 |
| |
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
So, do we have closure on the wheel - horse riding issue? Are we in agreement that wheel should come before, and that Firaxis actually got this right? If there's anyone needing more evidence about horses being too small to ride, the superiority of chariots until horses and horse riding skills improved, etc..., speak now or forever hold your peace. Otherwise, we're just beating a dead horse (...drum roll).
I'd like to weigh in on the alphabet issue. China does not have an alphabet to this day, and Japan mostly doesn't use one. A hieroglyphic or sign based writing system is not just an alphabet with a lot of letters, it is a different thing altogether. That's why the invention of the first alphabet was such a big deal. Yet, China and Japan are centers of civilizations, doing pretty dang well without an alphabet. Conclusion: Alphabet does not belong in Civ3's tech tree, especially in the place that it is.
Regarding the Wheel, I see things a bit differently. Yes, the Mesoamerican civs and others didn't have the wheel. But that doesn't mean they didn't discover or know of it. In fact, toy carts with wheels have been found in Mesoamerican ruins, showing that they knew of the wheel, but just didn't choose to use it. Why not? Try walking through the jungle of Yucatan sometime, and you'll see. It was just as fast to walk as use a cart, and given the widespread use of slave labor, carrying stuff was no big deal. In game terms, liken these civs to civs that discovered Wheel, but simply chose not to build any Chariots (a unit moving 2 in flat terrain) because in their terrain they couldn't move any faster than a unit with a max move of 1. No problem!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
One more issue: monotheism and polytheism. Its true that monotheism is a development than came after polytheism ... in the west. But what about the east - China and India, not to mention Mesoamerican cultures? India of course primarily had and has Hinduism, and the main religious belief in China until today has been a mix of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism that is polytheistic (even those the founders of some of those religions might be surprised about that).
Is anyone willing to argue that people who believe in a monotheistic religion are somehow better or more enlightened than those who believe in a polytheistic religion? Can it be proven that without such an advance a society couldn't develop such things as "education", "printing press", "astronomy", "banking" and so on (as the Civ3 tech tree indicates)? I'd like to see them try, cos many such things were first invented in non-monotheistic societies. For instance "Astronomy" (I assume they mean the invention of the Compass, Astrolabe and the like), Printing Press, and Banking first appeared in China (Printing Press was Korea, I think, actually).
With just a simple renaming of Polytheism and Monotheism, Civ3 could have a tech tree that was much less blatantly Western-only.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Absolutely - compared to polytheism - from a world where every force, every stream, every forest has its own god, nymph or spirit, and in which every natural phenomenon is intimately to tied to a supernatural being that explains it, to a world in which one supernatural being excludes all others. Now a civ MAY attempt to explain everything in terms of the DIRECT activity of this supernatural being, but the temptation arises to make the one god a "first cause" only, and to begin a naturalistic, scientific investigation of the intermediate causes. Now there are complications to be sure - for example many nominally monotheistic religions leave plenty of room for lesser supernatural beings - saints, angels, etc. And one may cite the growth of naturalistic thinking in Athens - I am far from an expert in the state of religious belief in 5th c Athens.
So i can certainly see counterarguments, but i assure you im not the first to see monotheism as demystification. Unfortunately I do not have any citations handy.
LOTM |
Interesting, unfortunately that doesn't mesh with history very well. Ancient advances in science and technology were made when polytheism held sway. After monotheism dominated Europe there was the Dark Age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kenobi
You don't need a separate tech to create surplus workers - that's what food surpluses are for. Technological advances of ANY kind were only possible after societies created enough food to let brainy people think about the world around them rather than looking for their next meal. This settlement was permitted by the development of agriculture, which we already have in the form of the basic tech, "irrigation" - all tribes start off with the ability to settle. |
While it is true that Agriculture is a given in both Civ2 and Civ3, there were many technological advances in prehistoric times without the need of Agriculture to discover them. Examples are: Fire, Stonecutting, Herding (a prereq for Agriculture), Mining, The Canoe. Even some advances which are in the cive tree like Ceremonial Burial, Bronze Working, Writing and Map Making are independent of Agriculture.
quote:
The key technological (as opposed to social) development required for the printing press was not mass-produced paper; it was moveable type, which requires machinery/metal working skills. The early printing presses did not need mills to generate power - they could be worked by hand. |
Technologically that is true, but it would be superfluous since those skills are already needed to arrive at The Mill (my tree runs: Iron Working + The Wheel = The Plough, + Construction = The Mill). Note that from playing Civ we are used to count only two prerequisites at the most for all advances, but in real history of course there could have been more. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
Is anyone willing to argue that people who believe in a monotheistic religion are somehow better or more enlightened than those who believe in a polytheistic religion? |
Ancient polytheism:
"Our tribe/willage/people believes in our private setup of Gods that have us as their favourite pet-people. The Gods are not that different from us, morally speaking: They intrigue with each other according to our tales and myths, and they can get both angry and merciful towards us, but hopefully mostly hateful towards our enemies".
As you can see many monotheists still today have traits of naive and human mind-reflecting paganism/polytheism within them: "God have us as his favourites" (= this or that religious movement), "God is on our side - he favour our soldiers", "God gets wrathful/ merciful", "God hates ...", "God granted this to our people only", and so on.
However, the true untainted idea with monotheism is really:
- A belief in ONE universal God and eternaly active creator for anything and everything that actually happens in our universe.
- A deep meaning and plan (work in progress) with our lives, or personal faiths and our worldsituation, that deepest seen render all feelings of both martyrdom, unjustness and exclusive pet-treatment as 100% false (seen from the perspective of several lives or incarnations).
- A belief in forgiving, doing good and act humane as the only way forward, and that you cant personaly retaliate evil with evil, without mortgage your own future fate.
- A belief in one universally loving, wise, omnipresent God that cant be seen, mentally pictured or physically represented in any possible way, but who nevertheless listen to your deepest prayers, and fullfills them if it really helps your spiritual & intellectual progress towards understanding "life" better.
Now Harlan.
Surelely the latter represent a step forward comparing with pagan & naively local polytheism?
quote:
With just a simple renaming of Polytheism and Monotheism, Civ3 could have a tech tree that was much less blatantly Western-only. |
I didnt get it at first, but I guess know that you want monotheism and polyteism to switch places with each other, depending on what Civ you play. Is that correct?
If so, its a bad idea. What next? Partly unique tech-tree for different cultures? No thanks! They shoudnt complicate game-design without asking if such a move really adds something to that elusive fun- and suspence-factor. You know; the gameplay-issue. THATS whats important.
Last edited by Ralf on 07-08-2001 at 16:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
I agree about the wheel and horseback riding (and domestication for that matter) should be prerequisites for chariot building.
I also think however that part of the fun of the CIV series is that you are MAKING YOUR OWN HISTORY. It's not supposed to come out exactly like it did historically, otherwise it wouldn't be any fun. So the technological evolution doesn't have to follow the historical progression necessarily. So I don't believe that providing dates for the invention of the wheel is really relevant.
However, the sequence of events should be logical and rational (that's why there's a tech tree). Whether or not you choose to resarch a particular tech isn't the point; it matters much more what options are available to you. The tree has to make sense and I think that in this case it doesn't, regardless of when, or in which order, the Abyssinians, Egyptians, Incas or whoever began to use wheels (or not use wheels as the case may be).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
Ralf,
I don't have any idea why you'd think I would want Monotheism and Polytheism to switch places - I clearly stated I wanted to see them both replaced by something else (presumably of a religious or ethical nature). Ribannah had a couple of good suggestions with Mythology and Ethics, and I had an idea of the development of a holy text, surely a big and essential step forward in any religion and society, though I can't think of a pithy title for it.
Regarding your "true, untainted" idea of monotheism, I'm guessing, you're thinking mainly about Christianity. In fact, no religion is pure enough to fit your definition, so why look at this "pure" version (for instance a "God that can't be seen, mentally pictured or physically represented in any possible way"- does the Bible not say that man was created in God's image?). All real monotheism is much more messy (for, instance, in what way is Satan not a God and Christianity not a dualistic religion?).
There are other monotheistic religions that aren't even part of the Judeo-Christian stream of thought that fit even fewer of your definitions. Maybe you consider them more "tainted", but they're just as monotheistic as any other monotheistic religions.
But you're not the only one to be essentially thinking of Christianity when saying "monotheism". Civ2 and now Civ3 do this as well (Civ2 actually having the Crusader unit with big crosses on their shields!, and don't even get me started with that game's nonsensical connection between Polytheism and war elephants). Look at the very location of Monotheism in the tech tree. If placed in context with when monotheism was first developed by the Egyptians (or even the Jews), it would be well into the Ancient Age.
Not only could it be argued that Monotheism is out of place in time even if one wanted it in the tech tree, but so is Ceremonial Burial and Polytheism. Can does anyone doubt that both of those concepts were widespread well before 4000 BC? Ceremonial Burial dates to something like 100,000 BC, in fact.
There are only a few things that prevent Civ3's tech tree (as much as we see of it, anyways) from being able to apply to more than just Western civilization. The main problem is Polytheism leading to Monotheism, then to Chivalry, plus Feudalism (interesting how the tech tree actually has a step backwards on it!).
Finally, Ralf, you didn't respond to my main point, which is should Monotheism be a prerequisite for future developments like the Printing Press, Education, Banking, Astronomy, Chemistry and so forth? As I said before, non-monotheistic civilizations were the first to discover many of these.
Oh, and to respond to an earlier point: yes, monotheism has "devolved" to polytheism on occasion. For instance, Buddhism and Taoism became primarily practiced as polytheistic religions, even though their founders did not intend them that way. And this is no minor exception: these Chinese religious practices have been practiced by more than 1/5th of all of humanity for most of history.
Last edited by Harlan on 07-08-2001 at 22:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
I don't have any idea why you'd think I would want Monotheism and Polytheism to switch places - I clearly stated I wanted to see them both replaced by something else (presumably of a religious or ethical nature). Ribannah had a couple of good suggestions with Mythology and Ethics, |
Ok, my blunder - but frankly why discuss tech-name changes that have no chance whatsoever to be implemented? That goes for big tech tree-rearrangements with completely new ancient tech-additions also. Both polytheism and monotheism is well established in previous versions, and besides; the game is already in QA-stage. Why kidding yourselves?
quote:
"God that can't be seen, mentally pictured or physically represented in any possible way"- does the Bible not say that man was created in God's image?). |
Well, I meant the misguided viewpoint of Jesus being literally God himself.
As for "Gods son/Gods image" - well, in that case we all are Gods sons/images. God talks and acts through all living entities throughout universe. So, in the latter case every living entity is created in Gods images.
Compare with a shining lightbulb completely covered with black paper - then punch small holes with a needle. Each bright little spot is a living entity, but behind the black paper is God, and God only.
quote:
There are other monotheistic religions that aren't even part of the Judeo-Christian stream of thought that fit even fewer of your definitions. Maybe you consider them more "tainted", but they're just as monotheistic as any other monotheistic religions. But you're not the only one to be essentially thinking of Christianity when saying "monotheism". |
Dont jump to conclusions. In my view the word monotheism is not something specifically Judeo-Christian only. Its a generic gathering-name for ALL religions that believes in ONE God, regardless culture. Obviously!
quote:
Civ2 and now Civ3 do this as well (Civ2 actually having the Crusader unit with big crosses on their shields!, |
The CTP-2 team dumped the roman legion all together and replaced it the japanese samurai-unit as an universal ancient infantry-unit, regardless civ. That was NOT a popular move at all. I guess the team tried to be culturally "fair", but it backfired.
As for the crusader-unit. Well, Civ-2 still managed to sell in several millions. Also, no game-magazine reviewers ever bothered to complain about that crusader. Frankly, I dont think they complained over at asia/japan either.
Last edited by Ralf on 08-08-2001 at 00:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
Look at the very location of Monotheism in the tech tree. If placed in context with when monotheism was first developed by the Egyptians (or even the Jews), it would be well into the Ancient Age.
Not only could it be argued that Monotheism is out of place in time even if one wanted it in the tech tree, but so is Ceremonial Burial and Polytheism. Can does anyone doubt that both of those concepts were widespread well before 4000 BC? Ceremonial Burial dates to something like 100,000 BC, in fact.
There are only a few things that prevent Civ3's tech tree (as much as we see of it, anyways) from being able to apply to more than just Western civilization. The main problem is Polytheism leading to Monotheism, |
The position of monotheism in the civ2 tech tree is late medieval, early renaissance. I dont know if Reynolds was doing it deliberately, but this CAN be read as distinguishing a more philosophically advanced monotheism (Erasmus or Aquinas) from a dark ages christianity that is implicitly an extension of polytheism. To broaden from christianity, I would add Ibn Rashid and Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon) for the Muslims and Jews respectively.
quote:
Finally, Ralf, you didn't respond to my main point, which is should Monotheism be a prerequisite for future developments like the Printing Press, Education, Banking, Astronomy, Chemistry and so forth? As I said before, non-monotheistic civilizations were the first to discover many of these. |
I agree that there are problems introduced in the Civ 2 tech tree by the interlacing of technologies with social ideologies. I agree that monotheism, while presenting advantages, should not be a prerequisite for scientific techs.
quote:
Oh, and to respond to an earlier point: yes, monotheism has "devolved" to polytheism on occasion. For instance, Buddhism and Taoism became primarily practiced as polytheistic religions, even though their founders did not intend them that way. And this is no minor exception: these Chinese religious practices have been practiced by more than 1/5th of all of humanity for most of history. |
I think that's an example of a religion changing as it is popularized. The populace that turned Buddism into a polytheism was never monotheistic. I think history does not contradict Ralf on the issue of directionality on this point.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
Ralf:
"Frankly why discuss tech-name changes that have no chance whatsoever to be implemented?"
I know I'm just flapping my lips as far as Firaxis is concerned, now. But I'm looking beyond that, to modifying the game. If I like the game, I'm going to tweak the parts of the game that I don't like. From what I see of the tech tree, I can live with almost all of it, but this is one of the things I'd tweak. I brought up the point asking "it is just me" who's bothered by Monotheism and Polytheism in Civ3, and I'm glad to see that isn't not just me. Hopefully someone else will be inspired to fix Civ3's mistakes, so I don't have to bother . I was really glad to see Wes' mod for CTP2 for this reason, amongst others.
Regarding God's image, you have your more abstract beliefs about God, but the vast majority perfer to see God in some kind of visualizable form. And when the Bible talks about man and God looking the same, that was meant to be taken literally, at the time. The idea of a completely abstract non-physical God was too far out then (2000 BC? as a wild guess when that part of the Bible was created), and is too far out now for many (most?) people. The Catholic Church for instance has had trouble lately over African churches that are displaying Jesus and God as black. My society typically pictures God as an older guy with a big white beard.
Jumping to conclusions: I'm merely pointing out that, as someone who grew up and lives in a Christian society (I'm assuming you didn't suddenly move to Sweden from, say, Tibet), your view of monotheism is going to be inevitably colored by your knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Its the same for me - I know very little about monotheistic religions outside of that tradition. But we can't assume all those things you say follow from monotheism in fact invariably follow. There could be (and are) very theologically advanced polytheistic religions and very simple monotheistic ones. In fact, not far from where I live here in California, a Native American tribe shocked the Spaniards who first discovered it, because they believed in only one God, and that God was very evil and vengeful.
On being culturally fair. Probably 95% of the people playing Civ-like games are in Western countries, and those that are not are used to Western bias in most everything anyways. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Variety is the spice of life, and including non-Western civilizations and concepts in the game would make the game much better, if done well. Look at the very popular Age of Kings and Age of Empires games for instance. They use civs from all over the world - it adds to the game experience and maybe even people learn something as they play. By adding such things as the Grand Canal in Civ3, hopefully the same will happen with this game (though I'm guessing that will be a rare exception to the general Western bias of Civ3). Funneling the game into just repeating the development of the Western world limits the game in my opinion - there's a whole interesting world out there.
And historically, China was more advanced than the "West" pretty consistently through history until they were conquered by the Mongols and lost half their population. Even after that, people couldn't believe Marco Polo's descriptions of China cos they sounded too fantastic. For a game that tries to model history, they miss out on a lot because of the Western bias.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
LotM,
I'm looking at the Civ2 tech tree now, and I don't see Monotheism where you put it historically. The nice thing about it in that tree is that it could come "early" or "late", cos its not too tied in to the rest of the tree (and in fact this branch of the tree more or less dead ends shortly thereafter). Whereas in the Civ3 tree, there's no way to get around Monotheism - you basically can't enter the Middle Ages without it. Pretty much all future technological development needs it - dumb.
Civ3 would do better to have the religious/philosophical branch of the tree more independent of the rest. Leading to some things that give you culture points, wonders, etc... certainly. But having the number of gods you believe in be vital to the invention of, say, banking, makes just as little sense as the polytheism - elephant connection.
Speaking of the Crusader and Elephant units, they fit so much better as potential special units. That's a nice improvement (again assuming its done correctly, but that's another thread).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
Ribannah-
I've never liked that some wonders weren't physical structures (i.e. Cure for Cancer). That's why I don't like the idea of Alphabet being a wonder.
Alphabet definitely impacted some cultures more than others and some not at all. But I think that some kind of requirement before writing is essential, whether that tech is pictograph, alphabet or that Chinese system (sorry, I don't know what it's called). I know that there's no optional techs leading to other advances, but it would seem to solve the problems. Since different civs progressed in different ways it would be ideal to reflect this in the tech tree, but that's not possible. So I guess that this is Fireaxis' best idea for a compromise.
On a side note, I really liked being able to see the literacy rate for your civ in CIVI. That was a fun, cool feature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
I agree with Ribanah on several points.
Firstly, horseback riding and the wheel are unrelated techs that should not be prerequisites for each other.
Horseback riding was not discovered by a Civilization. It was developed by Steppe nomads. Civilizations, generally little more than city-states, located on the fringe of the steppes came in contact with these nomads- as they were raided by them. After a time, two things happened. One, the nomads were hired as mercenaries. Two, the nomadic bands grew in size to the point that they could capture an entire city, and occupy it, gradually losing their nomadic roots and becoming more civlized. Through both of these, horseback riding became introduced to civilization.
Further, there has been recent reconsideration of the age of the stirrup. Although still disputed, the possibility that Steppe nomads had stirrups a millenium earlier than previously thought is now held by a number of scholars. Non-metallic stirrups of nomadic peoples would be virtually impossible to find archaelogicallly. One such (disputed) find has been made.
The inventors of horseback riding clearly did not have the wheel. The inventors of the wheel clearly did not have horseback riding.
A word on chariots.
They were unwieldy, cumbersome and required smooth ground. They were very expensive. But in the absence of a mounted opponent- they were highly mobile, and more importantly, terrifying. In early war, the first massed infantry that panicked, broke and ran invariably lost. Chariots were very effective in invoking panic. However, as stirrups were developed, chariots soon lost their value. A proper horseman was faster, more agile, worked on rougher terrain and far cheaper.
Alphabet
This is not a matter of opinion. An alphabet is a set of characters representing phonenes, which can be grouped together to represent vocalized sounds for words. First alphabets, incidentally, lacked vowels.
Cuneiform and Hieroglyphics are forms of Writing. Pictographic forms of writing such as these typcially evolved towards an alphabet. Cuneiform lost symbols, and became syllabic in its representation as opposed to representing whole words.
Writing -> Alphabet. QED.
However, I like Ribanah's idea of the Alphabet as a Wonder- as clearly, it is not a necessary advance. (China)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
LotM,
I'm looking at the Civ2 tech tree now, and I don't see Monotheism where you put it historically. The nice thing about it in that tree is that it could come "early" or "late", cos its not too tied in to the rest of the tree (and in fact this branch of the tree more or less dead ends shortly thereafter). Whereas in the Civ3 tree, there's no way to get around Monotheism - you basically can't enter the Middle Ages without it. Pretty much all future technological development needs it - dumb.
Civ3 would do better to have the religious/philosophical branch of the tree more independent of the rest. Leading to some things that give you culture points, wonders, etc... certainly. But having the number of gods you believe in be vital to the invention of, say, banking, makes just as little sense as the polytheism - elephant connection.
Speaking of the Crusader and Elephant units, they fit so much better as potential special units. That's a nice improvement (again assuming its done correctly, but that's another thread). |
Harlan - Re CIv2 placement of monotheism - its called a renaissance tech, and follows philosophy and polytheism. I typically get to it late in the ancient/medieval period or early renaissance. Now you could interpret philosophy as aristotle, so that monotheism is circa 1 AD, but given that phil is considered a transition to renaissance, i think the designers clearly had something different in mind.
As for Civ3 - I agree it shouldnt be prereq for all later techs.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
I don't really care what game reviewers may or may not say about Alphabet or much else, for that matter. They usually look at the game in a very superficial manner anyways, and I'm much more interested in how fellow Apolytoners will review the game. But naturally the game isn't gonna be perfect coming out of the boxes, and people will want to make some changes. It sounds like one area many people would like to change is Writing / Alphabet.
Turning Alphabet into a wonder is one suggestion. However, I'm not a big fan of that. The vast majority of countries have alphabets for their national languages today, so does that mean that virtually all "civs" would have the Alphabet wonder? That's kind of defeats the point of a wonder, which is a unique thing that most don't have (even if its a minor wonder - I understand you'll have to meet certain prerequisites to be able to build them, so typically only a few civs will be able to build any particular one).
Instead, I think it would be best to just drop Alphabet altogether from the tech tree. The tech tree is a great simplication on things, and can't include everything. Alphabet falls into a wierd hole that can't easily be modelled in the game. Nobody's clamoring for an inclusion of a tech or techs revolving around numeric systems even though those also were very useful, so why alphabet?
I think the main advantage to having an alphabet was that it made the printing press a much more useful thing. The Chinese and Koreans invented the printing press first, but it didn't do them much good because they didn't have an alphabet. But how to model that in Civ3, and is it worth the bother?
There are plenty of other very deserving techs to make room for that fit the definition of a must have tech much more easily.
LotM,
You're right Monotheism is a Renaissance tech, but esp. given that a tech that comes after it has Feudalism as a prereq, the whole branch seems "out of time" to me. You could even be done with Theology while still not leaving the Ancient Age in all the other branches.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2001 07:28
|