Historiography of Civilization pt. 2 - Universal Progress

[Arkaeyn]

Part one didn't quite start a massive discussion, but I got enough positive feedback to post part two....


Miss part one?


A second important historically conservative aspect of the Civilization series is that it views human history as universally progressing to a steadily better future. This is a view usually found in mainstream Western societies, especially before World War One. One cannot go backwards in Civilization. Technology always creates a continuous improvement. Improvements in a city are entirely good (unless they break your economy, which is extraordinarily rare). Newer military units are always better than older units. It is possible to speak of “falling behind” in Civilization, as though human history is a footrace. This has the effect of making some civilizations appear “better” for how much “faster” they have run the race.

Even more importantly, the progress is considered universal. The technologies of Democracy and Communism are equally useful to the Americans and the French, as well as the Zulu and the Japanese. The discovery of Gunpowder has the same effects for the Chinese as it does the Germans. These technologies are essential to progress. This view of history is widespread – and dangerous. One can quite easily imagine George W. Bush playing Civilization and landing tanks on the Iraqi border to offer them Democracy in exchange for a Mutual Protection Pact…”Be warned, Iraqis, our words are backed up by NUCLEAR WEAPONS.” But, as America didn’t learn in Vietnam and is currently not learning in Iraq, the rest of the world doesn’t always view things on the universal progress scale. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, are enamored with the universal progress viewpoint probably because it means that they’re winning the footrace. Civilization reinforces this viewpoint.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to comprehend how Civilization could remain a competitive game with winners and losers without operating on a progress model. I like to think that I can think creatively about such things, but I can’t think of how a winner or loser could be chosen in Civilization without “progress” being made. I suppose something to make it possible for progress to be lost? The concept of universal progress, however, can be worked around. The Rhye’s of Civilization Expansion, for example, demonstrates how the Civ3 engine can be manipulated to slightly alter the concept of universal progress of human societies, with more different unique units and religions. Even the official Civ3 Conquests expansion demonstrates the possibility of different tech paths in its Age of Discovery scenario, albeit halfheartedly.

 

[jguy100]

That is the thing about civilization-it is not meant to reconstruct history, but to mimic it and allow people to tweak it. The world is full of what-ifs and people want to know the answers. What if America was a communist regime led by a military genius? What if Zulu was a peaceful, culture building nation?
Like you said, it would be very difficult to remain competitive/keep score without operating on progress models. It would be impossible to include hundreds of the little nations, different international organizations, countries following/not following the Geneva convention, etc. Without those aforementioned specs, a civilization world can not be anything like our real world. Worlds are changed by individuals, and it would be impossible for civilzation to apply this in a game. How is one to know when someone important is going to be born that will change the world? How would you put that in a game? Computers now-a-days do not have the power to handle a game mimicing the real world precisely.
Besides, everyone likes happy endings. Everyone wants to see the world get better(i.e., progressing towards a better future). If your idea of a better future is a communist regime ruling the whole world , then so be it. Let that idea come true in civ.

 

[smeggo]

It'd be great if Civ did follow the real world more closely. Then when you reach a certain stage in history, say the Middle Ages, religious institutions in your civ would start holding you back.
Along with volcanoes going off and hindering your progress you could have a Religious Great Leader, the opposite of an SGL, which would have more chance of appearing if the science slider was kept at 0 or 10% and sets back your civ for 25 turns.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I'm not necessarily concerned with making Civ follow the real world exactly, but I am concerned with what Civ abstracts versus what Civ focuses on. By focusing on universal progress, Civ ignores different, very important aspects of history.

Smeggo, actually, during much of the middle ages, the Church was the only institution which did anything with science. It was only with St. Thomas Aquinas and the birth of the university in the 12th century that learning and church began to be separated. But...yes, your point is a good one. Getting the game balance and history right for such a thing would be difficult (think of the people complaining about randomly having negative effects occur to them!) But society has, and in some ways does, move "backwards." Civ should try to model this.

 

[smeggo]

I'm not necessarily concerned with making Civ follow the real world exactly, but I am concerned with what Civ abstracts versus what Civ focuses on. By focusing on universal progress, Civ ignores different, very important aspects of history.

I think you're trying to get too much into Civ, it's just a game.

Real "progress" would be if we didn't need such wonderful organisations as Oxfam and Amnesty, nobody lived in poverty, we understood the fundamental properties of matter, horoscopes no longer appeared in newspapers etc, etc.

In the meantime we'll carrying on belonging to organisations that help the poor and oppressed, playing Civ, drinking Real Ale and generally making the best of our short time on this beautiful little planet and it's amazing people.

 

[DaveDash]

Civ is not a history book, or any form of educational tool.
It is not even an attempt at historical accuracy.

It is a game, so enjoy it for what it is.

There would be no point in including improvements that did nothing or bad things. That would be a waste of the programmers time and money because people simply wouldn't build them.

The game term for 'culture' abstracts all those things about civilizations that are missing.

Also, one of the posters gribes were about military units always 'progressing'. I can't really for the life of me think of any example throughout history where a military organisation got worse as time went on.

A classic example: even a Medieval army would beat a similar sized and comanded Roman army despite the Medieval army being significantly inferior to it's Roman counterparts in Human terms. The Medieval army however had technology that the Romans simply couldn't match.
Bigger and better horses, stronger steel, stronger and longer ranged bows, and so forth.

Technology definately progresses, and since Civ3 is based around the progression of Human technology, what's wrong with that?
Afterall, it is technology that has the most influence on our cultures and societies. Just look at what the internet is doing, especially in relation to the last U.S. election (the blogsphere).

One thing I WOULD like to see in a civ game however is many of the non-military units available in call to power.

Laywers, Priests, Corporate Branches, Terrorists, and so forth. It was entirely possible to wage economic war (without even declaring war) in Call To Power 2 just through franchcising an enemies economy with your Corporate Branch units and sucking his economy dry, or using Laywers to sue his cities and reduce production, etc.

 

[Elysium Dreams]

I think Civilization takes a sufficiently long view that the "progress" model is not entirely unreasonable. The only thing missing are the growing pains associated with technological advances--as soon as a player discovers gunpowder, not only do they instantly grasp the military applications, but they put them into universal use immediately (often on the very same turn), and the sudden change doesn't seem to trigger any adverse effects; you will never hear your citizens longing for the good ol' days, when real men fought with real weapons and without any of these newfangled contraptions. Even this, however, can be accounted for to some extent in Civ's extreme level of abstraction. A civilization is more than just a nation-state; when you crank your research slider up, what does that really represent? It's not just an omnipotent central government collecting taxes using its godlike authority and handing money to scientists; it represents the prevailing values and attitudes of an entire society. If your civilization values intellectual pursuits above material wealth or national/ethnic unity and contentment (high research slider, low taxes/luxuries), your rate of progress speeds up but there is more turmoil in your territory: you have fewer happy citizens due to a lower luxury slider, and less wealth is available to be spent.

There are definitely some balance issues involved here, however, as the luxury slider often has very little importance and it's altogether far too easy to support a 100% research rate for extended periods. Social unrest is not very dynamic; the much-maligned war weariness model is about the only progressive source of unhappiness. Marketplaces are another big culprit: once you get 7 or 8 luxuries in a city with a marketplace, you can get away with virtually anything:

"Sir, the conquered Greeks are upset that we've subjected them to forced migration and have been using their brutally harsh slave labor to support our war against their homeland."

"OK, go buy them some diamonds. Friends and relatives may leave you, but diamonds are forever!"

Next turn: 'We Love the King Day' celebrated in Athens. 'We Love the King Day' celebrated in Sparta. 'We Love the King Day' celebrated in Corinth.

 

[Arkaeyn]

To the "it's just a game" responders:

Video games, like books, movies, and other media are relics of popular culture. If nothing else, they demonstrate the way a culture thinks. They almost certainly influence culture too, but we'll stick with the relic argument if you don't want to get into that. Civilization is a popular, enormously influential game, which I have heard of as being used as educational software in schools. Are there arguments of "It's just a child's textbook?"

The argument that technology does progress is a fair one, however, Civilization goes much much further, by arguing that the military, the economy, religion, literature, and happiness itself all operate on a progress model.

Through history, does the military operate progressively? Often, yes, but imagine a situation where the heavy-production, technologically advanced United States finds a way to lose to "primitive" Vietnam in Civilization. Fourth-generation, guerilla warfare - the type of warfare which has dominated the globe since World War II, simply can't be done in Civ, because it does not operate on a progress model.

And once again, I say the the main problem isn't progress itself, but universalizing progress by forcing it into a European-style model. Let me offer an alternative from perhaps the best Civ-inspired game, Master of Orion II. In that game, each technology offered two or three options, and the player had to choose one, which they could do according to their concept of their progressing empire - progress exists, but it is not universal.

Elysium Dreams, I actually use the luxury slider all the time. I try to maintain it at 10% at the start of the game, but get it up to 30% by industrial age. I believe that the little marker of tax, science, and luxury rates should be a soccer formation, and the 3-4-3 presents the most attractive attacking option...but then, I play on heavily modified rules, so I might be in a minority. But you're right about the abstraction causing problems, in part one I mention how everything but the military is abstracted, which is odd.

I remember in Europa Universalis when you took over a territory, there was a 3% chance it would rebel every year for 50 or a hundred years. It was annoying sometimes, but really, wouldn't you expect that from a conquered territory? I dearly love the resource concept in Civ3, but it can occasionally unbalance the game, which is why, in the maps I design, I try to balance the resources heavily.

 

[rajwhitehall]

You cannot lose knowledge (progress backwards) in CIV3. However, you can most certainly lose the ability to make use of your knowledge. Become so poor you cannot afford tanks but must build cavalry. Lose access to gunpowder and you cannot build Musketeers but must build Longbowmen and Knights. The knowledge of democratic goverment is there for you to make use of or not, as more "primitive" forms of government are available with their own strengths.

 

[jguy100]

To the "it's just a game" responders:

Through history, does the military operate progressively? Often, yes, but imagine a situation where the heavy-production, technologically advanced United States finds a way to lose to "primitive" Vietnam in Civilization. Fourth-generation, guerilla warfare - the type of warfare which has dominated the globe since World War II, simply can't be done in Civ, because it does not operate on a progress model.

I do not believe this is totally accurate. Two reasons:
1. RNG. Ever see a spearman men beat a tank in real life? I have not. Yet the RNG gives units (if only a small chance) to take on lots stronger units. While not the perfect replication of losing to an inferior unit, you could look at it as the obsolete unit using guerrilla tactics, etc.

2. If you want your superior units to be destroyed by a backwards civilization, then I will tell you how. Send them one by one into enemy teritory. While again a bad replica of obsolete units beating better units, it does give you the chance to do so.

Besides, who wants to live out a losing war? Civilization was made for people to have fun. I don't know about you, but I get angry if my clearly superior unit loses to obosolete units. Guerrila warfare or not, progressivism or not, I don't want to lose my expensive units on cheap units. It would just take part of the fun out of the game. While I do agree something needs to be done to give smaller civilizations a fighting chance, I don't think any of us has come up with the solution yet.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Interestingly enough, I originally got Civ when visiting my family for Christmas vacation in 2001, during the war in Afghanistan. My mom happened to be watching over my shoulder as an enemy horseman attacked a severely weakened tank of mine and destroyed it, and she commented "that looks like like Afghanistan!" We had both recently read an article which described how the Northern Alliance was fighting with horses against the Taliban's tanks...so I haven't seen a spearman do it, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

You're right about the problem of the need for smaller civs to be given a chance and the difficulty, however. I can't really think of a game that has done this, but there are plenty of historical examples. I recall that Master of Orion III was doing something to allow that, but MOO3 was such a disaster that I don't know if it made it into the game, if it worked, or if it was fun.