestly curious if anyone else has been bothered by this. The base game had these problems too, of course. Chivalry and pottery aren't exactly sciences either. But it's annoying to see this problem further added to by GaK. It just feels silly to have all of my empire's greatest minds collaborating for years on end, to create... poetry? Civ is just a game of course, and for that reason I eagerly look forward to the Mayans cheesy end-of-the-world jokes, and I have no complaints that my archers have more range than my riflemen. But the reason I don't mind those things is because they're by design. On the other hand, calling guilds a "technology" strikes me more as laziness or thoughtlessness than it does as a gameplay descision.

For the record, I'm counting the days till the GaK release just like everybody else, and I can't wait to load up a game and start researching these techs. I just wish a little more thought was put into the names.

 

I guess I see technologies more of a discoveries rather than "technologies"

Technology is more of items rather than ideas, I see technology as methods, like combine harvester would be a technlogy.

I think the only reason why we have techs like Pottery, Guilds, is to have something to put in the tech tree. I think pretty much 60-90% of the tech tree aren't technology. I don't think Masonry is Technology, I don't think Education is Technology. etc.

I think the only reason we still use the term "Tech" is purely as a game term. like beakers per turn.. I don't think they used Beakers to discover new things so often, more like to store liquids in real life.

 

Well I suppose if you look at it literally then that is a problem.

I've always looked at it more in the abstract — that things like chivalry or guilds are ideas/concepts that take X amount of years (turns) to take hold in your empire.

as an aside, this is also too literal. Riflemen were frontline troops while archers were used in support to fire volleys into enemy columns, and that is how the game tries to reflect this.

 

Pottery not a tech?

It is a guaranteed a technique to make pots, they have to be made by the right form of clay, with a lot of craft skills to make big ones, covered by glace, burned hot enough.... and it enabled us to store food just as it does in the game.

But sure maybe they should call it "Scientific, Technic, Cultural, Political and Craft - progress ideas" or something.

off topic about techs:
I actually think that it is more fun in the civ board game (the new one) there you build a tech pyramid and have to chose more which tech you really want, because in CiV you kind of end up with knowing all techs anyway, you only choose which one to learn first.

 

I definitely have to agree with Cyon, I think pottery is definitely a technology in the sense that stone tools was a technology to early people. Even thought there are a lot of techs that aren't really scientific like Chivalry and Globalization, but they are more of something that defines the era. I think that is really the premise of a "technology" in civ: something that is a part of the era no matter what field it might be in.

 

In other words

Technology in the Civilization series is an event that advanced the human race in one way or another. Like Liberalism in Civ 4.

 

this is highly debatable as you mentioned, but the more technologies the merrier in my opinion. I especially feel too many buildings and wonders are unlocked by fewer techs. Really needs to be spread out across more techs, instead of being concentrated with just a few techs that people beeline to wonder hog. I read G&K addresses some of this.

 

I guess those aren't exactly technologies. That is sort of nit picky if you ask me. Technologies represent technology of course but also discoveries. I agree with geebo. "The more technologies the merrier." It isn't really a huge deal to most people i don't think.

 

I think they kind of missed an opportunity with Social Policies by casting them as a replacement for Civics/Governments. Structurally what they are is just this, cultural and sociological advances. I'd actually like to see Social Policies along side Civics or Governments, with the former activating more advanced options for the latter.

 

I would suggest going back to take a look at the tech trees in Civ1 and Civ2. It's what makes Civilization so special and interesting - and every single tech in all of the versions has a place and significance in history.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

Here is an extract:

Special emphasis on crafts, systems and methods of organization. Guilds are definitly a method of organisation, and pottery is definitly a craft. If you want to be a little abstract poetry and literature could be seen as a method of organisation (organising the world?), but thats pretty borderline.

Regardless, I accept that to most people technology means either science or tangible developments. Then you need to understand that civs tech tree does not and should not limit itself to 'technology', thats pure semantics.

 

Since I am an old boardgamegeek I have never had any problem with this. In the old boardgame "Advanced Civilization" (imo, one of the best boardgames ever made) the so called technologies are called Civilization Advancements. This is a much better word, I think.

 

I agree entirely. People can get a little hung up on particular definitions of words that are in reality used a lot more widely.

Regardless, the term is used in Civ presumably because a) it's a lot snappier than "Scientific, Technic, Cultural, Political and Craft - progress ideas" as Cyon said; and b) they always have done.

 

And likewise, I think some get hung up on the game name "Civilization". It's a snappy title (put yourself back in 1991) - simple yet varied in meaning. Some think just because it's called civilization, you (and the AI) are building a historical one. In fact, it's just a boardgame with multiple opponents and explicitly defined victory conditions. It could be played with multiple stack of decks and colored pieces. All the rest are just flavor.

 

If this bothered me, it would bother me way back in Civ2 days. I think "technology" has been more difficult to distinguish, especially with Social Policies, but it represents adaptations to the lives or culture created over time, usually through a discovery or infusion of ideas.

 

Actually the "technologies" were called Civilization Advances for Civ1-3, just as "buildings" were called City Improvements.

Not counting Alpha Centauri, it took until Civ4 for Firaxis to give up those more precise but less easy to use terms, and just go with how everybody including themselves would call them.

 

I actually really like this. Either the tech tree needs a new name, or the technologies in it do. Several of you made the point that "technology" in civ really just means "discovery", or something along those lines. But if that's the case, then why are my scientists researching it? Why do I need universities and research labs, if they're not really doing anything related to science?

 

poetry and literature (as well as song) were important developments for civilized tribes and cultures to pass on tradition, history, knowledge and culture to promote cohesion of the group and to improve literacy so i think it is an important technology development.....pottery was also a very significant technology that improved food and water storage and important for transition from hunter tribes having to constantly move to agrarian tribes which eventually led to villages and large cities.....

 

Technologies in Civization are more "discoveries" for me.

 

Haha, everyone who thinks "pottery" isn't a technology should try to make one on their own without looking it up or asking someone how to do it.