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
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
I guess one problem is that IRL horse riding actually came *after* Chariotry ?
Yeah, only if you prescribe to the idea that the lack of evidence of a thing is evidence to the lack of a thing, even if there is cause to understand why there would be such a lack of evidence to begin with.
 

JosEPh_II

TBS WarLord
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
16,536
Location
Western IL. cornfields
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.
:lol: You have some profound prejudices! :hug:
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
:lol: You have some profound prejudices! :hug:
Yeah that one is a bit strange huh? lol

What I think of when I think 'folk' music, though not half as cool as the particular song they play for this:

 
Last edited:

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
549
Yeah, only if you prescribe to the idea that the lack of evidence of a thing is evidence to the lack of a thing, even if there is cause to understand why there would be such a lack of evidence to begin with.
That's not how this works - you're going to have to explain why Cavalry (Horse Archers) made War Chariots obsolete *only* around 1100 BC - 700 BC ?

Actually, I see that Horse Breeding and Mounted Archery are Early Classical - checks out !
(EDIT : Also :
The earliest records of metal bits used with horse bridles date from roughly the time between the 14th and eighth centuries BC
)

And the preceding Prehistoric Horseman already looks more like a scout unit... but is classified as a Combatant, rather than a Recon... but maybe it's better for gameplay ?
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
but maybe it's better for gameplay ?
Well yes. Early man would not have used tools to ride. He would've gotten on bareback and used the horse to be more mobile. There was some recent evidence to show this was actually quite likely that it did take place too if I recall. You wouldn't have bit and bridle in use and therefore you wouldn't show the things we assume would be necessary to get a horse into a fight and stay on it to fight from in a meaningful way, but we're being a little modern to assume that would've been necessary. They may not have used horses to attack directly from so much - maybe even valued them too much to risk them in this way, but I don't think we didn't use them for battle at all until later tool usage would've improved our ability to. What you'll see after the unit review is the first mounted units aren't really using them for mounted combat directly so much as being more part of the line that uses them for mobility and more often is considered to be fighting from foot still. I conceded SOME when I redesigned the first stage.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
549
They do also say :
Prior to that, and also concurrently used by more primitive tribes than the Luristans, were bridle bits made of vastly diverse materials, such as horn, bone, wood, sinew, rawhide and rope. Naturally, these materials tended to wear out rather quickly and were eventually replaced entirely by metal.
I assume that it gets very tricky earlier than that, since non-metal items preserve worse...

P.S.: No, wait - you know what preserves well ? Horse teeth !
https://elevatorequestrian.co.uk/2021/08/05/the-history-of-the-bridle/
Archeologists and anthropologists have discovered wear and marks on the teeth of equine skeletons found in Kazakhstan and thought to be around 5,500 years old. The bridles were quite rudimentary, consisting of a leather strap or thong which was placed in the interdental space we call the ‘bars’ of the mouth and tied under their jaw. The trailing ends were used as reins to steer and slow the horse. From this point on, various tribes and cultures used bits and bridles of varying styles and crafted from natural materials such as bone, horn, wood, rope and leather.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
All of which suggests we were probably using horses, potentially for warfare, before the chariot - though again, it was probably better to steal them to kill them which is why you hardly ever see skeletal remains with combat injuries among the equines we've found. But yeah, since this became a huge debate here in this forum, evidence keeps cropping up that we were using, riding, and valuing horses long before chariots and carts.
 

Praetyre

King
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
952
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Another name possibility that avoids any potential issues with "folk" and makes the proto-moral part of the tech more explicit, while still allowing a broader interpretation: "Customs and Mores".

I agree on the horse thing; I feel the same way about leather armour (which I'm told is generally considered non-existent in medieval history, but I would be astonished if no Neolithic tribe thought of using it, especially given the use of animal skins as closing in the later parts of the Paleolithic). At the very least, I would expect horses to be used as draft animals in the later parts of the Neolithic (which might, at least partly, correspond to what historians of the Ancient Near East refer to as the Chalcolithic, or what Empire Earth called the Copper Age- the time of proto-city states and emerging urban civilizations, as opposed to earlier pastoral tribalism).

In general, I think there's a case to be made for "sub-eras" that don't quite have all the features and trappings of a fully fledged C2C era, but which nevertheless cover at least a few tech columns and represent stages of development within an era; contrast, say, the beginning of the game where you have people living an existence barely distinguishable from non-sapient animals, and the latter parts of the Paleolithic (perhaps we could call it the Mesolithic?) where you've got a much firmer grip on hunting, much more advanced tool industries, and have domesticated the dog. Another example would be Renaissance vs Enlightenment in the Early Modern era.
 
Last edited:

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
I agree on the horse thing; I feel the same way about leather armour (which I'm told is generally considered non-existent in medieval history, but I would be astonished if no Neolithic tribe thought of using it, especially given the use of animal skins as closing in the later parts of the Paleolithic)
You should see the Roman crocodile armor they found - it's looking a bit rough these days, but it must've been horrific to see him in it. What I find most interesting about it is that the Romans were usually so uniform about their military gear but this guy really wanted to stand out. Leather armor wasn't non existent so much as it wasn't really done in the way they do it in D&D but I think Lamellar was pretty common.
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
319
There must've been a century with a crocodile as their mascot and the guy went all the way in his florida man standard bearer duty.

This is a bit like the whole discussion regarding dinosaurs and if they actually had feathers and looked completely different than what we were presented so far. There's only so much that can be deducted from archaeological reperts and only so much that can be constrained by today's common sense which was certainly different at the time.
The romans had a developed network of stables and roads all over their empire used for message delivery, and yet they relegated cavalry to auxiliary units, relying instead on infantry cores. Centuries prior, Alexander the Great relied heavily on his companion cavalry with great results - and they knew about that. I reckon the need to develop cavalry was also a matter of who you were fighting and where. In that regard I've never quite figured out how did egiptians and babylonians drive heavy chariots in sand and floodplains.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
In that regard I've never quite figured out how did egiptians and babylonians drive heavy chariots in sand and floodplains.
I really have wondered this as well, but then also how did settlers cross the plains in the US with fully loaded covered wagons without constant repairs (or maybe that IS the answer lol). I think the chariots had to stay mostly on roads to be highly effective and some unit review plans will show my outlook on that.
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
319
Well, in many western movies/comics/cartoons I've ever seen, a wheel breaking off a wagon and needing a few days to repair, and perhaps a bargain with the nearby tribe, or setting up an improvised camp to fend off bandits or wolves, is a recurring theme :lol:

I think that movies have warped our imaginary of history so much. Thinking about chariots I can't help imagining some great charge in open desert which indeed seems implausible at best. Reading historians reports is so much more boring than watching a vaguely grounded historical fantasy movie though.

I think one major perk of the chariot was that it could house two people, leaving a dedicated driver and dedicated combatant, or even two perhaps.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
549
In general, I think there's a case to be made for "sub-eras" that don't quite have all the features and trappings of a fully fledged C2C era, but which nevertheless cover at least a few tech columns and represent stages of development within an era; contrast, say, the beginning of the game where you have people living an existence barely distinguishable from non-sapient animals, and the latter parts of the Paleolithic (perhaps we could call it the Mesolithic?) where you've got a much firmer grip on hunting, much more advanced tool industries, and have domesticated the dog. Another example would be Renaissance vs Enlightenment in the Early Modern era.
Ideally, yes, but, practically - C2C is already hard enough to make as it is ?
Specifically it would also cause problems with player impression and/or balance for techs that would stand out as *clearly* not belonging to a specific era.

You should see the Roman crocodile armor they found - it's looking a bit rough these days, but it must've been horrific to see him in it. What I find most interesting about it is that the Romans were usually so uniform about their military gear but this guy really wanted to stand out. Leather armor wasn't non existent so much as it wasn't really done in the way they do it in D&D but I think Lamellar was pretty common.
He said *medieval*...
Looks like Romans used light leather armor on most of their troops ?
(And when ? Even West Roman Republic + Empire lasted for nearly a thousand years...)

But not lamellar, that would have been the East Roman Empire ?
(Also, when ? East Roman Empire managed to exist allll the way down to have it's fall start the Modern era : an extra thousand years after the fall of Rome !)

This is a bit like the whole discussion regarding dinosaurs and if they actually had feathers and looked completely different than what we were presented so far.
We recently found preserved feathers ! With a dinosaur foot nearby that matches !! That was literally killed within the hour of the asteroid impact !!!

The romans had a developed network of stables and roads all over their empire used for message delivery, and yet they relegated cavalry to auxiliary units, relying instead on infantry cores. Centuries prior, Alexander the Great relied heavily on his companion cavalry with great results - and they knew about that. I reckon the need to develop cavalry was also a matter of who you were fighting and where.
Hmm, I see your point, but it doesn't mean that cavalry was obsolete - just that - AFAIK (Late Republic - Early Empire ) Romans were also heavily specialized, and often preferred to use their allies' cavalry ! (But also used their own - though armed with "mail armor, the clipeus round shield, a spear and a gladius", and no bow.)

In that regard I've never quite figured out how did egiptians and babylonians drive heavy chariots in sand and floodplains.
I'm guessing that they... didn't ?

Would they even have fought in sand / flood plains ? I doubt even infantry / archers could fight there, except maybe some very light and specialized ones ?

And, - you haven't read my link about chariots, have you ? - Egyptian war chariots were light, somewhere between an electric scooter and a moped... for 2 people and 2 horses !


Now, it's somewhat frustrating that Pr. Devereaux doesn't mention Hittites, who had a quite different war chariot from Egyptians and Assyrians :
it held 3 men, one of which was now responsible for the shield (rather than the driver).
And the "fighter" would have had a bow + spear rather than a bow + javelin(s), which might have been more useful in chariot vs chariot close combat ?

The sources I find are quite contradictory about this, but I am doubting too that even Hittite chariots would have risked charging infantry : they supposedly bred better horses, but not *that* much better ?!
(That 2 horses could have pulled 3 men + an actually sturdy "shock chariot" + probably extra armor for horses ?)

(Also, looks like Babylonians quickly fell behind in chariot tech, that's why they were invaded by Hittites and Assyrians ?)
 

Strategia

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
71
Maybe a bit late to the party re:Conduct, but I'd still like to suggest "Social Norms" as a potential rename. "Conduct" has always sounded weird to me, "Socialisation" also doesn't really sound right (that's a term I associate more with pedagogy and pet training than with anthropology), and if I'm being honest, "Customs and Mores" feels clunky. "Morality" is also pretty good, that has the element of introducing a (more or less sharply) defined difference between "right" and "wrong" which is fitting for what the tech is supposed to represent, but to me at least it also carries a bit of an implication of a more rigidly defined moral code, and I don't know how accurate that would be here. "Social Norms" carries less of the implications of, well, morality, so it's maybe a bit less fitting for the tech that unlocks the first executions, but it's also an open enough term that it can still kind of fit. (Though tbh, in the course of writing this post, I've also come around to liking "Morality" as the tech name more and more.)
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,298
Location
Las Vegas
Maybe a bit late to the party re:Conduct, but I'd still like to suggest "Social Norms" as a potential rename. "Conduct" has always sounded weird to me, "Socialisation" also doesn't really sound right (that's a term I associate more with pedagogy and pet training than with anthropology), and if I'm being honest, "Customs and Mores" feels clunky. "Morality" is also pretty good, that has the element of introducing a (more or less sharply) defined difference between "right" and "wrong" which is fitting for what the tech is supposed to represent, but to me at least it also carries a bit of an implication of a more rigidly defined moral code, and I don't know how accurate that would be here. "Social Norms" carries less of the implications of, well, morality, so it's maybe a bit less fitting for the tech that unlocks the first executions, but it's also an open enough term that it can still kind of fit. (Though tbh, in the course of writing this post, I've also come around to liking "Morality" as the tech name more and more.)
Great answer that for me is an echo of my own thought process. Mores is a highly appropriate term but so archaic in a sense that I don't think a lot of people even know what it means its used so infrequently out of academic circles.

I will be running a poll soon on this so we can move on anyhow but I think you've boiled it down to the top suggestions so far.
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
319
it's a modern term but fitting, I don't think most of the tech tree is named attempting to use a limited era-appropriate language. Norms are the basis of complex social organizations. Norms and roles in fact. Morality is not quite the same, social norms can conflict with morality (let alone legal norms). Norms dictate your actual behaviour, morality is a value-oriented ideal behaviour. In example, when you do something that you must, but then feel shameful or regretful about. Some cultures have more of this than others, but still. Think about a family exiling a guilty member for the sake of the whole band/tribe.
 

ranagrande

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
42
Out of everything proposed so far, Social Norms is the only one I would prefer to Conduct.
 

cobbaut

Warlord
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
200
Location
Antwerp
Here's a crazy idea... How about you get to (re-)name a tech when you finished researching it, like we get to do when founding cities.
Conduct is fine imho.
 

Sakura Matou

Warlord
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
223
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy. Sol System
Here's a crazy idea... How about you get to (re-)name a tech when you finished researching it, like we get to do when founding cities.
Conduct is fine imho.

I'm sure an in game system for renaming Techs may be to much work to do for the devs but I really Despise "Social Norms" as a name for conduct, I think we should just keep conduct as it is now and really don't think the techs need to be renamed at all.
 
Top Bottom