It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
Other Games > Other Games
Feedback on a tech tree
Erik L:
This is a tech tree for a world-building framework. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Panopticon:
I have a couple off the cuff reactions.
Anarchy, not sure why that is a step before tribalism, the tribe as a unit seems to exist even in the other Great Apes that exist today, perhaps you have a different idea than I do about tribes, but it seems out of place.
Your weapon trees could be interlinked with other stuff, Pikes for example really came into use after cavalry charges became a thing if I recall correctly, and a lot of other weapons had popularity increase after changes in armor, or with metalworking improvements, neither of which I see on your tree.
That all depends on how complex you want your tree to end up being I guess.
Erik L:
Anarchy is probably badly named. It is a lack of government. Might makes Right. He with the most pointy sticks wins.
Ages, such as Bronze and Iron require a set amount of technologies researched before they may be entered.
Interlinking is possible, but I'd really like to keep it as simple as possible.
Maltay:
Feedback:
Axes leading to swords seems weird. The predecessor to swords would have been daggers. Maybe even simple crafting tools like adzes if you want to keep the early stone age theme firmly to the left of the framework.
A better precursor to the mace would be the hammer.
Arguably, a personal ranged weapon could constitute a thematic predecessor to ranged siege weapons. Such that siege weapons would have multiple prerequisites. Also, not sure why you say generic archery before moving into the representative weapons. You did not do this with spears, axes, etc. Also, the long bow came before the short bow. The longbow was Upper Paleolithic. The short bow (i.e., recurve or composite bow more appropriately) was not until the second millennium BC.
I do not understand why anarchy and tribalism are separated out from other forms of government. Beyond which, I do not see that writing is a prerequisite for government. Only advanced forms of government. You can also get into semantic arguments about writing. For example, the Incans were quite complex, yet did not have a formal writing system. Rather, the Incas had a notational record keeping system, essentially numeric. Folks still argue whether these quipus could have been used to store more than numeric values. The same sort of argument applies to things like Linear B. Moderately advanced government only seems to need some record keeping system (e.g., calendars, taxes, duties, revenue, etc.), rather than full on writing (e.g., laws, mandates, regulations, treaties, etc.).
I think sailing should have different prerequisites. It is less about mathematics, and more about optics, navigation, etc. These, to an extent, depend on mathematics (e.g., dead reckoning), but are their own area of discovery I would think.
Chivalry should have more prerequisites. It is an honor system that is deeply cultural and tied up in the system of government. Think a feudal society with some concept of noblesse oblige.
alex_brunius:
--- Quote from: Maltay on July 01, 2015, 12:08:03 AM ---Feedback:
Axes leading to swords seems weird. The predecessor to swords would have been daggers. Maybe even simple crafting tools like adzes if you want to keep the early stone age theme firmly to the left of the framework.
A better precursor to the mace would be the hammer.
--- End quote ---
I really like the idea to look at all weapons from the perspective off what utility tool they are derived from. A society being experts in working with stone/hammers more naturally might gravitate to being able to craft such weapons.
So Spears/Bows would have hunting as prerequisites.
Axes are connected to some woodwork/lumber handling ( It's no coincidence Vikings and wooden tribes also to a quite large degree used axes as weapons ).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version