Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

Aztecs were not a stone age civilization. They knew plenty about advanced metalworking, and were able to easily make artifacts of non-iron metals equal in craftsmanship and complexity to European contemporary equivalents. Similarly for all other American regions.

As to why they didn't produce IRON goods, there are several reasons:

1) There were no large domesticated draft animals in the Americas, so plows didn't make much sense to invent AND carts and wheels and horsehoes and things you would use iron in for transit didn't make as much sense either.
2) The terrain was inhospitable to similar technologies. Plows and carts wouldn't do well in small terraced farm plots or narrow mountain paths or thick jungle, even if they had them.
3) The warfare was mostly blunt impact-based, with padded armors. It simply evolved in a direction where metals weren't too advantageous compared to other options, and since they were more effortful, why bother?
4) The local religions placed a lot of significance on metals, which made them often "too valuable" to use for mundane things like tools.
5) Somewhat ironically, copper was found in the Americas in pure form more readily available to just use directly than in Europe, and this might have inhibited developing smelting techniques, because there was simply no need to smelt already pure metal. Which would then carry over to not applying that technology to iron.

However, despite all these differences, critically, they didn't really invent anything significantly different in the process than what Europeans also had invented. Which I think is a pretty solid argument for not-procedural technology, actually.

Sorry, but "a bunch of little stone axes in a chunk of wood" is not really a dramatically different or interesting invention versus "one medium stone axe in a chunk of wood" worth programming an entire procedural technology engine into the game.

If you simply programmed in the European technology tree and chose different points along it for different civilizations with different resource availability, you'd be very close to the Aztec/European situation, and with hugely less programming effort.

[Scruiser]

    I think a intermediate addition is needed to be added to the game for this suggestion to work well.  Item tags should be more generalized so that shields, tools, weapons, and armor all shared the same basic type of "item" and then tags dictated how the item could be used and with what skill.  This only makes a small difference with the current setup of weapons and items (attacks added to shields, block added to weapons, attacks added to gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, specific attacks added to various tools).  But it would allows for the additional combinations that would make one or two unique cultural tools make sense. 
Let me give a few examples of what I mean:
   In it's early history, a mining site of a dwarf civ is attacked and the miners defend it with picks.  Afterwards, the mining site has its weaponsmiths craft larger heavier picks that require more metal, but serve as a better weapon.  The dwarf civ favors these picks as dual use weapons/tools and they become a culturally favored weapons over time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseman's_pick
   A human wood cutter becomes an explorer in world gen.  Along the way, he master swordsmanship.  After becoming famous, he commissions a sword that can also be used to cut wood.  The tool never becomes popular as a weapon for the civ, but peasant woodcutters favor it to defend themselves with and as a tool.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete
   Because of the civ's king's personal preference for spears, spears are the favored weapon of his civ.  A skilled weaponsmith lengthens the cutting edge, trying to get a better slashing weapon, while following his culture.  The weapons is only used by full time warriors that can afford its price over regular spears.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata
   A legendary mason/engraver favors his bush hammer and brick hammer.  He requests a single tool with both surfaces.  It becomes a common cultural practice to make double headed hammers with specialized heads on each side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonemason%27s_hammer

   Note that for a lot of these suggestions require more tags for weapon properties and tool uses.  Tags to specify weapon reach (for example to make a naginata different from a sword).  Tags for tool use (a mason might need a general use hammer, a chisel, and various special hammers).
   Also, I think in general GavJ is right.  Most weapons and tools will undergo a convergent evolution over time.  I think only one or two special weapons/tools per culture would make sense practically and thematically.  So all civs would get axes, picks, swords, shields, stoneworking tools, etc.  Each civ would develop a few specialized versions with extra tools uses or attacks according to various worldgen events (historical leader preferences, tools used as weapons during uprisings, etc.).

[GoblinCookie]

Aztecs were not a stone age civilization. They knew plenty about advanced metalworking, and were able to easily make artifacts of non-iron metals equal in craftsmanship and complexity to European contemporary equivalents. Similarly for all other American regions.

As to why they didn't produce IRON goods, there are several reasons:

1) There were no large domesticated draft animals in the Americas, so plows didn't make much sense to invent AND carts and wheels and horsehoes and things you would use iron in for transit didn't make as much sense either.
2) The terrain was inhospitable to similar technologies. Plows and carts wouldn't do well in small terraced farm plots or narrow mountain paths or thick jungle, even if they had them.
3) The warfare was mostly blunt impact-based, with padded armors. It simply evolved in a direction where metals weren't too advantageous compared to other options, and since they were more effortful, why bother?
4) The local religions placed a lot of significance on metals, which made them often "too valuable" to use for mundane things like tools.
5) Somewhat ironically, copper was found in the Americas in pure form more readily available to just use directly than in Europe, and this might have inhibited developing smelting techniques, because there was simply no need to smelt already pure metal. Which would then carry over to not applying that technology to iron.

However, despite all these differences, critically, they didn't really invent anything significantly different in the process than what Europeans also had invented. Which I think is a pretty solid argument for not-procedural technology, actually.

Sorry, but "a bunch of little stone axes in a chunk of wood" is not really a dramatically different or interesting invention versus "one medium stone axe in a chunk of wood" worth programming an entire procedural technology engine into the game.

If you simply programmed in the European technology tree and chose different points along it for different civilizations with different resource availability, you'd be very close to the Aztec/European situation, and with hugely less programming effort.

Yes they were a 'stone age' civilization.  Because they did not transition from using stone tools/weapons to using metal tools/weapons.  Nearly everything you have listed is pretty much against what you are saying.  There is little actual inherant order to technological development, sometimes we end up with certain advances being made and not others. 

The funny thing is that all the examples you are using rather make my point, particularly 5.  Copper is available, historically in European/Middle Eastern/North African civilizations copper was used for tools and this replaced stone as soon as it got established and this led to bronze.  In the Aztecs case, we have obsidian blades and clubs being used, the copper being unused despite being available. 

2. is a contrived explanation though.  The whole of the Central America is not one huge mountain, there are plenty of contexts in which plows and carts could have been used.  Dogs can also be used to pull things around as the Inuit demonstrate and can be driven about by human beings of course.  The reason they did not have those things is simply that they did not invent them.

Because in real-life, technology is clearly 'procedurely generated' to a large extent as does become evident from any non-Eurocentric perspective.  The Aztecs independantly invented at least two things the Europeans did not invent.  Since there is no real fixed tech-tree in real-life, why should there be in dwarf fortress? 

1. Saw-tooth clubs.
2. Rubber.

[StagnantSoul]

Well having only be slight deviations from the normal set would actually be good. I thought you meant they start from nothing, and try to work their way up. But starting with the basics, like a short sword, bow, pickaxe, axe, shield, and some basic armour, and have different routes for them to take based on resources, preferences, and events, this would work great.

[Tomsod]

Personally I'm all for several small flavor variations like what Scruiser cited, but too much procedurally generated stuff with random names in a largely text-based game would be just cruel. "The Master Splorchdwarf strikes Fafhrd's Beast in the scaly thingy with his +Uristson splorch+, tearing it apart! Fafhrd's Beast gives up in Todvin's Very Uncomfortable Feeling." No thank you.

But still, more generalized weapon raws would be very nice. It's only a logical next step from the current system, which already describes item shape to some degree instead of using hit dice or something. But even looking at currently existing weapons, there are: short sword, long sword and 2h-sword (and also scimitar and dagger), which are (very) basically just different sizes of the same thing and could be described in a suitable common framework, like large and small clothing (except scimitar is curvy and dagger is pointy, but that's details). That would also allow demons and weremammoths to have suitable weapons for their dimensions without cluttering the raws with seven-handed very large swords or whatever.

This hypothetical system would describe the item's general shape, the pointy ends, the shaft, mass distribution and somesuch, and based on that the engine will do damage calculations. If done properly, this could very easily describe a wide array of weapons like those 20 kinds of polearms and other goodness from AD&D. In fact, we probably better not pro-gen new weapons at all. Just pick a more obscure one from something like that list when a weaponsmith gets a fey mood (or however the inventive process would work), add slight variations and we're set. Kopesh is better than splorch because you can at least Google to get an idea of what kopesh is.

Of course, making up a good descriptive framework would be a challenge, and equally so coding the physics of it. But a man can dream. Actually, after I'm done with that (it's like 5 AM here), I'm gonna try and think (or Google) something creative on the matter, since the idea has an awesome potential. Hope the latter won't vanish in the morning.

[GavJ]

Since there is no real fixed tech-tree in real-life

But there is, and the like... 3 or 4 random exception examples listed in this thread do not outweigh the thousands of parallel inventions that worked the exact same way in both places. It is overwhelmingly an identical timeline, simply offset laterally.

I'm all for slight variations in existing things for cultural flavor, but I would not call that "procedural technology" and it implies hugely less work. It's more like a big straight branch with tiny twigs deviating off of it, okay great. Versus a totally differently shaped tree: not so great (not only unrealistic but also super confusing for gameplay)

If all you mean is flavor deviations, then okies. That's not the impression I got. Correct me if wrong.

[GoblinCookie]

Since there is no real fixed tech-tree in real-life

But there is, and the like... 3 or 4 random exception examples listed in this thread do not outweigh the thousands of parallel inventions that worked the exact same way in both places. It is overwhelmingly an identical timeline, simply offset laterally.

I'm all for slight variations in existing things for cultural flavor, but I would not call that "procedural technology" and it implies hugely less work. It's more like a big straight branch with tiny twigs deviating off of it, okay great. Versus a totally differently shaped tree: not so great (not only unrealistic but also super confusing for gameplay)

If all you mean is flavor deviations, then okies. That's not the impression I got. Correct me if wrong.

I am in favour of non-procedurally generated technology researched in a procedurally generated manner.  The technology generally was developed in paralell, but not in the same order. 

In real-life we did not have a single technology tree.  Some civilizations invented some things before other things, failing to invent more basic technologies (to us) and inventing more advanced technologies.  Some technologies were unique, but for the most part not so. 

The 'problem' is that the lack of certain technologies would be somewhat irritating to the player.  It would add a whole element of uncertainty to the game that could be ruinous to their plans. 

[GavJ]

failing to invent more basic technologies (to us) and inventing more advanced technologies.

(Nitpick: If the "more advanced" ones do not have the "basic" ones as prerequisites, then it's just cultural bias to label them as basic vs. advanced in the first place.)

Yes this is true, to a greater extent than totally unique technologies. And also easier to code still. You could just have, like "blah blah certain triggers for X technology" and occasionally your civ won't have those and thus won't have it (like no glassworking if your civ's early forts were nowhere near any sand).

Personally I think that would be quite fun, not annoying. More fun than randomly slightly different shapes weapons, for sure. Unexpected constraints you have to re-plan your strategy around is actual significant gameplay challenge, and extra replay value.

[Dirst]

failing to invent more basic technologies (to us) and inventing more advanced technologies.

(Nitpick: If the "more advanced" ones do not have the "basic" ones as prerequisites, then it's just cultural bias to label them as basic vs. advanced in the first place.)

Yes this is true, to a greater extent than totally unique technologies. And also easier to code still. You could just have, like "blah blah certain triggers for X technology" and occasionally your civ won't have those and thus won't have it (like no glassworking if your civ's early forts were nowhere near any sand).

Personally I think that would be quite fun, not annoying. More fun than randomly slightly different shapes weapons, for sure. Unexpected constraints you have to re-plan your strategy around is actual significant gameplay challenge, and extra replay value.

I think what GoblinCookie meant by "advanced" was "more refined in X than we ever got because we had moved on to Y."  The underlying assumption is that primitive people are not idiots, they just don't have access to the same information we do.  A long-living civilization without access to metal could be expected to come up with some elaborate substitutes using other materials, whereas a metal-using civ would never bother working out the particulars.

For example, the bleeding edge of Elven digging technology is getting sand for green glass, so they don't have access to stones or metals of any kind.  They developed substitutes using wood and bone that are far more elaborate than what the Dwarves would have considered worthwhile.

GoblinCookie mentioned the Master of Orion II tech tree, and that could simplified (consider everyone "creative") and used here.  The tech trees could advance along the basic material types in the game, and just accept the unrealtity of knowing how to make a couple things the civ has never seen before in exchange for understandable tech stages.

So there would be a bodyparts tree, a plants tree, a stone tree, and a metal tree.  Advancing along these would give access to workshops/professions/reactions/etc.  Other possible "techs" include medical procedures, agriculture (gathering vs farm plots vs orchards vs etc.)  The order of basic techs could determine the site style used by an emergent culture (i.e., an animal man settlement).  For example, any Level 2 tech allows camps and the first Level 3 tech leads to
Bodyparts: Pits
Plants: Retreats
Stone: Cities
Metal: Fortresses

[GavJ]

I was saying that, for example, civilization A has quartz sand and develops glass technology, but lives in the dense jungle so maybe not the wheel. Civilization B lives in a floodplain and invents the wheel but has no suitable sand and doesn't invent glass.

In this example, there would be no objective reason to say that glass or the wheel are "more advanced" than the other without implying that one of the two civilizations is more important or something. 

And in fact, for gameplay, I think you want to focus on things like that - technologies that for medieval times are NOT prerequisites for tons of other things (would make the gameplay too crippled) but are instead swappable, order-doesn-tmatter smaller side branches, like glass for example. Or adamantine. Or maybe leatherworking.

[Scoops Novel]

An old thread of mine on this: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=128407.0

[Dirst]

I was saying that, for example, civilization A has quartz sand and develops glass technology, but lives in the dense jungle so maybe not the wheel. Civilization B lives in a floodplain and invents the wheel but has no suitable sand and doesn't invent glass.

In this example, there would be no objective reason to say that glass or the wheel are "more advanced" than the other without implying that one of the two civilizations is more important or something. 

And in fact, for gameplay, I think you want to focus on things like that - technologies that for medieval times are NOT prerequisites for tons of other things (would make the gameplay too crippled) but are instead swappable, order-doesn-tmatter smaller side branches, like glass for example. Or adamantine. Or maybe leatherworking.

Oh, one thing that I was not clear on... the main playable races would all be at some pre-determined tech level set in the entity object, so the only differences among civs within a main race would be of the flavor kind you mentioned.  That way, you don't have to worry about Dwarves who haven't figured out steel or Elves who haven't figured out orchards (but surprisingly know all about gemcraft).  The major tech differences would be among the animal men or other semi-sentient beings.

[dwarf_reform]

I barely read the thread, but it would be nice if civs could learn a couple new tricks after worldgen.. You'd set a general trigger (time passed, fort value, fort population), and then when a trigger is met a civ learns something new (and usually dangerous)..

"The elves have tamed a dragon for the purposes of war! Beware!", the liaison says on his next visit.
"The goblins have adopted the habit of setting fires upon retreat!"
"A treacherous dwarf has been teaching the finer arts of war to the kobolds!"
"The elves discovered an odd fruit that converts their very blood into acid!"
"The [insert-civ-here] have tamed [insert-terrifying-creature-here] for use in combat!"
"The goblins and kobolds have formed a pact and confidently march to war!"
"The kobolds are accepting any willing creature into their ranks!"
"All the goblins of the world have taken ill. Beware, this disease is a threat to dwarves as well!"
"A new elven military policy demands that all soldiers ride mounts into battle!"
"I've heard reports of goblins four times the size of a dwarf! Four times! Let us hope this is not true!"
"The kobolds have started using stealthy animals in war. It is terrifying."
"The elves no longer hold trees sacred. They now focus on the protection of animals!"
"A forgotten beast has become a god to the kobolds, and leads them into battle!"

Things like that (post-worldgen) that'd add a little extra spice to each playthrough :>

[cyberTripping]

"A forgotten beast has become a god to the kobolds, and leads them into battle!"

A giant kobold twisted into humanoid form. It squirms and fidgets. Beware its adorable snout!

[mate888]

"The elves no longer hold trees sacred. They now focus on the protection of animals!"

I like all of your ideas but this one. You can see in ThreeToe's stories that elves have a "special connection" with trees.
BUT, an evil elf who betrays his comrades and teaches the secrets of elvish warfare to the goblins would certainly be something treeifying FUN.