That doesn't happen already?
And that justifies making things even worse by using a computer game as a teaching tool?
That doesn't happen already?
And that justifies making things even worse by using a computer game as a teaching tool?
Albeit not perfect since it is a game, I have seen through years of playing that Civ4 has many aspects that reflect well to history. Here is a list:
1) Isolation starts tend to let some civs backwards since they can be part of technological diffusion. In RL, bantu populations, aborigines and to an extent the New World suffered strong setbacks because these populations didn't benefit as much as classical old world nations like the mediterranean nations (Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia civs, etc.)
2) Fertility of soils is almighty important. For a radical comparison, Nubia vs Egypt. Both were by the Nile, but Nubia didn't have the great farm-able lands of Lower Egypt. They had to stick with the older means, which is Animal Husbandry. And the recession of the few farmable lands let the culture to die. In Civ4, food is king. A poor start without much food resource or worse, mainly plain tiles will lead, at least for the AI, to fall back compared to nations having plenty of food.
3) Resources. Indeed, crossing with the last point, bonuses are a really important part of Civ4. Some experiments were done without a single resources on a map in Civ4 and it led to extreme backwardness.
4) Trade routes can be a big part of the economy. Isolationists like Tokugawa in the game have bigger problems to maintain a steady race to the "exchangists" like Mansa. Both in tech diffusion, resources, trade routes, etc., isolationists suffer.
5) War is knowledge bringer. Since cities are captured and changed of owner, the native population will benefit of new techniques. Though some mods enforce the fact war is knowledge bringer. Indeed, in real history, war is a competition between nations and thus a stimulus of tech advancements.