.

[DSYoungEsq]

For sure, the boundary is a grey zone. We can disagree on where exactly it is. But just because we disagree on shades of grey doesn't mean that black and white are the same thing.

I, personally, would just about consider EU4 alt-history rather than only history-flavoured. This blog goes into the accuracy of its systems in great detail. The fact that it respects time and space matters a lot. It also models the interactions between things that are below the players immediate control to a substantial degree. For example, the complex network of trade flowing from node to node feels like it has a life of its own, and the player can interact to nudge it, but never very rarely control it. That's not to say that EU4 is a perfect emulation where everything that matters in real history is modelled one-to-one in the game (even attempting that would be insane IMO). But I think it does a decent enough job of abstracting those away to create a simulation of the higher level consequences to be called an alt-history simulator. An imperfect one, with far too much player autocracy, but the same things that weaken it as a history simulator strength it as a game.

So while Civilization is on the same spectrum, it's much further to the extreme of history-flavoured rather than alt-history. I'd say maybe the Total War series falls somewhere between Civ and EU4?

Actually, while EU2 was very much an example of "alt-history" (especially after the excellent work done by the Alternate Grand Campaign/Event Exchange Project mod!), I think EU4 tends to be much more unmoored from history, to the point where I don't think of it as alt-history anymore, but, rather, play-history.

It's interesting that I was thinking earlier today about just how to think about games and their "historicity". EU, and EU2 were interesting in that the events in the game forced the player to re-live the actual history of the country they were playing. It meant that major historical events (like the end of the Hundred Years War) were impossible to avoid, regardless of choices one made that, in reality, would have prevented those events from occurring. That meant that a player of EU2 ended up VERY immersed in their country's history (I used to do extensive research into the history of a country I played, especially in MP, and REALLY especially if I was writing some sort of ongoing AAR. That's been much less true with EU4, where historicity can be thrown out the window in most cases. It's like playing with the building blocks of history; call it LEGO history.

By comparison, Civilization and its progeny have never been about being historical. I mean, seriously, a game which allows you to start in 4000 BC as the Americans? Which from its initial iteration involved no guarantee that traditional historical rivals would even be able to meet (in Civ, the Germans or the French can play, but not both!)? A game that had you researching only one technological advance at a time? You can learn to sail, or you can learn to make bronze spears, but you can't be doing both at the same time? A game that allowed historical AI leaders to undertake actions that they would never have countenanced in real life (and I don't just mean Mr. Nuking Gandhi!). The game wasn't historical at all! What it DID have was a whole bunch of what we might call the Name, Image, and Likeness of History. Romans, English, Mongols, etc. Accurate city names. The Ancient (and modern!) Wonders of the World. Military units from antiquity, and from modern times. For anyone with a bent to studying things historical, the game has always been a wonderful toy. But we didn't get deeply into it because of its "historicity", since it had very little.*

To use the metaphor from the OP: I think Civ isn't even history flavored; I think it's simply Iron Chef, where you have to produce a completed meal using standard historical ingredients. Yeah, maybe we've stretched that metaphor a bit thin, but it seems pretty apt, especially when one thinks about playing the game in MP.

A different analogy is Star Trek. The Next Generation was somewhat flavored like the original; it was really Gene Roddenberry's attempt to make the show he intended in the first place, and couldn't because the network wanted more "Action!" (usually involving getting Kirk to tear his shirt and kiss someone). But modern Trek shows aren't really Star Trek flavored, even; they are, in my opinion, just shows that use the original names and concepts, but re-work them to have a different kind of fun. That's Civ in a nutshell.
_______________
* I will note that I do think the two things that gave it some historical flavor were the tech tree, which, while an artificial limitation on technological advance, did attempt to tie things together in much the way that James Burke showed us in Connections; and the whole inter-relationship of food, hammers, and gold. That mini-lesson in social economics was especially intriguing; one of the most fun parts of taking on a new iteration of Civ is learning just how they have mucked around with that!

 

[TheGrayFox]

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.

I understand that but the post he was responding to was about having more recognizable civs/leaders in the game rather than completely obscure ones like Catherine De Medici.. I'd hardly consider Frederick the Great and Germany to be an obscure choice

 

[Chiyo]

I understand that but the post he was responding to was about having more recognizable civs/leaders in the game rather than completely obscure ones like Catherine De Medici.. I'd hardly consider Frederick the Great and Germany to be an obscure choice

Thanks, that is what I wanted to say. In a football match it is more fun to me to play against Liverpool than, e.g. Wrexham. In Civ I prefer Napoleon to Katherine de Medici. I like playing as Egypt but finishing as Buganda does not sound like something I would like to do. I had not heard of Buganda before the presentation and looked it up on the German Wikipedia side which basically says they existed and are now part of Uganda. I know that on this forum I probably have the minority view but I do not thin that is the case for the overall playership.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I understand that but the post he was responding to was about having more recognizable civs/leaders in the game rather than completely obscure ones like Catherine De Medici.. I'd hardly consider Frederick the Great and Germany to be an obscure choice

Catherine De Medici may be obscure to you, but maybe not to other people. At least now she's a lot more well known in the Civ community.

I had not heard of Buganda before the presentation and looked it up on the German Wikipedia side which basically says they existed and are now part of Uganda. I know that on this forum I probably have the minority view but I do not thin that is the case for the overall playership.

I had never known about the Mapuche or the Cree before they joined in Civ 6. But I looked them up and I found them interesting. I personally find it a positive thing, learning something new, than just staying with what I know.

 

[CivLuvah]

I understand that but the post he was responding to was about having more recognizable civs/leaders in the game rather than completely obscure ones like Catherine De Medici.. I'd hardly consider Frederick the Great and Germany to be an obscure choice

That's you and most of the Western world (or at least Europe). Before I played Civ4 I didn't know he was a famous figure. I grew up in a country where the only popularly recognized leader in German history is He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

Catherine De Medici may be obscure to you, but maybe not to other people. At least now she's a lot more well known in the Civ community.

Ironically enough, I knew about Catherine de Medici when I was a kid through magazine trivia before I even knew about Frederick the Great. Obscurity is very relative.

I know that on this forum I probably have the minority view but I do not thin that is the case for the overall playership.

The point of my reply is that Civ is as much an opportunity for players to learn about history as it is to play its "greatest hits". It opens players to other leaders and civilizations they might otherwise see as obscure. That is one of the reasons people love these games so much, and the reason some of them become interested in history and pursue becoming historians. I'm certainly one of them. Arguing against the notion that Civ can be a tool for education is arguing for ignorance. It can be more than just a game.

 

[luca 83]

Actually, while EU2 was very much an example of "alt-history" (especially after the excellent work done by the Alternate Grand Campaign/Event Exchange Project mod!), I think EU4 tends to be much more unmoored from history, to the point where I don't think of it as alt-history anymore, but, rather, play-history.

It's interesting that I was thinking earlier today about just how to think about games and their "historicity". EU, and EU2 were interesting in that the events in the game forced the player to re-live the actual history of the country they were playing. It meant that major historical events (like the end of the Hundred Years War) were impossible to avoid, regardless of choices one made that, in reality, would have prevented those events from occurring. That meant that a player of EU2 ended up VERY immersed in their country's history (I used to do extensive research into the history of a country I played, especially in MP, and REALLY especially if I was writing some sort of ongoing AAR. That's been much less true with EU4, where historicity can be thrown out the window in most cases. It's like playing with the building blocks of history; call it LEGO history.

By comparison, Civilization and its progeny have never been about being historical. I mean, seriously, a game which allows you to start in 4000 BC as the Americans? Which from its initial iteration involved no guarantee that traditional historical rivals would even be able to meet (in Civ, the Germans or the French can play, but not both!)? A game that had you researching only one technological advance at a time? You can learn to sail, or you can learn to make bronze spears, but you can't be doing both at the same time? A game that allowed historical AI leaders to undertake actions that they would never have countenanced in real life (and I don't just mean Mr. Nuking Gandhi!). The game wasn't historical at all! What it DID have was a whole bunch of what we might call the Name, Image, and Likeness of History. Romans, English, Mongols, etc. Accurate city names. The Ancient (and modern!) Wonders of the World. Military units from antiquity, and from modern times. For anyone with a bent to studying things historical, the game has always been a wonderful toy. But we didn't get deeply into it because of its "historicity", since it had very little.*

To use the metaphor from the OP: I think Civ isn't even history flavored; I think it's simply Iron Chef, where you have to produce a completed meal using standard historical ingredients. Yeah, maybe we've stretched that metaphor a bit thin, but it seems pretty apt, especially when one thinks about playing the game in MP.

A different analogy is Star Trek. The Next Generation was somewhat flavored like the original; it was really Gene Roddenberry's attempt to make the show he intended in the first place, and couldn't because the network wanted more "Action!" (usually involving getting Kirk to tear his shirt and kiss someone). But modern Trek shows aren't really Star Trek flavored, even; they are, in my opinion, just shows that use the original names and concepts, but re-work them to have a different kind of fun. That's Civ in a nutshell.
_______________
* I will note that I do think the two things that gave it some historical flavor were the tech tree, which, while an artificial limitation on technological advance, did attempt to tie things together in much the way that James Burke showed us in Connections; and the whole inter-relationship of food, hammers, and gold. That mini-lesson in social economics was especially intriguing; one of the most fun parts of taking on a new iteration of Civ is learning just how they have mucked around with that!

Leaders are useless: they are just names, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, out of historical context they are meaningless and better personalised leaders according to the period and historical situation

 

[Acepox]

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.

Because he killed more than Stalin or Genghis Khan? Ah, no he didn't.

 

[Zaarin]

Because he killed more than Stalin or Genghis Khan? Ah, no he didn't.

Given 31 years in office he would have overtaken Stalin and Mao. Here's a fun idea: maybe we don't include any recent mass murderers, regardless of ideology.

 

[¯\_ (ツ)_/¯]

Folks... with all due respect to everyone, if you want historical accuracy, read about it in a book or play something different. As for Civ7.... it's a game. You might enjoy it, or you might not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[luca 83]

Folks... with all due respect to everyone, if you want historical accuracy, read about it in a book or play something different. As for Civ7.... it's a game. You might enjoy it, or you might not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

is the new challenge for the new generation of ai a simulation not historical but realistic

 

[VenusSultan]

I'll go against the grain here and say I really enjoy how absurd Civ can be at times. I remember playing Civ V and laughing in the middle of the game when I actually realized that I was playing as Venice, building the Great Wall of China to protect myself from an aztec incursion, while my city was growing faster because my people were just mad about incense and Shakespeare was there for some reason. I think these small immersion breaks, this silly nonsense, actually make the game more interesting. I think the new axis of liberty given by the disjunction of leader and civ and the transition mechanic make the game more absurd. And I also think that's good, because it brings into sharper contrast the real historical elements that inspired it, deepening my curiosity. Something like EU (never played other paradox games), which might be more 'accurate', make me focus more on the mechanics of the game than it's flavour. And when the flavour invites me to research new cultures and historical periods, even better. I'm excited to see Ben Franklin turning the Maya into the Chola because he loves boats enough.

 

[luca 83]

I'll go against the grain here and say I really enjoy how absurd Civ can be at times. I remember playing Civ V and laughing in the middle of the game when I actually realized that I was playing as Venice, building the Great Wall of China to protect myself from an aztec incursion, while my city was growing faster because my people were just mad about incense and Shakespeare was there for some reason. I think these small immersion breaks, this silly nonsense, actually make the game more interesting. I think the new axis of liberty given by the disjunction of leader and civ and the transition mechanic make the game more absurd. And I also think that's good, because it brings into sharper contrast the real historical elements that inspired it, deepening my curiosity. Something like EU (never played other paradox games), which might be more 'accurate', make me focus more on the mechanics of the game than it's flavour. And when the flavour invites me to research new cultures and historical periods, even better. I'm excited to see Ben Franklin turning the Maya into the Chola because he loves boats en

Be. A non-real map the Chinese can merge with the Turks or the Greeks with the Chinese. But they should do it with realistic mechanics, through fusion of people , annexations , political treaties , dynastic marriages

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But they should do it with realistic mechanics, through fusion of people , annexations , political treaties , dynastic marriages

Yes, hopefully the transitions include plausible mechanics from how you get from Civ X to Civ Y. I don't think they've shown us anything, yet, about how that happens. We know there will be a crisis at the end of era 1 and era 2, we know the timing of the crisis is based on actions taken during that era, we know that there is gameplay during the crisis, and we know that this crisis gameplay impacts the start of the next era. All very vague, loosey-goosey talk so far with no specifics.

Devoid of data, some people are leaping to the conclusion that the transitions will be illogical, no doubt fueled by the HK experience where the game offered no explanation for how you went from Civ X to Civ Y. We don't know how the dev team is handling this in Civ 7, but since they've implemented transition gameplay, it's possible it may work very differently than in HK.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, hopefully the transitions include plausible mechanics from how you get from Civ X to Civ Y. I don't think they've shown us anything, yet, about how that happens. We know there will be a crisis at the end of era 1 and era 2, we know the timing of the crisis is based on actions taken during that era, we know that there is gameplay during the crisis, and we know that this crisis gameplay impacts the start of the next era. All very vague, loosey-goosey talk so far with no specifics.

Devoid of data, some people are leaping to the conclusion that the transitions will be illogical, no doubt fueled by the HK experience where the game offered no explanation for how you went from Civ X to Civ Y. We don't know how the dev team is handling this in Civ 7, but since they've implemented transition gameplay, it's possible it may work very differently than in HK.

Yeah. There was an enormous amount of word salad and bafflegab in the latest video. Will need actual gameplay videos to really judge this.

 

[luca 83]

Sì, spero che le transizioni includano meccanismi plausibili su come si passa da Civ X a Civ Y. Non credo che ci abbiano ancora mostrato nulla su come ciò avviene. Sappiamo che ci sarà una crisi alla fine dell'era 1 e dell'era 2, sappiamo che la tempistica della crisi si basa sulle azioni intraprese durante quell'era, sappiamo che c'è del gameplay durante la crisi e sappiamo che questo gameplay di crisi ha un impatto sull'inizio dell'era successiva. Finora sono state tutte chiacchiere molto vaghe e poco specifiche.

Privi di dati, alcuni stanno saltando alla conclusione che le transizioni saranno illogiche, senza dubbio alimentate dall'esperienza di HK, dove il gioco non ha offerto alcuna spiegazione su come si passa da Civ X a Civ Y. Non sappiamo come il team di sviluppo sta gestendo la cosa in Civ 7, ma dal momento che hanno implementato il gameplay di transizione, è possibile che funzioni in modo molto diverso rispetto a HK.

anche sulle scelte non è detto che tutti i cambiamenti avvengano nel passaggio dall'era 1 all'era 2 in Inghilterra nel 1789 la rivoluzione francese non è avvenuta né in Russia né in Prussia né in Inghilterra era avvenuta quasi un secolo prima con Cromwell le rivoluzioni variano a seconda dei paesi e delle dinamiche sociali non delle epoche!

Moderator Action: This is an English language forum, please provide an English translation, leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

anche sulle scelte non è detto che tutti i cambiamenti avvengano nel passaggio dall'era 1 all'era 2 in Inghilterra nel 1789 la rivoluzione francese non è avvenuta né in Russia né in Prussia né in Inghilterra era avvenuta quasi un secolo prima con Cromwell le rivoluzioni variano a seconda dei paesi e delle dinamiche sociali non delle epoche!

Understood translation: even in the choices it is not said that all the changes occur in the passage from era 1 to era 2 in England in 1789 the French revolution did not happen in Russia or in Prussia or in England it had happened almost a century before with Cromwell the revolutions vary according to the countries and the social dynamics not the eras!

For game purposes, they're all going to happen at the same time, worldwide, in Civ 7. An abstraction, but needed since (a) the maps expand at each era and (b) I believe some of the game rules change, too. No doubt there were other options that could have resulted in civs transitioning at different times, but that wouldn't necessarily have been better. The dev team's vision is for three stories tied together into a single, larger narrative / campaign. That's all we know at the moment. We have no information about how they tie those stories together.

 

[luca 83]

For game purposes, they're all going to happen at the same time, worldwide, in Civ 7. An abstraction, but needed since (a) the maps expand at each era and (b) I believe some of the game rules change, too. No doubt there were other options that could have resulted in civs transitioning at different times, but that wouldn't necessarily have been better. The dev team's vision is for three stories tied together into a single, larger narrative / campaign. That's all we know at the moment. We have no information about how they tie those stories together.

It makes no sense that a revolution can happen in one country and not in another, I mean politics, even religious, scientific and different on a global level, even if the industrial revolution happened in England and France, the Renaissance in Italy

 

[Thenewwwguy]

As a long time civ player who was raised in a great education system but has very limited general knowledge of world history because our history classes were mainly centered on OUR country and it’s history, One of the things I enjoy the most is exactly THAT, having civs in game that I know little or even next to nothing about…

It sparkles my curiosity and makes me go search for information about it on the web… makes me want to figure out WHY they were given this or that building, unit or enhancement etc….

To me that a huge plus… but hey I’m not claiming I represent most players in this… just my 2 cents

same for me. a lot of peoples that i only learned about through civ. perhaps most recently the mapuche. others i learned *more* about via civ, like the maori

my other addition to what you’ve said is that i beleive all people deserve representation in the media they want to play and watch, and civ has, in recent years, become one of the most meaningful, educational and respectful ways to do that. I’m so excited for y’all to learn more about tamil culture because of the Chola inclusion—how many ppl (who don’t know about us already) can say they know our history that well, or even the basics?

 

[Mr. Shadows]

The historical theme of the game has always been at the core of its enduring appeal. It's a game that we play for fun but it also serves as the starting point for serious reading for a lot of us. Beyond that it seems almost disingenuous to point out that a video game can't express 6,000+ years of the human experience. Of course it can't. Just the same, I've seen a number of high school students get interested in history because they played Civ. They're too young to know who the DeMidicis or the Plantagenets were and they've never heard of Tenochtitlan... but they're asking their teachers questions about them because they game makes history interesting. It's not a teaching tool but it's extremely educational if you take it for what it's worth.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The historical theme of the game has always been at the core of its enduring appeal. It's a game that we play for fun but it also serves as the starting point for serious reading for a lot of us. Beyond that it seems almost disingenuous to point out that a video game can't express 6,000+ years of the human experience. Of course it can't. Just the same, I've seen a number of high school students get interested in history because they played Civ. They're too young to know who the DeMidicis or the Plantagenets were and they've never heard of Tenochtitlan... but they're asking their teachers questions about them because they game makes history interesting. It's not a teaching tool but it's extremely educational if you take it for what it's worth.

This is how I got into history playing civ 3 and civ 4. I wrote my common app essay for college on how civ got me interested in geography and history, then eventually political science, which i ended up pursuing in university.

i had a little fourth grade genghis khan obsession because of civ. and i was the only kid on the playground who was super invested on why gandhi was a bad leader choice