Guns, GERMS, & Steel?... and CROP CITIES?

[El Caballerion]

GERMS
Somethings been irking me about CIV in general... none of the CIV games have ever really discussed the use of germ warfare. Jared Diamond argues that one of the biggest reasons Europeans were able to dominate the New World was that the Natives did not have immunity to European diseases, and this is due to the fact that they never lived closely with farm animals (which is where humanity first contracted most of our contagious diseases). Why doesn't CIV implement this sort of idea in the game? Perhaps those CIVs that have access to different cattle build up some sort of immunity to epidemics (read below)?

Or...
Maybe there are random epidemics that wipe out large portions of the population. This is a bad thing, yes, as you will immediately lose city size. However, it would give your entire civilization immunity from that disease, and also make your units carriers of that disease. Perhaps your units will have a 15% chance of spreading that disease to other continents that have never experienced it before and the same thing will happen to them?


CROP CITIES
Also.... I'm kinda confused as to why CIV has never had the ability to grow different kinds of crop fields at will in the game? It makes sense for there to be random sources of cows, wheat, etc. in the beginning of the game, and for mankind to build a city next to them to harness that crop. However, by the Classical age, man already knew how to harness these grains/animals, and they could spread agriculture anywhere climate allowed.

So what I'm suggesting is why can't the game allow you to focus more on using these wherever you want, completely granting cities next to fertile land the ability to grow as much food as possible for the entire nation?

For example, CITY A lies on very fertile grassland. After discovering a wild source of wheat, workers could build unlimited plots of wheat (for a price) around CITY A. Soon, CITY A is completely surrounded by wheat fields, providing a massive boost to that city's growth, as well as the entire population? This would allow some cities to continue growing without ever needing to build a farm, as cities will now share food amongst themselves. It also frees up CITY B (which is surrounded by hills & mines) to become a massive producer. CITY A focuses on building economic & food producing buildings, while CITY B will provide units and wonders for the nation. It's how our world works today (think of New York City's relationship with the Midwestern states). Plus, it makes the role of the capital city much more diverse (imagine a game where the capital city is a very weak producer, but provides tons of crops for the entire nation, making all of the other cities great at making units & other structures).


Too bad I'm a filmmaker/composer with no modding skills... who wants to implement these ideas for me!?

 

[Dizzy75]

I like Jared Diamond - we went to the same high school and college, though a few decades apart - but he's not a historian. He's more of a natural scientist applying his lens to world history. It's a great book, but the central thesis is not commonly accepted among historians as the best explanation for why modern civilizations are the way they are, as I understand it. So I'd hesitate to base the game mechanics around his ideas.

Regarding gameplay, I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty annoyed if a random, unpreventable event for which I had no chance to prepare wiped out a good portion of my population. And if it didn't wipe out a significant proportion of my population, I'd probably just ignore it, so there would be no point in implementing it.

Definitely agree with the food idea, though. It really never made sense to me why a city could only use food it grew on its own. I live in Boston, and my lunch included chips made from potatoes grown in Idaho and fried in Texas, plus a banana that was grown in Brazil.

 

[jjkrause84]

Jared Diamond oversimplified to such a degree that he winds up at completely false conclusions. Many of the 'bits' are correct but when put together you get a big ole mess!

EDIT: I just saw Dizzy75's post and, as a historian...I concur, excellency! I don't know of a single colleague of mine who takes Diamond's book even REMOTELY seriously

 

[BlackSpy]

I would add that the epidemic mechanic would be no fun at all if you were building a happy Aztec Empire for 500 turns and suddenly got the 'You lose, Smallpox' screen.

 

[lissenber]

Funny thing is that your people would become happier during pandemics. Less people = more happiness.

That makes sense. Just as much as unhappiness and huge research bonus from conquering your enemies right now.

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

Hate to be simplistic but everyone above is correct in the overall idea that this is a game. While smallpox and all the other diseased the Europeans brought with them helped them out immensely in taking over the Americas, it wasn't all that "fun" for the indigenous people.

In game terms, as Blackspy said, building a Civ and using all the available resources to the best of your ability, employing roads, building Pyramids and exploring the whole continent only to have a Spanish ship land one day near by and watching all of your cities suddenly dropping in population for no reason that you can see...I'd dare say the Civ Fanatic forums would light up with "Someone needs to Nerf the European Unique Disease Unit..it's waaaaay too powerful!"

 

[cr0ws]

My colonists have arrived to your fine and fruitful lands, now get down with the sickness!

Sorry Civ 5 is just too dumbed down to even begin implementing such features as it is.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Rhyes and Fall, anyone?

At JJ kRause, what main points Jared made in that book that you say is completely wrong?
I ask that out of curiosity, cause I'm really into history, but not a scholar myself.

 

[troytheface]

they had it - in civ3?

they had it as a random event and vultures would circle over the city

and it could spread to other cities if they were connected

it was a great idea that i don't think to many people used because people are stupid

the evidence is clear

 

[lissenber]

they had it - in civ3?

they had it as a random event and vultures would circle over the city

and it could spread to other cities if they were connected

I don`t think there was such a thing in civ3. Atleast i don`t remember it being the way you describe it.

Cities near rivers or jungle would get diseased and sometimes lose population points. However no vultures and the disease didn`t spread if the cities were connected. After a hospital was built, those problems would dissapear.

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

they had it - in civ3?

Yeah I remember that but I think what El Caballerion is asking is more of a usable weapon or some kind of trait.

In Civ 3 IIRC it was random against cities with no Aqueduct, and it couldn't be used as a weapon against others, at least not directly.

 

[Thormodr]

There is an ongoing mod project for the new game that wants to introduce more realism into the game. I believe they talk specifically about the crop issues you had.

Here is a link for Fabula Terra:

http://forum.fabulaterra.com/

 

[AriochIV]

Numerous Civilization scenarios have dealt with Plague, and there's nothing fun about it... you randomly lose population and there's nothing you can do about it. Realistic, yes... but not fun. There are no interesting choices for the player to make.

Handling food resources in a more realistic way could be interesting, if implemented well. But there's a danger of a system like this becoming far too complex for a game like Civilization. And, of course, Civ V is going in the exact opposite direction in terms of complexity. You have wheat and fish and cattle and that's pretty much it.

 

[Becephalus]

I like Jared Diamond but he's not a historian. He's more of a natural scientist applying his lens to world history. It's a great book, but the central thesis is not commonly accepted among historians as the best explanation for why modern civilizations are the way they are, as I understand it. So I'd hesitate to base the game mechanics around his ideas.

Definitely agree with the food idea, though. It really never made sense to me why a city could only use food it grew on its own. I live in Boston, and my lunch included chips made from potatoes grown in Idaho and fried in Texas, plus a banana that was grown in Brazil.

Well said.

I
a) cannot believe they did global happiness and not global food.
b) think Jared diamond is very smart and a great writer, but should not be taken overly seriously. Somehow his pointing to some factors which were ignored and underplayed, has now led to having people act like these were the only factors, when really they were secondary ones (which is why they were originally underplayed)

 

[Justicex]

They had the idea of plague in older itinerations of the game. It wasn't popular since it was a random event and forced you to deviate from your gameplan and waste precious turns constructing buildings with an upkeep cost in every city that the player couldn't always afford.

 

[cr0ws]

Yeah yeah the EVIL EUROPEANS AND THEIR DISEASES KILLED OUR PEOPLES! Jared Diamond has politically correct agenda.

Totally ignoring the fact that most diseases were, are and will be spread via vermin and pests. Heck even Bill Gates talked about what great germ warfare carriers those flying syringes , the mosquito makes.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH DREAMS ABOUT KILLING YOU, OUT THERE! OH NOEZ!

 

[Horizons]

Because Civ plays like a historically-themed boardgame rather than a history simulator.

 

[Peregrine]

The issue of pandemics is complicated by the now-recognized Virgin Soil Epidemic. The natives of the new world (and other locales) were hit not just by smallpox, but by dysentery, influenza, the common cold, and even the plague (and other maladies). Immunity as it is commonly understood is not an issue. Immunity is either a genetic rarity or a matter of luck in surviving the original onset of a particular disease. The 90% drop (estimated) of new world populations were the result of these Virgin Soil Epidemics. Surviving an event was rare, so "immunities" were rarely created. Also, familiarity with the preventative measures taken by populations struck by specific illnesses was lacking. This means that hygienic measures necessary to offset the worst effects were not taken, thereby exacerbating the death toll.

I've owned a copy of Guns, Germs, and Steel for many years now. Much of the initial analysis is compelling. He states in his introduction that the book is an answer to The Bell Curve, a book which contained roughly two pages of controversial information that, despite its brevity, lit up a firestorm of protest from the politically correct. Diamond states very clearly that his book was an attempt to refute these 2 or 3 pages in The Bell Curve. As such, the a priori assumption problem is present. He wasn't trying to research, he was trying to prove something already in his mind. While this falls into the cherrypicking fallacy, I do believe that there is a wealth of useful information there. A great number of ideas presented are hard science, and beyond debate or refutation. Two things that apply to civ games;

1.) Plants are native to, and have been, over deep time, genetically adapted to a specific amount of insolation, conditioned by latitude. The attempt to transplant these flora to other latitudes often fails for this reason.

2.) Domestication of animals is conditioned by several factors specific to each species; size, docility, herd instinct, populations, and usefulness. He makes the point that virtually any animal that exists has, at some time and somewhere, undergone an attempt to domesticate, but that very few are as ideal as the four that appear and are common in central Eurasia; goats, sheep, cattle, and horses. Civ games have, since the first version, used this idea well--these domesticates enhance the food economy, transportation (and thus general economy), and production of any culture/society/state lucky enough to have them present. In civ terms, Diamond's thesis is that only in the middle eastern region of Eurasia were there horse, sheep, cattle, and goat resources combined. Diamond's critics have often slighted this interpretation by characterizing it as an origin of civilization based on "location, location, location." Moreover, note that the same latitude restrictions that apply to flora also apply to fauna. Modern scientific stock breeding and genetic manipulation has now overcome some of these restrictions. But then, he's addressing the ORIGINS of civilizations, not their present condition.

In my view, these two ideas are absolutely valid, and as they are based in hard science, not the soft science of the historian, I can see no refutation. Genetics is not debatable. (I'm a degreed historian, btw, so not bashing anyone here, simply acknowledging the weaknesses of the profession.)

There's much more to the book, but I won't address those ideas here.

 

[C~G]

That book is rough diamond.

The concepts are there but when Jared tries to carve more out of them and evaluate it's the point he starts shaking since he's making the transition from natural scientist to historian.

Must read though.

 

[Thedrin]

CivIV implemented immunities in reverse. You get positive health from having access to health resources - in this case cows, sheep, pigs, etc. It's effectively the same thing - you're at something of a disadvantage if you don't have access to livestock.