Attacko and the Historians-How not to Die

[troytheface]

Over expansion -then ya go broke. under expansion and then you lose out in tech
not enough units and you get attacked. to many units and you go broke and lose out on tech

the delima of civ4

"With the civilizations as units identified, he presented the history of each in terms of challenge-and-response. Civilizations arose in response to some set of challenges of extreme difficulty, when "creative minorities" devised solutions that reoriented their entire society. Challenges and responses were physical, as when the Sumerians exploited the intractable swamps of southern Iraq by organizing the Neolithic inhabitants into a society capable of carrying out large-scale irrigation projects; or social, as when the Catholic Church resolved the chaos of post-Roman Europe by enrolling the new Germanic kingdoms in a single religious community. When a civilization responds to challenges, it grows. Civilisations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilisations then sank owing to nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority (see mimesis). Toynbee argued that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." " Holypedia

Toynbee- historian

in civ terms never repeat a sequence if that sequence ended in defeat- unless you reload in which case you can never lose.

The historian Tainter- His best-known work is The Collapse of Complex Societies.This 1988 book examines the collapse of Maya and Chacoan civilizations, and the Roman Empire, in terms of network theory, energy economics and complexity theory. Tainter argues that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity reach a point of diminishing marginal returns.

"In Tainter's view, while invasions, crop failures, disease or environmental degradation may be the apparent causes of societal collapse, the ultimate cause is diminishing returns on investments in social complexity " ...Holypedia

some will try to expand as a way to compensate- this can lead to a worsening of your situation.

the evidence is clear- lack of creativity and over expansion are more your enemy then
thinking about cottages. civ is an echo of civilizations and reality is the superior

 

[frekk]

Well, Toynbee isn't too popular among historians today. Neither are sweeping generalizations that attempt to formulate cast-in-stone "rules" that can apply to discrete events anachronistic to one another.

 

[troytheface]

"Jared Diamond and the completley idiotic Guns Germs and I'm an Idiot" is more modern and although not a "historian" like them have turned writing into maintaining a job, ripping off other's work and model making in lieu of going outside."- Attacko

This is proven in civ4 - a spectre of the truth as are all games- Resource depletion (chopping) provides more benefit and resource "luck" (location) is negated by superior response and or a resourcless unique unit.

whereas reaction to complacency and good/bad timing and momentum and other more dynamic aspects are superior in so far as attaining a higher level victory.

the evidence is clear.

 

[brianb1974]

So how do you characterize the fall of the Incan and Aztec civs?

If you want to claim those as "suicides" vs. "murders", you have to argue that the "suicide" took place over a very long time, the result of which was that they were an era or two behind in techs when the Europeans showed up.

 

[troytheface]

Exactly.

aztecs are always behind in tech.

the reason? Complacency. The creative elite stopped being creative and build a bunch of jaguars instead of a good navy and teching towards science boosts and good diplomacy.

aiming for astronomy before literature is a bad idea.

 

[frekk]

This is proven in civ4 - a spectre of the truth as are all games- Resource depletion (chopping) provides more benefit and resource "luck" (location) is negated by superior response and or a resourcless unique unit.

whereas reaction to complacency and good/bad timing and momentum and other more dynamic aspects are superior in so far as attaining a higher level victory.

the evidence is clear.

Evidence? This is one of those times that I really regret people using games to try and learn history. They can be educational, but there's always the danger that people will forget "the map is not the territory"; that they'll think the game is something other than a reflection of the designer's perception of history. It doesn't mirror reality, it mirrors a perception of reality.

 

[Grey Fox]

Evidence? This is one of those times that I really regret people using games to try and learn history. They can be educational, but there's always the danger that people will forget "the map is not the territory"; that they'll think the game is something other than a reflection of the designer's perception of history. It doesn't mirror reality, it mirrors a perception of reality.

My tip to you is to do a search on troytheface and read his previous posts.

 

[noto2]

Exactly.

aztecs are always behind in tech.

the reason? Complacency. The creative elite stopped being creative and build a bunch of jaguars instead of a good navy and teching towards science boosts and good diplomacy.

aiming for astronomy before literature is a bad idea.

Umm....you mean in real life? As in...history? How can you compare Europe to S. America in terms of technology at the time of discovery? First of all, the people living in the Americas had to cross the Beiring Straight and so lost a lot of time in that. In Civ terms, that'd be like a game going on for 100 turns or so and then you starting off as the Aztecs on some empty continent. You'd be 100 turns behind everyone. Good luck.

 

[z0wb13]

"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long."
-Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

i couldn't get through the whole thing. but i think that one of his major culprits was christianity replacing the roman state religion.

an even easier answer is that the world was changing and they quit adapting to it.

i'm fascinated by the collapse of the easter island civilization.

The first recorded European contact with the island was on April 5 (Easter Sunday) 1722 when Dutch navigator Jacob Roggeveen visited the island for a week and estimated there were 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants on the island. The next foreign visitors (on November 15, 1770) were two Spanish ships, San Lorenzo and Santa Rosalia. They reported the island as largely uncultivated, with a seashore lined with stone statues. Four years later, in 1774, British explorer James Cook visited Easter Island, he reported the statues as being neglected with some having fallen down. In 1825, the British ship HMS Blossom visited and reported no standing statues. Easter Island was approached many times during the 19th century, but by now the islanders had become openly hostile towards any attempt to land, and very little new information was reported before the 1860s.
-wikipedia

fortunately, there are several methods for dealing with overpopulation in civ: whips, drafts, and ignoring it. because it's a game.

 

[dannythefool]

Umm....you mean in real life? As in...history? How can you compare Europe to S. America in terms of technology at the time of discovery? First of all, the people living in the Americas had to cross the Beiring Straight and so lost a lot of time in that. In Civ terms, that'd be like a game going on for 100 turns or so and then you starting off as the Aztecs on some empty continent. You'd be 100 turns behind everyone. Good luck.

They actually had a fairly comparable civilization earlier, with the Maya. But for some reason the Maya civilization stalled and later collapsed long before Europe invaded and even long before the Aztecs and Inca appeared as major civilizations.

I think in Civ terms, the Americas had an isolated start with not so great land...

The Bering Strait crossing would have happened thousands of years before civilizations started to appear in Africa, not sure that would have changed much as at that time, *everybody* was wandering around anyway...

 

[noto2]

yeah, I was just thinking about that actually...the Beiring Strait crossing was 9000 years ago? And Sumeria was 6000? Or 4000...can't remember...so yeah, you're right. I've also heard that the Mayans mysteriously disappeared but thank you for putting into chronological order for me. For some reason I thougth the Mayans, Aztec and Inca existed all at the same time but now it makes much more sense.

 

[Continental Op]

And of course in real life all civs didn't start exactly at 4000 BC. And all the great civs have collapsed or degenerated after about 1500 years or so, the less great even faster, even without a decent competitor. I guess the AI really sucks in the real world.

 

[Negator_UK]

Hooray, a new attacko thread..

unless you reload in which case you can never lose.

True, but you might never win either...

So how do you characterize the fall of the Incan and Aztec civs?

Too much contact with diseased Europeans.

"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long."
-Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

i couldn't get through the whole thing. but i think that one of his major culprits was christianity replacing the roman state religion.

Too many orgies too methinks....

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

This just reveals what kind of fools we are. Somebody who is willing to spend hours and hours in the world where US or France start at 4000 B.C. leaded by figures that last for thousands of years makes me think that illusion and ignorance is possible only becouse we just love it. The fact seem to be that no civilisation last that long, its just nonsense, and that in course of time our westen civilization through which perception of history this game was made will disappeare like any other build on the top of it

 

[troytheface]

Fact- perception of History as fiction may be more accurate than "history"

Fact- Intuitive collective unconscious materialized via game

"the ultimate cause is diminishing returns on investments in social complexity "
Tainter

In otherwords- don't build to many buildings.

the evidence is clear. Civ may be superior to history.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

There's no game (that I know of) that mimmicks the phenomenon of real life events, i.e. history of civilizations, rise and fall etc. as well as Civilization 4. The heart of it IMO is that it gives the player the chance to tinker with an economy. Every minute decision has a consequence. One is always balancing one aspect against another. It's beautiful and a lot can be learned.

But however great it is as a computer game, it's complexities pale when compared to the real world. It's like comparing the flame of a candle to the sun.

 

[frekk]

They actually had a fairly comparable civilization earlier, with the Maya. But for some reason the Maya civilization stalled and later collapsed long before Europe invaded and even long before the Aztecs and Inca appeared as major civilizations.

Well, not exactly. The Maya culture was in full swing when the Europeans arrived. They couldn't even touch it; Cortes tried to land several times and was driven off with severe casualties (possibly having something to do with the fact that Guerrerro, member of an earlier expedition, had gone native and was now a Mayan war captain). He couldn't make landfall on the Yucatan coastline, which is how he ended up landing in Veracruz - he just kept going west and trying to land.

The last Mayan city, Tayasal, didn't fall until 1697!

The "collapse" is a misinterpreted term. What it refers to is the collapse of several "Classic" Mayan centres such as Tikal and Palenque; at the same time as those centres were collapsing, the Postclassic Maya were rising. These include groups like the Itza (who built Chichen Itza). It's not really a collapse so much as it is a power shift, out of the highlands and down onto the Yucatan lowlands and Atlantic coastal areas. Some of the high points of Mayan architecture are actually from the Postclassic phase, particularly the Puuc style as seen in structures like the "Nunnery" and Pyramid of the Magician at Uxmal. The highlands became a backwater, where before they had been the center of the civilization - but elsewhere, the Mayan culture flourished, reaching new heights.

Europe experienced many similar events throughout its history, where once-prominent regions fall on hard times and new power centres arise in formerly backward areas.

I've also heard that the Mayans mysteriously disappeared but thank you for putting into chronological order for me. For some reason I thougth the Mayans, Aztec and Inca existed all at the same time but now it makes much more sense.

See what I wrote above. The Mayans, Aztec, and Inca did all exist at one point at the same time. When the Europeans arrived, all three were around. Here's a timeline that will make things a little clearer (maybe). You'll see that not only were the Maya contemporary with the Aztec and Inca, they outlasted them; they're the only one of the three to survive past the initial Spanish arrival, continuing on into the 1600s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/a807b4e0356a0a0cdc736f4893d22ac8.png

Note that the Inca aren't included because they're Peruvian, not Mesoamerican, but the Inca were around from about 1200 (from 1442 as an empire) to 1533.

Note, however, that these are completely different sorts of entities that the names refer to. The "Aztecs" and the "Inca" are formal states, not civilizations. The Maya are not a state, but a grouping of many different states, a civilization. It's like the difference between "France" and "Europe". One is a state, the other is a broad collection of different states.

The Aztec and Inca belong to similar large groupings as well. The Aztec are part of the Nahuatl culture; the Inca are part of the Quechua culture.

 

[budweiser]

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. We are all hill people. The Great pyramid of Giza was not built as a tomb. To find the answers we must look below sea level and sift through silt.