Is the Civ Series telling a wrong (hi)story?

[Ferocitus]

There are plenty of absurdities in game that we could focus on to say it's inappropriate as a teaching tool as history didn't happen that way. That is beside the point of getting someone who is otherwise oblivious as to why person or country X might choose to do a "bad thing", to start thinking down that track. Critical thinking is painfully absent from modern western schooling.

Then teach critical thinking. Disabuse them of the many silly
approaches to history that they are likely to encounter, e.g.
that it is possible to predict what would have happened if such
and such an invention, or person, didn't exist at some particular time.
Or that certain events of historical significance had a single root cause.
Why resort to using a hopelessly inadequate tool like Civ when
much better ones are available?

One of the key tenets of Nazism was Lebensraum, or "living space", basically, since they held Slavic peoples to be subhuman that means conquering their lands to make way for ethnic Germans was very much acceptable.

That said, they weren't above opportunism either; why else would they ally with Stalin (who had designs on Poland as well) and then undertake the Fourth Partition of Poland?

The Polish government in 1938 wasn't above opportunism either.
They were happy to march into Czechoslovakia with Nazis and take a
chunk for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie

Of course, that gave the Nazis a very good look at what forces the Polish
could muster and soon after Polish people suffered unspeakable horrors.

 

[nzcamel]

Then teach critical thinking. Disabuse them of the many silly
approaches to history that they are likely to encounter, e.g.
that it is possible to predict what would have happened if such
and such an invention, or person, didn't exist at some particular time.
Or that certain events of historical significance had a single root cause.
Why resort to using a hopelessly inadequate tool like Civ when
much better ones are available?

That isn't critical thinking.
Or, in part it is...but knowing history itself isn't learning critical thinking. It helps...a lot (that whole "those who don't know the past are destined to repeat it's mistakes"); but you can know history from a dry perspective and still not be able to see choices in real life context.

 

[Karmah]

No rome did built the pyramids. don't you know that?

uh? I must have missed something. I'm pretty sure it was the illuminatis assisted by their alien overlords :crazy:

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

uh? I must have missed something. I'm pretty sure it was the illuminatis assisted by their alien overlords :crazy:

The Alien Overlords were Romans - See, it all makes sense after all!

My own outlook is nicely summed up by Kong-Fu-Tse:
"There are three ways of acting wisely:
First, through Meditation - this is the Noblest.
Second, through Imitation - this is the Easiest.
And Third, through Experience - and this is the Bitterest"

History is a collection of other peoples' successes to Imitate, and other peoples' Experiences to learn from with a little less of the Bitterness, and possibly even events upon which to 'Meditate' and learn.
This, of course, only works if you search diligently and continuously for the actual facts and events of history, rather than the lies and mythologies, which will only ensure that you learn nothing and suffer Much.

Remember, the Muse of History is a Homicidal B***h, related very closely to her sister, Mother Nature, who has only one punishment for every mistake: she tries to kill you, and keeps on trying until either you change your ways and learn better, or she succeeds.

Most often, she succeeds.

 

[Ferocitus]

That isn't critical thinking.
Or, in part it is...but knowing history itself isn't learning critical thinking. It helps...a lot (that whole "those who don't know the past are destined to repeat it's mistakes"); but you can know history from a dry perspective and still not be able to see choices in real life context.

I didn't intend to glue CT and History together. Sorry if it read that way.

It helps...a lot (that whole "those who don't know the past are destined to repeat it's mistakes").

There's one ridiculous saying that should be bludgeoned to death!
You could devote a lesson or two explaining why it is complete and utter
claptrap.

For the older students, make a pinata representing Fukuyama's head,
and let them have a swing at it with a baseball bat. That should motivate
some of them.

 

[Depravo]

I prefer Homer Simpson's explanation to Bart why Old Springfield was sited in a dumb location. 'Because they were stupid, that's why everybody does everything.'

 

[Siesta Guru]

I'd definitely support a more realistic and grim civ. Part of the charm of civ is the ability to feel like you're having an actual history unfold in front of you. Anything that makes that more immersive is a win in my eyes. Realism also offers itself well to inspire fun game mechanisms, and to make game mechanics feel realistic and intuitive. We know straight from the get go based on our real world knowledge that trade helps your economy, so players new to the game will without knowing exactly what trade routes do, that they'll probably help build up some kind of economy.

There's many lessons that can be taken from reality that would be able to improve the game and I feel the one mentioned in the OP is an excellent example.
Cities,settling and the entire concept of having a governor decide what buildings to build are rather gamey ways of approaching history, and if you abandon the way these are right now, you could make great gains.
One of the main complaints people have with civ is how much it ends up dragging out late game, when you have so many different cities which all need to be given orders on what to build and where you have so many tiles you need to build improvements on.

If instead of distinct cities, we would instead mostly control our entire land at once, including all of its cities,villages, etc. and only place a couple of important things on tiles ourselves like a harbor, mill, castle, power plant (without requiring worker units), we could have a game that ends up more realistic, less tedious and with more room for interesting mechanics. Being able to place global buildings at will (of course with their costs) would be far more pleasant than being forced to produce something in every city every turn.
It would also allow for things such as minor lords who just control a couple of tiles, who you might be able to persuade in joining your kingdom, or who could actually be created through rebellions (5 tiles splitting off wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as entire cities).
With population tied to tiles, you could also make much interesting choices when it comes to war. Just marching in into someones land and butchering the local population could be a very effective strategy during war, and something like a castle could then prevent enemies for doing that to nearby tiles and would be a legitimate choice.


Grim mechanics could also spice the game up a lot. For example, in the real world armies are actually made of people. So realistically, if you war too much, your (male) population should drop off, which would be a very natural limiter on military expansion that wouldn't feel nearly as weird as a bunch of red faces showing up along with others calling you a warmonger. That really just hasn't been that big of a thing back in the day.
Hey and perhaps the drop of your male population could make you have to consider whether you should allow polygamy in your kingdom.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'd definitely support a more realistic and grim civ.

I hope something will be introduced officially, or that it will be modded in
eventually.

Disease spread by "Typhoid Mary" and her siblings would be interesting.
Economic collapses, e.g. the impact of techs on some regions that were
formerly wealthy from tin or copper.

Environmental disasters. Not necessarily global ones, but things like an
avalanche causing a river to change course and ruining formerly good
city sites.

Grim mechanics could also spice the game up a lot. For example, in the real world armies are actually made of people.

Disease killed a lot more soldiers during protracted wars than
battlefield weapons.

 

[nzcamel]

There's one ridiculous saying that should be bludgeoned to death!
You could devote a lesson or two explaining why it is complete and utter
claptrap.

We will have to agree to disagree over that quote
I'd say the West right now has enough people in power who have no idea what the world was really like pre-liberalism...and that explains quite a few of their inane choices.

 

[Ferocitus]

We will have to agree to disagree over that quote
I'd say the West right now has enough people in power who have no idea what the world was really like pre-liberalism...and that explains quite a few of their inane choices.

Think it through, clause by clause, and spot the flawed logic.
"Those who don't know the past are destined to repeat it's mistakes"

This page might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic

Hint: Is it absolutely inevitable that they will repeat mistakes that were made
before?

Also, because you like teaching aids so much, here's Weird Al explaining an
aspect of English spelling that doesn't seem to have made it to New Zealand.

 

[nzcamel]

Think it through, clause by clause, and spot the flawed logic.
"Those who don't know the past are destined to repeat it's mistakes"

This page might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic

Hint: Is it absolutely inevitable that they will repeat mistakes that were made
before?

No. Of course it isn't inevitable. Many different outcomes can come from a situation, depending on the variables. But some outcomes are more or less likely given said variables. Without seeing the patterns that repeat throughout history, one is left at the mercy of what will come as a result of actions. Maybe one will get lucky. Maybe...

Also, because you like teaching aids so much, here's Weird Al explaining an
aspect of English spelling that doesn't seem to have made it to New Zealand.

Love the tune Ah well...at least we don't whine like an Aussie
I'll let the master Fry have a crack back at cha

 

[Ferocitus]

No. Of course it isn't inevitable. Many different outcomes can come from a situation, depending on the variables. But some outcomes are more or less likely given said variables. Without seeing the patterns that repeat throughout history, one is left at the mercy of what will come as a result of actions. Maybe one will get lucky. Maybe...

Sure, you can argue that way, but you should do that without mindlessly
regurgitating the original assertion, which as it stands, is logically flawed.

Love the tune Ah well...at least we don't whine like an Aussie

Oh come on. We displayed superior knowledge of the rules of cricket and ever since
that you lot have been whining and yelping like the Dagg family dog at John Clarke's
funeral.

 

[nzcamel]

Sure, you can argue that way, but you should do that without mindlessly
regurgitating the original assertion, which as it stands, is logically flawed.

No, it's not flawed. It is simplified, much like a tweet (I hate arguing in 140 letters); but it will ring true much more often than not. VI gives us another pearler like a Shane Warne Wrong'un!:

Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too. - Marcus Aurelius

Oh come on. We displayed superior knowledge of the rules of cricket and ever since
that you lot have been whining and yelping like the Dagg family dog at John Clarke's
funeral.

RIP. Talking of a guy who should have a quote n Civ!
Hey, we go okay at cricket, given we're smaller than some of your states What's your excuse for rugby? Huh!?

 

[Ferocitus]

No, it's not flawed. It is simplified, much like a tweet (I hate arguing in 140 letters); but it will ring true much more often than not.

That's the problem with those succint cliches - they don't bear close scrutiny.
Mindless regurgitation is boring. I have far more respect for people who show
them up for what they are. I'd much prefer to read someone like A.J. Ayer
unpicking Descartes' cogito ("I think therefore I am") than those who accept it
without question.

Hey, we go okay at cricket, given we're smaller than some of your states What's your excuse for rugby? Huh!?

Our excuse is that only boofheads in NSW and Queensland play it and because they
are the only states with sufficient numbers of Samoans and Tongans who can
"Hopoate" a Maori and get away with it.

RIP. Talking of a guy who should have a quote n Civ!

No argument with that, Mr Camel.
John Clarke was definitely the Phar Lap of Australian comedy.
My family still use his line of "beyond the environment" when we hear politicians
explaining their policies.

 

[nzcamel]

That's the problem with those succint cliches - they don't bear close scrutiny.
Mindless regurgitation is boring. I have far more respect for people who show
them up for what they are. I'd much prefer to read someone like A.J. Ayer
unpicking Descartes' cogito ("I think therefore I am") than those who accept it
without question.

I think plenty of succinct quotes do bear scrutiny; but granted...you cannot just take any at their word. I use them to represent a broader well made point. Of course I'm always happy to go into the detail behind the quote if anyone likes. They tend not to like after a while, cos they come to realise I don't hold onto a quote just cos it rolls off the tongue well etc...I've only held onto it because it will stand scrutiny

John Clarke was definitely the Phar Lap of Australian comedy.

yes, yes he was. The best ever seen in Australia; and stolen from NZ

 

[Ferocitus]

yes, yes he was. The best ever seen in Australia; and stolen from NZ

Fred Dagg would make a wonderful NZ leader for a DLC!

I'd be shocked if you didn't get a few laughs form this interview with Tony
Martin. Another one who was not so much stolen from NZ, as plucked from the
queue at the Bondi Dole Office.

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-tony-martin/9132210

The "Letter to the Editor", and being heckled with a Maori war canoe cracked me
up.

They tend not to like after a while, cos they come to realise I don't hold onto a quote just cos it rolls off the tongue well etc...I've only held onto it because it will stand scrutiny

We are well and truly doomed then. All those books lost or burned over centuries.
What about all the history read by a handful of people? If they don't pass on the
lessons from those books, are we just as doomed to repeat the mistakes, or does
the fact that someone read them mean we are safe for the next generation or two?

 

[nzcamel]

We are well and truly doomed then. All those books lost or burned over centuries.

Lol, there are enough patterns that can be seen in what we do know, over which there is minimal disagreement. The person who does have some moderate knowledge of this has an advantage over people who don't.

What about all the history read by a handful of people? If they don't pass on the
lessons from those books, are we just as doomed to repeat the mistakes, or does
the fact that someone read them mean we are safe for the next generation or two?

I think you're taking this down to more of a micro level than I would. Take war or genocide for example. A large chunk of modern political though assumes that is all behind us in the 1st world of the 21st century. We will never be ravaged by those horrors again - not in our own countries. History strongly suggests otherwise, as it has been a constant throughout. Yes there are ways it can be lowered or raised (M.A.D. has helped make total war too costly; contrary to popular opinion); but in the past people have genuinely believed that the world they lived in was too progressive to fall back to some of the barbaric ways of the past. The Jews in 1930's Germany didn't think (despite their own horrific history in Europe) that they would end up on the chopping block yet again. So I do not hold to that. I have little doubt that a revolution or similar, somewhere in the first world in the next 150 years will lead to mass genocide and/or war.
That's the level I am operating at mostly. I have no doubt that more specific lessons can be drawn along with the broader ones; but the deeper we drill down, the more variables come into play, making things less certain.

I would argue that liberalism is one thing that we do need to value with it's high focus on freedoms of: speech, religion, assembly, expression, etc. If these things can be maintained despite their draw backs, then the above is more likely to be averted. It is they which (more than anything else in recent times) have created the world we benefit from today. If they go... well, that's how you spell dark age!

So yeah, people who are aware of the dangers of general censorship -no matter how good the cause which it is trottered out in favour of- need to keep speaking up about how the last 200 years has gone, and what has on average freed people, and what on average has enslaved them.

Or else, sure. Mistakes will be repeated.

 

[Ferocitus]

Lol, there are enough patterns that can be seen in what we do know, over which there is minimal disagreement. The person who does have some moderate knowledge of this has an advantage over people who don't.

<snips>

That's the level I am operating at mostly. I have no doubt that more specific lessons can be drawn along with the broader ones; but the deeper we drill down, the more variables come into play, making things less certain.

<snips>

Or else, sure. Mistakes will be repeated.

But that's the point - the real world is immensely complex, with unfathomably
many variables. Reduction to only a few, like Civ does, misses on that score and
that's why it is a very poor way to teach history.

I take your point about the broad sweeps that could serve as warning signs.
Sometimes there are vague lessons to be learned. OTOH, my mother grew up in a
majority Ashkenazi town in Lithuania, where Jews were relatively safe for almost
500 years. When the horror of WW2 descended on them, what use would it have been
to heed warnings from history books? There was no time to consider them and then
decide to leave, or to take defensive measures when you are being round up to be
burned in a barn.

There are some nice, feel-good aspects to the liberalism you cherish, but I
don't share your optimism about their ability to keep the world safe and well.
Those ideals and values, and the democratic instruments many cherish, have done
little to stem the amount of plastic finding its way into the ocean. The amount
is increasing and won't decrease for a very long time, even if all plastic
manufacture ceased today. The "acceptable" temperature rise thrashed out in the
Paris Accord has absolutely no chance of being met, despite the good words and
intentions of those who then jetted back to their plush houses.

There are no lessons that we are repeating by ignoring history when it comes to
the erosion of the ozone layer, or global warming. (Another reason why that
"ignore history" line is laughable pap.)

Incidentally, that's another way that Civ fails as a sim - there is no
accounting for the detritus that builds up all over the planet as the global
population increases, and that will eventually choke it to death for humans.
There should be a "Realistic Victory" where the game resets itself and launches
Sim Ant or Sim Bacteria. I guess most players would prefer that humans are the
ultimate victors, even though it's not going to happen.

In the long run, humanity is dead. (With apologies to J.K. Galbraith).
Maybe kids could be inspired by that line.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In the long run, humanity is dead. (With apologies to J.K. Galbraith).
Maybe kids could be inspired by that line.

If you look far enough down the 'long run' EVERYTHING is dead, including Humanity and this Universe - just as, if you look far enough back, all of humanity is directly related to each other.

More immediately, in the relatively short run (100 years) pretty much all of us are dead, but to assume present conditions will continue on their present course and doom all of humanity is ludicrously short-sighted. For one thing, I can state flatly that we as individuals and as a group are absolutely incapable of predicting the future in both general and particular, and there are numerous examples of that from history. My current favorites:
1. In 1900 scientists and newspaper editorials predicted that American and European cities would soon be absolutely impossible for people to live in, because of the massive accumulation of Horse Manure on the city streets, which was overwhelming the abilities of barges to haul it out to sea or entire railroad freight trains to haul it out to the 'country' - which already had more horse manure fertilizer than it could use. By 1920, there was virtually no Horse Manure problem - because automobiles and trucks had practically erased horses from the cities - and, of course, led to other problems in the future.
2. Famously, it was predicted that a major war was impossible because the countries were too interdependent economically, and no one could afford such a war. The predictions were made right up to 1914, when they proved disastrously wrong.
3. Hundreds if not thousands of Science Fiction stories were written about the first men landing on the moon - going back to de Bergerac in the 17th century, if you include stories of 'science fantasy'. Not One of them ever predicted that the first manned landing on the moon would be televised.

The point is, we must try to understand history, because the present is too ephemeral and the Future is a Closed Book, full of speculation, smoke and mirrors.

And by the way, in development are Plastic-Eating Bacteria which may clean or 'convert' the plastic in the oceans and, I can absolutely predict, trade our Plastic Problem for a different problem currently Unforeseen.

 

[Depravo]

And by the way, in development are Plastic-Eating Bacteria which may clean or 'convert' the plastic in the oceans and, I can absolutely predict, trade our Plastic Problem for a different problem currently Unforeseen.

Not nearly enough people even know about the problem of plastic pollution in deep ocean. Never mind the potential problems with any 'solution'.