.

[luca 83]

It's even less that. There's hardly any politics in Civilization at all! There's a thin layer of diplomacy. But there's no bargaining between different factions, trying to rally support for a cause, jostling for power over your colleagues, protecting yourself from rival politicians, etc... None of that is in the game. Happiness and Loyalty are very far removed and abstract caricatures of that, but it's not like we've ever had happiness per political party, social class and demography. Instead, you play as an omnipotent and autocratic embodiment of the collective will of your civilization that can directly affect any single part of it modelled by the game without having to deal with politics. I'm not sure how Civilization could be less of a political simulator.

Perfectly agree instead of discussing leader a or leader b or selling packs of costumes as in 6 and better to focus on political and social dynamics I have always supported this

 

[Acepox]

I'm going to make myself a lot of enemies here and claim that Civilization has never been historically accurate. It's never even really tried to IMO. It's history flavoured. And not even the natural flavour that comes from squeezing a fruit, but the artificial kind made in a factory which is only a mimicry of the real thing. And that's perfectly fine, great even.

I think this because the fundamental systems of Civilization (any entry in the series) are completely alien to history in innumerable ways: a completely invented geographical setting, all civilizations starting at the same time in the same state while 99% of the map is utterly devoid of humans, a centralised program of scientific research in the stone age, troops taking decades to march in and out of a city, archers shooting over an entire city, the same thing speeding up the construction of both tanks and libraries, having complete control over every job of every individual in the civilization, culture bombing, immortal leaders, making plans that last millennia, etc... In fact, I doubt there's a single game mechanic in any Civilization game which is historically accurate in its details, or a single historical process that's accurately depicted in Civilization on anything more than an abstract, allegorical level. While a lot of my love from history grew out of playing civilization as a kid, it also "taught" me lots of things that I've had to unlearn later as I got deeper into history, eg: that sword beats spear, or that technological progress has always been the main determinant of a nation's success.

And yet past Civilizations have been fantastic, immersive games! Historical accuracy is thus clearly not required. That's not to down play the importance of historical "flavour" and immersion. The latter is vital in any game, and the former is a cornerstone of Civilization and does contribute to (without being the sole factor for) immersion. But the historical flavour doesn't do that by being accurate. My theory is that it does so by making call-backs from the fictional world we create in-game to real-world history that we already know about, and this call-back immerses us in the mood and feelings that comes from thinking about historical things. So when you build the Pyramids, you think about ancient Egypt and that immerses you in the feelings that you associate from ancient Egypt - it's unaffected by whether the pyramids are a magic font of granaries, or if it lets you enter a representative democracy, or if they make builders magically be able to build more farms before self imploding. In that sense, the historical flavour plays a similar role as the tech quotes. [Which, incidentally, would explain why that awful Civ6 quote about Roman air conditioning got so much hate - it's like biting into a raisin when you were expecting a chocolate chip.]

Which I think circles back to the perennial topic of why a lot of folk don't like the idea of civ swapping, and I'll be bold enough to venture that some didn't know themselves (or couldn't express) why they don't like it. It's not that it's ahistorical (for all the reasons given above), but that it breaks the historical flavour. They wanted to play an Egypt-flavoured game, and 1/3 of the way through they have to switch to a Mongolia or Songhai flavour: they wanted chocolate ice cream but were forced into Neapolitan. To me personally, the idea of playing with a Civ-flavour that changes to match the time-flavour of every era sounds pretty cool. Yet I do still empathise the loss of having a single Civ-flavour the entire game. [Not that history-flavour is not the only thematic or attachement-related part of the game that is affected by civ swapping.]

To be even more conjectural, I wonder if this is the reason Humankind was disliked (I never played it myself), outside of anything to do with the game's mechanics per se. It's that it lacked this historical flavour. People did call it bland after all. More precisely, its historical flavours were never strong enough and long lasting enough to trigger this immersive call-back from the game to real-world history.

I'll stop pontificating here, and apologise for stretching a tenuous food-based metaphor for quite so long...

I think it's critical not to break the immersion though. They have to respect the limits of suspension of disbelief.

And having Gandhi lead the Gauls is quite the opposite of that. I hope they give us the option to restrict leaders to realistic starting civilizations. (even if the leader may drift to irrealism in ages II and III)

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

That's down to presentation. Humankind didn't have leaders; it had paper dolls. I had never heard of Catherine de Medici before Civ6, but I can't say I didn't enjoy interacting with her. That's also why I'm concerned about Civ7's leaders' production values.

She might be presented in an interesting way and be given fun mechanical abilities, but she has less historic *flavor* than a Napoleon, Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc. With Catherine, Firaxis has to lean entirely on their own contributions; with leaders like those mentioned, the player contributes his own background knowledge, enhancing the historical flavor.

If the Pyramids were excluded in favor of a Walmart from some specific small town that only its own inhabitants ever heard of, it would educate all of us as to the existence of that town and store, more so than the Pyramids would educate us, but it wouldn’t contribute to the historical flavor without which Civilization is hardly Civilization

 

[Zaarin]

She might be presented in an interesting way and be given fun mechanical abilities, but she has less historic *flavor* than a Napoleon, Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc. With Catherine, Firaxis has to lean entirely on their own contributions; with leaders like those mentioned, the player contributes his own background knowledge, enhancing the historical flavor.

That is extraordinarily subjective. I've never encountered a depiction of Napoleon with more flavor than one of Humankind's paper dolls (probably in part because I find the real Napoleon less interesting than a paper doll). He certainly didn't have any personality or flavor in Civ5.

 

[Zaarin]

Is Catherine de Medici really that obscure to people? I consider the Medici's almost synonymous with Renaissance Italy and especially Florence. Her link with France is something I'm only vaguely aware of. I'm no medievalist, but the name immediately conjures up underhanded intrigue to me.

Her family is certainly famous, but I wasn't familiar with Catherine specifically until Civ6. I believe she was in the film Queen Margot, which I'm only familiar with because Ofra Haza did the end credits song.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Her family is certainly famous, but I wasn't familiar with Catherine specifically until Civ6. I believe she was in the film Queen Margot, which I'm only familiar with because Ofra Haza did the end credits song.

Similar. I know her before Civ 6, but only because of her role in the St. Bartholomew Massacre. So, in Civ 6, I was a bit surprised to see what seemed to be a "negative" leader pop up for France.

 

[Zaarin]

Similar. I know her before Civ 6, but only because of her role in the St. Bartholomew Massacre. So, in Civ 6, I was a bit surprised to see what seemed to be a "negative" leader pop up for France.

I disliked her initially, but she became one of my favorites in Civ6. And I learned a lot more about her in my Protestant Reformation class during my master's, which also catapulted Sigismund II Augustus to the top of my Poland wishlist.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I strongly disagree that Civilization is alternative history, for basically all the reasons stated in the 2nd paragraph of the OP.

Alternative-history is about asking what the consequences might be if something had happened differently in history: eg, if Egypt had conquered Assyria, if the Aztecs had invented gunpower, and so on. But it fundamentally keeps the basic "rules" of real history the same: it doesn't change the basic laws of physics, human biology, psychology, political science, economics, etc... A world where a civilization has a centralised scientific research program in antiquity is not alt-history, it's far more deeply ahistorical than that. It's not just changing what happened in history but the fundamental roots of how history happens.

In other words, Alexander the Great marching west to Carthage rather than east to Persia is alt-history. It taking decades for him to march his army out of the Pella is not. Civilization does both, so you could say it's alternative non-history, and the non-history dominates there.

The only part of history that Civilization maintains is its flavour.

Many would agree that a game like EU4 is an alt-history game beacuse it set a world closer to what we historicaly know, still the technology research is a "mana" spend button whichever you are researching Field Howitzer as Prussia the same you are researching Temples as Nyoongah. Each player draw the line of "realism" whatever they want since objetively the only realist mechanics to represent historical reality is the real world itself, there is always going to be some level of abstraction.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I disliked her initially, but she became one of my favorites in Civ6. And I learned a lot more about her in my Protestant Reformation class during my master's, which also catapulted Sigismund II Augustus to the top of my Poland wishlist.

I knew about her mainly through her connections with (too many) Kings of France: Charles IX, Henries II, III, and IV.

I just finished Mary Hollingsworth's biography, Catherine de'Medici: the Life and Times of the Serpent Queen, which is actually a follow-up to her earlier books on the Borgias and de'Medicis in Italy. She makes very good use of the massive letter files to and from Catherine and her ministers, but also lets slip how treacherous it is to use them: Catherine was perfectly capable of writing to two different people on the same day expressing diametrically opposing positions on the same subject, depending on who she was wiring to: Phillip II of Spain or one of the Protestant leaders in France!

I think Ms Hollingsworth tries a little too hard to present Catherine as a 'middle ground' compromiser between the extreme Protestant and Catholic factions in France: given the problems with the source material, methinks she doth protest too much. She does make a good argument regarding the St Bartholomew Massacre, pointing out that it was actually two different events: the king sent troops to kill the Protestant Leaders, because they had presented demands on the king that amounted to usurping his authority, which was Treason under French Law. That relatively controlled set of actions, though, was followed by a massive Mob action by Catholic troops and their leaders and the civilian extremists hat resulted in 5 - 10,000 or more dead (the majority, by the way, in provincial cities, not Paris, which is what makes all the casualty figures suspect).

My latest Favorite Fact about Catherine and her meddlesome progeny is the fact that the future Henry III of France, when his father died leaving him King of France, was in Poland getting ready to be crowned King of Poland! A potential other Dual Leader? The dynastic spiderweb of legitimate and not so legitimate siblings, sons, daughters-in-law, et al of the period would be hysterically funny if it all didn't result in so much bloodshed ..

 

[Zaarin]

My latest Favorite Fact about Catherine and her meddlesome progeny is the fact that the future Henry III of France, when his father died leaving him King of France, was in Poland getting ready to be crowned King of Poland! A potential other Dual Leader?

Not a potential dual leader because the Sejm told him in no uncertain terms: you're king of France or you're king of Poland. Given he was universally despised in Poland, choosing king of France (and promptly dying from a jousting injury) was probably the right call. (Including the dying of a jousting injury. That part was important because it paved the way for his much better successor.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

She might be presented in an interesting way and be given fun mechanical abilities, but she has less historic *flavor* than a Napoleon, Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc. With Catherine, Firaxis has to lean entirely on their own contributions; with leaders like those mentioned, the player contributes his own background knowledge, enhancing the historical flavor.

If you define "flavor" by historical relevance sure. But I'd argue that giving something flavor means going out of the norm, such as Kristina for Sweden, or Seondeok for Korea. Whereas going Napoleon or Joan of Arc all the time would be the "bland" approach.
And this is coming from someone who would love Louis XIV because he'd check both boxes.

That is extraordinarily subjective. I've never encountered a depiction of Napoleon with more flavor than one of Humankind's paper dolls (probably in part because I find the real Napoleon less interesting than a paper doll). He certainly didn't have any personality or flavor in Civ5.

Well now you have the option of getting two different personalities of him.

 

[Zaarin]

Well now you have the option of getting two different personalities of him.

I've never felt a stronger incentive not to have a 2K account.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not a potential dual leader because the Sejm told him in no uncertain terms: you're king of France or you're king of Poland. Given he was universally despised in Poland, choosing king of France (and promptly dying from a jousting injury) was probably the right call. (Including the dying of a jousting injury. That part was important because it paved the way for his much better successor.)

The fact that a Valois (potential) King of France was even considered for King of Poland is what I find amusing: it speaks, as stated, to the confused dynastic ties prevalent in Europe at the time.

And he was elected to the Polish throne (with the help of some hefty bribes) in 1573, although the election was boycotted by the Lithuanian nobility, which makes the legitimacy a bit strained. I believe to get the agreement at all Henry had to give up any claims to succession so that he couldn't start any kind of Franco-Polish Dynasty. Finally, of course, he didn't physically get to Poland and get 'officially' crowned until after his brother Charles IX died, so he returned to France almost immediately to claim the French throne. Supposedly, he did bring back the fork as an eating utensil to France, although the French later insisted that it was a 'native' French invention.

- And the jousting injury was Henry II, somewhat earlier. Henry III failed to produce a son, which resulted in a bunch of dynastic jockeying while he was alive, so he had the most vociferous jockey assassinated (the Duke of Guise) and was in turn assassinated himself. That left no simple line of succession and turned the French religious wars into a dynastic Succession war, which resulted in Henry of Navarre coming out on top as Henry "Paris is worth a Mass" IV.

The whole interconnected mess of religious and dynastic rivalry between the Valois, Guise, Bourbon and other families in France in Catherine's time would be nearly impossible to portray in a game: too much of it simply defies any mechanic or system to explain. Any rational 'political' calculations all too often were upended by sheer religious fanaticism and personal rancor between individuals and families that was homicidally vicious.

 

[Zaarin]

And the jousting injury was Henry II

Ah, right. Too many Henris, though at least they're not Louis.

 

[moondog385]

There’s truth to the idea that the games are historically flavored and not historically accurate but I do think the games should be applauded when they move in more accurate directions (no “Polynesian” or “Native American” civ) and critiqued when they portray certain people inaccurately (Victoria, Cyrus, Montezuma, Harald in VI).

I’m not asking for a history lesson but one of the best parts of these games is when they introduce people to lesser known corners of history like the Mapuche. It’d be a shame if the devs didn’t try to represent them accurately.

 

[luca 83]

It's even less that. There's hardly any politics in Civilization at all! There's a thin layer of diplomacy. But there's no bargaining between different factions, trying to rally support for a cause, jostling for power over your colleagues, protecting yourself from rival politicians, etc... None of that is in the game. Happiness and Loyalty are very far removed and abstract caricatures of that, but it's not like we've ever had happiness per political party, social class and demography. Instead, you play as an omnipotent and autocratic embodiment of the collective will of your civilization that can directly affect any single part of it modelled by the game without having to deal with politics. I'm not sure how Civilization could be less of a political simulator.

The small states are important like the empires, in ancient times e. Medieval as realta small or medium politics like Bavaria or Florence, or Mantua, not rich as states and culturally huge, the historical simulation and also the respect of the realism of the reports between imperial, small and medium states

 

[CivLuvah]

Great quote which shows the risk of having too many civs ( or cultures? nations? peoples?) in the game that non-historians do not know. I rather play against Napoleon or Louis XIV. than the Medici queen we saw in Civ VI. I hope that the civ rosters we saw in some threads here will not be true as they contain so many civs I have hardly heard of and don't know much about.

Playing Civ4 in 2007 as a teenager was literally the first time I've ever heard of Frederick the Great. And now he's one of my favourite historical figures. This argument is a case of underestimating one's audience

 

[TheGrayFox]

Playing Civ4 in 2007 as a teenager was literally the first time I've ever heard of Frederick the Great. And now he's one of my favourite historical figures. This argument is a case of underestimating one's audience

You're talking like Frederick the Great is some obscure historical leader and not one of the most important figures in modern German history

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You're talking like Frederick the Great is some obscure historical leader and not one of the most important figures in modern German history

To most teenagers in the world, I'm sure Frederick the Great is obscure.
I can think of possibly one they can name but he's not Civ material.

 

[Thormodr]

Meh. We live in a computer simulation. Therefore everything we do is part of that simulation.

Therefore, Civ is a simulation.

Stop Asking If the Universe Is a Computer Simulation

We will never know if we live in a computer simulation; here is a more interesting question

www.scientificamerican.com