mathematics prereq for currency?

[lord of the mark]

Currency of course requires the ability to count, add, subtract. in civ2 mathematics meant something more than that, at least Euclidean geometry (thus catapult) and was relatively late, prereq for university. Independent of and parallel to or later then currenty - think euclid versus Croesus of Lydia.

What are they thinking here?


LOTM

[Buck Birdseed]

I think it should be quite the opposite: Currency as a prequisite for Mathematics. Even slightly advanced Mathematics requires numbers and numbers are a by-product of the more advanced kind of Merchant that currency brought about. The merchant would draw symbols on a wooden slab or something like that in order to keep track of his affairs, and numerical systems would be the immediate result of this.

[DarkCloud]

yes, but that is supposing Mathematics is numbers.

If you consider Mathematics as existing before the Arabic Numeral system because to have currency you must say:

I'll give you 5 pelts for 2 dogs

There has to be mathematics involved, the other person says.

I can get 4 pelts out of 2 dogs, so 5 for 2 is a better deal.

I'll take the pelts.

[tniem]

I think I would have to agree with you LOTM. Of course it matters what they mean with mathematics. Sure the type needed for catapults would come after currency as it would incorporate some degee of geometry and such. But if they mean the type that only needs addition and counting then that would have come before currency. After all currency evolved from a barter system of trade where counting cows would have been a prereq to make it work.

This problem is much the same as the argument I have seen recently about Writing and the Alphabet. Where in reality writing took place in various forms - cuneiform, hieroglyphics, and cave paintings well before the alphabet developed.

Sometimes, though, it is hard to put discoveries in their proper order (horseback riding and the wheel) as it things may have been discovered at different times and in different places. Sometimes I think some creative control by Firaxis is a good idea to add to the game play and add to the fun factor.

[Ribannah]

It is not about putting things in the right order of appearance. The players will decide for themselves what they will research first from the available choices.

The tech tree is about causal relationships: which techs are NEEDED for the next jump.

Only a very tiny part of Mathematics, namely Counting, is needed for Currency.
But Counting was already available to everyone in 4000 BC, so making math a prerequisite for Currency is illogical.

Instead, I would suggest Code of Laws as a second prereq for Currency.

By the way, Alphabet as a prerequisite of Mathematics has never convinced me
either. IMHO Pottery would be a better choice.

Pottery, in turn, should lead to (Mathematics and) The Wheel, not to Map Making, which is in fact older than both Writing and Pottery and should have no prerequisites by 4000 BC.

[Dauphin]

Mathematics should really be split down into different groups in order to resolve this issue.

For example arithmetic, geometry, calculus, complex numbers all require a different level of understanding and are associated with other technologies and fields of study such as ballistics, theories of gravity, quantum physics etc.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Currency of course requires the ability to count, add, subtract. in civ2 mathematics meant something more than that,

I think thats an understatement in Civ-3. Every single aspect of mathematics (or any other tech) doesnt necessarily have to be pointed out in the tech-tree, with help of those pre-req arrows. The tech-tree is after all a very abstract simplification, anyway.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Mathematics should really be split down into different groups in order to resolve this issue.

Would above make the game more fun and challenging to play? Would it add something to the just-on-more-turn enigma? I dont think so.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Pottery, in turn, should lead to (Mathematics and) The Wheel, not to Map Making, which is in fact older than both Writing and Pottery and should have no prerequisites by 4000 BC.

How can Map Making be older than Writing? You make no sense here.

[Laszlo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How can Map Making be older than Writing? You make no sense here.

Maps do not have to be exact representations of spoken language and place names. The basic ones would depict generally the shapes, sizes, and landmarks needed to orient it and find your way.

Of course, to make the map you would have to record it somehow, but that could be done with berry juice on birch bark or hides, both of which have been used for that purpose.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ralf


Would above make the game more fun and challenging to play? Would it add something to the just-on-more-turn enigma? I dont think so.

I agree with Ralf. While techs can be shown at a more refined level in a scenario, or a different game covering a shorter period (like EU) a 6000 year game requires a fairly abstract tech tree.

It just seems that civ2's tech tree did that fairly well, deftly bringing together historical accuracy, gameplay, and even humour.
Civ3's tech tree may add to certain aspects of gameplay (like having you complete all techs before advancing to new age) but it seems a step backward in many other respects.

LOTM