v42+ Tech Tree Project - Item #3: Prehistoric Tech Renames as a Whole? (Discussion)

Item #1 Vote: Trapping Was Suggested to change to Trap Hunting

  • Trapping

    Votes: 8 100.0%
  • Trap Hunting

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
Seems to me that Moral Behavior is innately understood and wouldn't need to be discovered, but 'Morality', being the beginnings of the discussion of evaluating the subject intelligently and as a community discussion rather than just a personal vague awareness of the influence of guilt and conscience, might fit better, certainly better than conduct, at least in that conduct has so many possible alternative meanings.

We absolutely need the tech itself in that position for the things that must go there - it's the parallel for LE that correlates to the Health care tech of Naturopathy in the same y column and representing the same step up in improvement. We could almost break things up into more eras than one Prehistoric (and I'm sure we remember its been suggested numerous times) but that's not going to happen due to the many other things that happen at era increases that aren't quite yet warranted here (education demand changes, merge/split limits expanding, a plateau bump up in the costing charts, and more.)

I wouldn't think that specific spear and axe improvements would not be their own techs and definitely Atl-Atl's were a strange invention and not a basic idea at all (even if the physical concepts involved were well known and had been for a while - I figure part of this tech is having finally mastered the art of making and using such an awkward weapon concept to a point where it's finally regularly effective), so I wouldn't think that having specific techs for them as we do is redundant, particularly when there is a difference between a tool and a weapon somewhat. But it's good feedback to consider. I'm not sure I see a need to change the name myself as composite tools seems to fit the Hafted tools concept in addition to the idea of 'hammer and nail' or other tool combination usage that may have began around then, hooks on ropes, all sorts of wider concepts.
 

JosEPh_II

TBS WarLord
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
16,529
Location
Western IL. cornfields
Every weapon is a tool. Every tool can also be a weapon. The intent of the user makes either the other.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
489
Stone Knifeman ? Interesting...

I'd like to remind that there's currently quite an awkwardness in C2C in terms of prehistoric timelines, starting with how only H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis are represented so far :

https://loukeep.substack.com/p/vagaries?s=r

(Heh, I wonder if one and a half year later this blogpost is already obsolete ?)

TL;DR : Neanderthals died out 39-20 kya shortly after we met them, Neanderthals are 300-250 ky old, Homo sapiens are 350-300 ky old (and there were other Homo around sapiens than Neanderthals, though it seems that we barely interbred with those others ?), Homo is 2800-2300 ky old, Australopithecus is 4400-3800 ky old (extinct ~2 000 kya).

While stone tool manufacturing and use that is noticeably different from what other animals do dates back to waaaay before H. sapiens, to ~2 500's Oldowan and maybe even ~3 400 kya's Lomekwian ! (EDIT : added link)

Oldowan tools seem to be particularly relevant to the discussion here ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan#Shapes_and_uses
Classification of Oldowan tools is still somewhat contentious. Mary Leakey was the first to create a system to classify Oldowan assemblages, and built her system based on prescribed use. The system included choppers, scrapers, and pounders.
Are the Scraping / Chopping ( / and Piercing ??) tech pictures of Oldowan tools ?

The pretty, symmetrical Acheulean biface industry ( C2C's Flint Capping ?) comes later, ~1 800 kya, and persisted for such a long time even Homo sapiens got to use them sometimes !

(Also, potentially alternative name and/or extra tech to Composite Tools / Axe Making : "Hafting" ?)

Gift economy reminds me of some very modern theories on social behaviour that have been retroactively applied to human history, but that have very little to do with actual barter. Them anthropologists can't help themselves from standing out sadly. It would take place well after sedentary lifestyle anyway, and also imply a hierarchy, complex social relations, absolutely nothing to do with prehistoric life. This one is simply wrong imo. Barter is a much broader, inclusive term that certainly covers prehistoric dynamics better - gift economies were at best a regional phenomenon and, as the name implies, were based on social obligations derived from status, not exchange of basic goods.

So one of the constants of prehistoric era are the obsidian units. Leaving aside the issue that obsidian is in fact a stone... Stating for each tech that it uses stone seems redundant and restrictive beyond what's necessary, again imo. Are we going to have hardwood weapons too?
[...]
Homo sapiens would appear around Obsidian Weapons and Barter in C2C's tech tree timeline ?

Hardwood - we already have Prime Timber giving bonuses for (Spiked) Clubman / Wood Spearman / Rams ?
 
Last edited:

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
304
Well, as it is now obsidian is a resource, a dedicated technology, and a dedicated line of units that are stronger than the non-obsidian alternative. The non-obsidian units use a mix of what looks like stone and wood weapons, and units like javelineers get some production speed bonuses from prime timber for instance.
There isn't a specific "ironwood" technology, but there is woodworking, heat treatment and carpentry. Despite wood and stone tools being ubiquitous resources, they're not "needed" to train units (for instance stone tools to train stone axemen) the same as obsidian is.

However this is probably going to be changed when the units equipment module gets implemented, if I had to guess.

On a sidenote, back to conduct/moral behaviour, I'd rather go with socialization at this point. Morals implies a bit more philosophy than what is the average depiction of a caveman. We might just be ignorant in this regard but if empathy is, to an extent a basic human instinct, and as anthropologists say, taboos like incest have more or less always existed, then yes, it would be moral behaviour - but did they know it was "moral" behaviour or just the accepted social norms people were grown into? When the penalty is as basic as death or exile, so when there isn't yet a developed concept of crime and punishment, and right and wrong is established by tradition, myth and taboo, and passed down from the wise to the young, then is there any self awareness? Or is it just learning into expected behavious - thus socialization?
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
489
Right, hard resource requirements...

Then again, Obsidian is not *just* any stone
(we even use it today for scalpels, and C2C reflects this too !),
and with those trade networks trading obsidian over long distances (which also might fit the appearance of Homo Sapiens in chronology),
shows that the current gameplay is pretty historically accurate ?
(As always, the biggest question is whether it makes for *good* gameplay.
But I would be reticent touching Obsidian, considering the above !)

(Also, I now see that Hafted tools has already been suggested, my bad...
but then Composite Tools seems to be a distinct and seemingly important category too ?
I just don't know enough about the subject I'm afraid...)

----

There's this Great Leap Forward theory -
(which however seems to have been under quite some fire lately ?)
- that large behavioral (social ?) changes have happened recently (in prehistorical terms) to Homo Sapiens,
around ~50kya, which would coincide with the most successful of the of the Out-of-Africa migrations,
which might have prompted by either population density reaching a threshold,
and/or also maybe by changes in how the focus went from the family to the tribe,
an increase in socialization if you will, which itself allowed for more specialization,
resulting in previously maladaptive traits now allowing for the accumulation of know-how, knowledge, inventions across generations.
(So literally Civ's tech tree that (almost) never has research going backwards !)

P.S.: From that article - maybe Woodwind Instrument Maker should be moved and/or added to Bone Working ? (Could use that bone flute pic..?)
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
Every weapon is a tool. Every tool can also be a weapon. The intent of the user makes either the other.
Intent of the design can also influence the nature of the design. Furthermore, much of human progress is shaped by the need to find better tools to inflict injury (weapons). We could get into techs for more specific tool usage, and I suppose that's what some of the renaming suggestions were for pointing towards.

While stone tool manufacturing and use that is noticeably different from what other animals do dates back to waaaay before H. sapiens, to ~2 500's Oldowan and maybe even ~3 400 kya's Lomekwian !
Our concept of tool evolution is obviously NOT time-accurate, as yes, the tools had been developing all along and it was a much more gradual and prehuman process. We're trying, perhaps, to represent a moment of refinement that reflects the homo sapien's improving usage of these tools.

Homo sapiens would appear around Obsidian Weapons and Barter in C2C's tech tree timeline ?
We're somewhat fictional in our determination that we begin with Homo Sapien when Homo Sapien appears. Being a game, many of the earliest techs are therefore catching up to that moment.

Or is it just learning into expected behavious - thus socialization?
My only issue with this naming is that it feels too related to socialism and more modern civic discussions and arguments. I get your proposal though.
when there isn't yet a developed concept of crime and punishment, and right and wrong is established by tradition, myth and taboo, and passed down from the wise to the young, then is there any self awareness?
I tend to think that once you start having theft and deceit on the rise as a growing practice in a state of somewhat innocence - they're just survival tactics up to a point - you would have a stage where people begin to consider these things on a more aware basis and discuss how to begin establishing more clear rules of engagement within your group, what is and what is not acceptable. Most likely, it's different rules for those within your group as it would be for those outside your group. But it's growing more defined what those rules are and more importantly, why the need for such rules to exist.
 

Praetyre

King
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
951
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Forgive me if this comes across as tacky self-promotion, but this discussion of some aspects of the Prehistoric (an era I consider myself to have something of a dilettante's knowledge in) reminds me of my own plans for a C2C modmod; where one notable design philosophy difference is that (both in regards to the Prehistoric and in general) I'd like to avoid You Have Researched Breathing syndrome; this would include special starting techs representing the knowledge base as of game start (which would be 300,000 BC, due to some revolutionary paleontological developments in the last few years; it also provides a nice parallel to my Short Chronology ending around 3000 AD (although I've been considering truncating that as of late for at least a couple of reasons)) of various hominid species; player civs would be exclusively Homo sapiens sapiens, though I'd retain the possibility of integration of other hominid species (including not just Neanderthals, but others such as Denisovans and floresiensis).

My inspiration for this partly came from a WWII mod whose name I'm not certain of (might have been the Civfanatics version of Road to War) which had a "World after WWI" technology to assign things that every European nation in that era would have as a technological base, like the ability to construct railroads. In C2C terms, it would mean that things like wooden spearmen (chimpanzees have been known to make use of something like that), theft (look at magpies, as well as various non-human primates), and, more generally, the basic concept of a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle (which Nomadism seems to broadly represent) would be available from the start, with techs building off of the base that was available when Homo sapiens sapiens came to be.

Of course, I can understand why some might prefer granularity over realism (I myself prefer it when it comes to historical city builder games; I find it both easier and more satisfying to lay out a settlement from scratch in games like the Impressions series (Caesar, Pharaoh, Zeus, Emperor) than to manage the expansion and political vicissitudes of an existing settlement, which is what I imagine a realistic city builder (be it modern or historical) would be like), much as these things tend to intersect until a quite high point, and I can also understand splitting the difference to some degree by starting out prior to Homo sapiens sapiens (my reasoning for not doing so in my modmod is partly that I view each game of Civ as something of an exercise in alternate history, be it Homo sapiens sapiens and other Earth species transplanted to a non-Earth map or Earth itself at a certain point in prehistory, and there's a lot of room for radical divergence the further back in prehistory you go).

Getting back to C2C proper, I feel like "Moral Behaviour" doesn't really capture everything that tech represents; while what we and the ancients would now call morality certainly is part of it, there's many customs, norms, and even taboos (to take an example from a later era, the various forms of ritual purity in Judaism and numerous other religions) that don't really map entirely or even at all onto that. "Codes of Conduct" is closer, but feels somewhat anachronistic; the term "code" carries connotations of, well codification and a systematically organized society that would be anachronistic even in the Neolithic, let alone the time period Conduct is meant to represent. I'm not sure what I'd call it, but "Customs and Folkways" would be at least the germ of a possibility of discussion in my mind (though even that sounds somewhat anachronistic).
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
304
My only issue with this naming is that it feels too related to socialism and more modern civic discussions and arguments. I get your proposal though.

It's roughly the same concept that anthropologists refer as "enculturation", so that might be another option. They're both taken from a specific field of research's point of view, so the immediate meaning might be lost on someone not familiar, but then again I don't understand 95% of the techs names after nanotech era.

The process of enculturation, most commonly discussed in the field of anthropology, is closely related to socialization, a concept central to the field of sociology. Both roughly describe the adaptation of an individual into social groups by absorbing the ideas, beliefs and practices surrounding them. In some disciplines, socialization refers to the deliberate shaping of the individual. In others, the word may cover both deliberate and informal enculturation

Social norms / social behaviour might not be too far off either. Or, customs, fashions and folklore if we take to heart that this process mainly happened through myths, taboos and wisemen/wisewomen spreading it. They're the same thing, just different names for it.

Social structure is my last proposal for this :p structures are a modern concept but they're supposed to be inherent and therefore always present throughout humanity.
 
Last edited:

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
I'm liking the sound of Customs... It feels like it strikes the right tone?

I've never liked the term 'folk'. Too many people refer to their parents as 'folks' and I don't know why but that grates at my skull when I hear it and words related to it like 'folk music' which then takes on a hillbilly connotation with washboards and wobbling sheetmetal sounds imo.
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
304
The only thing is that the tech is, from a gameplay point of view, the first police tech. It enables the first law enforcement unit, enforcers. So customs doesn't quite reflect the coercitive value that the tech involves, it's not strong enough as a term to reflect active policing.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
The only thing is that the tech is, from a gameplay point of view, the first police tech. It enables the first law enforcement unit, enforcers. So customs doesn't quite reflect the coercitive value that the tech involves, it's not strong enough as a term to reflect active policing.
It's the second one actually, and doesn't really reflect active policing, so much as the role of enforcement of some community norms in a more... forceful and perhaps specialized way. We aren't yet to where one could call it 'laws' that are being observed, so much as the directives of the leadership and the expectations of the community.

Not to invalidate your point though... just clarifying perhaps. And I agree that for that reason, Customs sounds more culturally based than LE.

My problem with Conduct is I think of electricity through wires before I think of behavior.
 

Laenaya

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Messages
11
I kinda like them, but they should be turned into fantasy units...I hope this applies to this thread.

But mammoth riders, deer riders and all that fantasy rider stuff are just silly. They look really cool and are fun to get (and kick a** against other units, they are pretty OP though probably why they are fun), but its just extremely silly in prehistoric era. It took ages to learn how to just simply ride a horse. Maybe turn them into an option OR replace them with something more historical for prehistoric.

Besides being silly, I did bring up they are pretty OP. If you lock down ALL the fantasy rider units for yourself, you dominate against the AI with them.
 

raxo2222

Time Traveller
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,395
Location
Poland
I kinda like them, but they should be turned into fantasy units...I hope this applies to this thread.

But mammoth riders, deer riders and all that fantasy rider stuff are just silly. They look really cool and are fun to get (and kick a** against other units, they are pretty OP though probably why they are fun), but its just extremely silly in prehistoric era. It took ages to learn how to just simply ride a horse. Maybe turn them into an option OR replace them with something more historical for prehistoric.

Besides being silly, I did bring up they are pretty OP. If you lock down ALL the fantasy rider units for yourself, you dominate against the AI with them.
Those ARE optional - Megafauna Domestication Alt Timelines module.
Essentially it is punk tech for Prehistoric.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
I kinda like them, but they should be turned into fantasy units...I hope this applies to this thread.

But mammoth riders, deer riders and all that fantasy rider stuff are just silly. They look really cool and are fun to get (and kick a** against other units, they are pretty OP though probably why they are fun), but its just extremely silly in prehistoric era. It took ages to learn how to just simply ride a horse. Maybe turn them into an option OR replace them with something more historical for prehistoric.

Besides being silly, I did bring up they are pretty OP. If you lock down ALL the fantasy rider units for yourself, you dominate against the AI with them.
A number of people have brought these up as being silly though I really don't understand that. In a world without horses, or a region without them, access to any of these alternatively rideable species may well have led us to the riding domestication of these species instead. Especially Zebras which are basically just striped wild horses. You might be thinking bears are unrealistic as a mount, but people work with Bears regularly today as a trainable animal - they're very intelligent and quite dog-like in many aspects of their nature - had we domesticated bears so intrinsically, we'd be thinking it crazy to think wolves would've made great domestication partners. And once domesticated, bears are much more capable physically of being ridden and far more effective in battle if you have their emotional loyalty. We already have more modern examples of Deer Riders actually having been USED in warfare. And is it stranger to think of riding Giraffes over Elephants?

I'd still be all for making these Limited Wonders though because I don't think it's game beneficial to be able to hoard them. Horses and Elephants and Camels were far more widely and easily adapted to mount domestication so would be the ones any civilization could master, but I think the rest would take an almost civilization-wide value system shift that no other culture would be likely to have quite mastered to be able to raise and integrate on this sort of more mass level rather than the strange hermit who figured out how to have a friend named Ben.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,170
Location
Las Vegas
Comes down to it, we're all animals in different skins and slightly different evolutionarily adapted natures - but at the core we all feel and when those feelings are understood and respected we can all be intense and loyal allies to those we care about. Even individual fish can learn to love particular people who bond with them.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
489
"Folk" - I'm more thinking of folklore...

----

To me, C2C seems to start with Australopithecus (note that you have to take *his* ancestor for the closest other still surviving species : chimpanzees + bonobos).

That would make the start roughly 4 000 000 years ago.


Note that out current (for now, fingers crossed) Ice Age -
the Quarternary Period, with land-based ice all year long, especially in Greenland
- starts "only" 2 580 000 years ago
- it also suspiciously fits the range when we currently think the first Homo appeared !

Which has seen a significant number of interglacial periods : roughly 50 of them (they were more frequent before),
relatively short periods when glaciers receded to stop covering today's Canada, UK, Northern Europe and Northern Siberia, and sea levels rose ~100m thanks to the melted ice.

Impassable glaciers might be fairly easy to simulate, while sea level changes - not so much ?
In any case, with an early 41ky interglacial/glacial cycle, it would be frustrating for the player to see the landscape radically changing, up to every other turn early on ?
EDIT : Not *that* early on if Homo + Oldowan + Quaternary corresponds to C2C's Scrapping / Chopping / Piercing 1/3 up the way of Prehistoric... no idea about the climate before that - though looks like Antartica was *already* frozen even before Australopithecus, starting around 15 Mya ?

Even Homo sapiens has seen 3-6 interglacial periods, though he would have been "stuck" in Africa for all but the current one ?

One thing that I forgot to mention is how C2C seems to replicate very well in gameplay this Out of Africa migration around ~50kya, with the Tribalism tech ?

Then later we *finally* get to our current, particularly stable (fingers crossed) interglacial : the Holocene, 11 700 ya, also not surprisingly, corresponding to first human settlements and the invention of Agriculture in the Near East ! (And C2C's Ancient era.)

----

Funny, before even Laenaya posted his comment, I was just thinking how maybe adding a Sub Combat Type "Fantasy" would help with potential complaints of this type ?

I guess one problem is that IRL horse riding actually came *after* Chariotry ?
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/13/colle...chariots-scythed-chariots-and-carroballistae/
the two-wheeled war chariot, which was first developed on the Eurasian Steppe and percolated into Bronze Aged Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Egypt beginning in the 18th century BCE (though it takes a while to finally get all the way through the region) and China in the 13th century BCE
The war chariot as a battlefield weapon practically vanishes in the Near East beginning in the early Iron Age (there’s a transitional period, but by the end of the 7th century BC, it is functionally complete), because cavalry (in particular, horse archers) could do everything chariots could do, but better and with half the horses and half the humans.
(Other kinds of "chariots" saw more or less use up until (and including ?) WW2 ?)

Bronze Age is roughly the 2nd half of C2C's Ancient and Iron Age (Roman conquest ends it) is C2C's first half of Classical, right ?

(Though maybe that's for mounted infantry and (later ?) cavalry, horse scouts were before or in parallel, since even a small horse barely able to carry a teenager and afraid of battle would work for that?)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom