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

[nzcamel]

The Civ series has always done a poor job of abstracting this because it uses city names when each "city" is actually a region. Look at the size it takes up on the map. You're not building a single city, but essentially a whole province.

I view the "city" in Civ as being both the actual city and the outlying population surrounding the city. Hence all those farms, mines, etc. It's only as buildings get built and people take on the role of "specialists" in the game that they become true urban dwellers. Prior to that, most of the population growth takes place in the countryside, with the central town/city as simply the administrative hub and where people gather at market times and festivals.

That was easier to conceptualize in prior versions of Civ. The addition of districts in Civ 6 improves game play (in my opinion), but stretches the concept of how big the actual city is beyond the central hex. When Civ 6 was first announced, a number of people struggled with this, then rationalized it as the districts being their own, specialized towns/cities on the outskirts of main city.

Yeah, what both you guys have said re cities being regional areas was going to be my comment; but also noting that districts had jarred that a little.

There are far too many factors involved in the transition from hunter-gatherers to settled farming than our 'game' could ever possibly address. To answer your base question - yes, Civilization 6 has it wrong. In so very many ways! But it also has some right as far as the further development of empires and why they clashed.

The development of the city, however, is hugely important to human history and while I have not read Mr. Scott's suppositions yet, on the surface they seem to fly in the face of all other archeological evidence I've read about previously. For further reading, I would highly recommend historian Ian Morris and his books "Why the West Rules....for now" and "War...what is it good for?". They are both very broad sweeps of history studded with the sort of details necessary to allow the bigger picture to be seen. In both books, he describes how and why humanity has consistently grown and prospered through history. One measure he points to is the drastic decrease in violent deaths from the stone age to today which he directly attributes to the rise of the city-state-empire and the "stationary bandits" that both rule them and protect them. He comments often and freely that much of history is quite the paradox.

I've read 'Why the West Rules...for now"; and he presents evidence that would agree to an extent with the OP. I think, from memory, it was a bigger factor though as cities exploded with the industrial revolution. At least to begin with. A city alone sustaining it's own population is very much a modern thing; but as cities in Civ have farms etc, they realistically represent a province of sorts rather than just the city itself.

As I understand it, it was common for most of the time to raid the neighbours and take food and population (slaves) from them. (Slavery was part of Civ CtP and Civ 3.) So it isn't so that the player could do nothing.

But to create a civilization which stands the test of time (while fighting plagues, social unrest and external enemies) might be more difficult than it is now in Civ games. Is there a real example for a civ which stands the test of time from 4000 BC to now?

Egypt. Kinda

Slavery has been in previous Civ games. I want to say Civ 2? You used to not be able to buy things outright with gold. You had to sacrifice population in order to build things quicker (representing abusing slave labor). EDIT: It might not be 2 now that I think about it, it might be a later version. I could google but I always consider online forums a means of simple discussion with people. So forgive me if im incorrect.

I meant slavery more in terms of moving population from one (maybe foreign) city to another (own) city for work and population growth or even trading slaves (population / workforce). Civ 3 was very close to this.

This was a feature of Civ4. I don't remember if it was also present in Civ3.

One of them, Civ3 or CivCtP, had a slave trader unit which could steal population from foreign cities and allowed you to use them as workers or add them as population to your cities (until a certain size.)

Capturing a settler or razing a city in Civ3 provided a (stack of) foreign worker units (depending on size of the city) and allowed to use them as workers or add them as population to your cities. Adding too much foreign population to a city could cause loyalty conflicts when at war with the original foreign nation.
Civ3 also allowed to draft population, that is transforming population into (weak) military units in case of an emergency.

It was Civ III as historix69 says.

 

[historix69]

Egypt. Kinda

I don't think so. The old egypt and the pyramids were almost forgotten when Napoleon visited Egypt around 1800.
After a probably good start, Egypt was part of the Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzanthine, Islamic-Arabian, Otoman and British empire. They were out of the game for about the last 2.300 years and were just recently resurrected around 1956 when British troops left Egypt. (They also lost several wars against the smaller Israel.)

 

[historix69]

Slavery was common in ancient (and following) times. Up to 80% of the population in some ancient greek cities were slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome


For those who skipped the Guardian review of the book ("Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" by James C. Scott) linked in OP, here are some more quotes :

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/25/against-the-grain-by-james-c-scott-review

A state can be defined as a territory over which an elite exercised coercive power maintaining itself by taxing the population either through its produce or its labour. Scott takes a rather bleak view of early states but his critique provides a fascinating insight into just how they worked. He argues that for a state to exist it needed to be reliant on a staple that could easily be taxed – and grain was the ideal. Because the fields were fixed and the crop ripened over a short period of time it was impossible for the farmer to avoid the tax collector. Communities elsewhere in the world reliant on tubers or root vegetables such as yams and manioc as their staple were more able to avoid tax since the crop can be left in the ground and harvested over a long period. Such societies seldom develop into states. Another advantage of grain to the state was that it had a higher value per unit volume than most other foodstuffs and was easy to store in the protection of the city, from where it could be doled out to slaves and soldiers or used to feed the population when under siege. Through taxation the state became the quartermaster and producers became subjects. The non-productive elites who emerged in such a system had a keen interest in protecting the grain-producing farmers and so some of the surplus they controlled was invested in city walls and armies.

Scott argues convincingly that early states are “population machines” designed to control labour, domesticating them as a farmer domesticates his herd. Maintaining the numbers of workers was vital and if numbers fell a new crop had to be gathered through warfare, adding to the ranks of the unfree. Raiding to acquire goods and manpower – an aspect of what Max Weber referred to as “booty capitalism” – became a normal part of life. Women were also herded into state enterprises. Around 3000BC there were 9,000 textile workers in the city of Uruk (in today’s Iraq) – about 20% of the population – most of them women. From the farmer paying his dues to the state, either as a tithe of his crop or as labour, to the captive slave, all the working population were in some kind of bondage, their efforts supporting the ever-increasing luxury in which the elite demanded to live. Underpaid fast-food workers standing out against employment conditions that allow their companies’ CEOs to pay themselves vast salaries can be excused for thinking that little changes.

 

[Krajzen]

But to create a civilization which stands the test of time (while fighting plagues, social unrest and external enemies) might be more difficult than it is now in Civ games. Is there a real example for a civ which stands the test of time from 4000 BC to now?

The very starting date of civ, 4000BC, is controversial. From what I understood, by 4000 BC there was no civilization anywhere yet (but rare tiny proto-cities could happen, mainly in the Middle East), Egypt united and Sumer definitely emerged only about 3000 BC.

The longest surviving civilizations of history would be:
China, if we count since Shang dynasty (the first one supported by archeology) till today (...such continuity is also controversial!) - roughly 3600 years
India, if we count since Vedic period (Indus valley was IMO self contained, separate entity - after all its language is so isolate it is completely undeciphered!) - roughly 3500 years
Israelites/Hebrews/Jews - roughly 3000 years, although obviously in this case we are talking about culture/peoples/diaspora rather than state
ancient Egypt - I mean, it's completely dead culture for a long time (Arabic Islamic Egypt has goddamn almost nothing in common with ancient one) but it still survived 3000 years in some form before going extinct
Iran, if we count since Media or Achaemenids - roughly 2600 years

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Civ series has always done a poor job of abstracting this because it uses city names when each "city" is actually a region. Look at the size it takes up on the map. You're not building a single city, but essentially a whole province.

So that's why the Mapuche list is like that.
Anyway since it's supposed to represent an alternative abstract historical simulation, it doesn't bother me.
Also even if many people lived outside of urban settlements your still building a bunch of farms out in the country for people to live in as well which would also count as the population towards the so called "city."

 

[Ferocitus]

I started the thread for those people who are interested in history. If you are not interested in history, please ignore the thread.

Why resort to that type of binary claptrap? People can be interested in history,
disagree with your assertion, and contribute to the thread.

Some teachers are using Civ in school to interest their pupils in history.

I think you're seriously suggesting that Civ should change in some way
because a few teachers are using it. Those teachers must be why they put
warnings on some products, like: "Do not insert toothpick in eye".

 

[nzcamel]

I don't think so. The old egypt and the pyramids were almost forgotten when Napoleon visited Egypt around 1800.
After a probably good start, Egypt was part of the Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzanthine, Islamic-Arabian, Otoman and British empire. They were out of the game for about the last 2.300 years and were just recently resurrected around 1956 when British troops left Egypt. (They also lost several wars against the smaller Israel.)

Well I did wink lol

Slavery was common in ancient (and following) times. Up to 80% of the population in some ancient greek cities were slaves.

Is someone asserting otherwise? I missed that...

I think you're seriously suggesting that Civ should change in some way
because a few teachers are using it. Those teachers must be why they put
warnings on some products, like: "Do not insert toothpick in eye".

I think using Civ or Diplomacy (the boardgame which is also used in classrooms) to make kids more interested in history, economics, geography, diplomacy, and (most importantly) critical thinking... is a good idea. The games don't have to be any more accurate than they are, as the goal is to engage minds that are otherwise wandering far far away. Getting kids to actually put themselves in the shoes of those in the past to me is at least as useful as having them default to looking at it all through the eyes of the 21st century West! The many inaccuracies and simplifications can be corrected later.

 

[Ferocitus]

I think using Civ or Diplomacy (the boardgame which is also used in classrooms) to make kids more interested in history, economics, geography, diplomacy, and (most importantly) critical thinking... is a good idea.

Starting with "Civ is not a history simulator" seems critical.

The games don't have to be any more accurate than they are, as the goal is to engage minds that are otherwise wandering far far away.

The goal is noble, the method is lazy rubbish.
Yes, Johnny, Cleopatra had problems concentrating after a Maccas lunch,
just like you. She had Asp Burgers Syndrome.

The many inaccuracies and simplifications can be corrected later.

Not teaching them claptrap in the first place seems better.
What happens if they don't get follow up to correct the crap that
some lazy teacher instills in them?

 

[Returning Lurker]

The Civ series has always done a poor job of abstracting this because it uses city names when each "city" is actually a region. Look at the size it takes up on the map. You're not building a single city, but essentially a whole province.

That’s how I always thought of it in Civ5. The city on the map is just the capital of the given province and all your tile improvements are the real cities (farming communities, mining towns, trade hubs, etc.) Then Civ 6 had to come in and ruin it with districts and wonders taking up a whole tile. Now the Pyramids stretch for hundreds of square miles and my people must walk five hundred and fifty years to get from the stables to the library. I know scale was always a weakness of civ but 6 really amped up the “abstraction” to the point where I just see the game mechanics of cities, not the historical role play.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Now the Pyramids stretch for hundreds of square miles and my people must walk five hundred and fifty years to get from the stables to the library.

They only have to walk 550 years from the library to the stable. They can ride horses back from the stables to the library, and it only takes 225 years.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Some teachers are using Civ in school to interest their pupils in history.

Really?! 0_0
As someone who taught ancient history, that's really not something that would come to my mind.

The Civ series, like most games with a historical inspiration, does a good job presenting some historical "trivia", but it would be terrible as a support to teach history. It's not even that some stuff is missing or that there are some mistakes. It's just that... it's not historical at all. Just like being a samurai fighting viking in For Honour will never be historical, no matter how accurate are the weapons/gears.
Typically, Civilization is a game where history is used for its iconic, easily recognizable, value.
But comparing how history "works" with Civ gameplay is simply stupid, or at the very best, obsolete. Real people don't produce more and more ressources of different types in a linear way towards progress and victory. The closest thing to reality in Civ is probably warfare. But it's still extremely simplified and abstracted to the point that I would never try to use it as an example... It would be way simpler to use Total War for that. And when teaching other stuff like the roman imperial administration or the developement of the first cities in Europe... Civ simply doesn't have anything to help. People didn't just found cities with "settlers" and start producing "food" on tiles.

 

[Zenstrive]

You can always make a historical accurate mod. Like when in medieval age you will be hit by minus population unless you have the industrial AND commercial district to zero it out but then you can't make settler.

 

[nzcamel]

Starting with "Civ is not a history simulator" seems critical.

Sure it's not
Of course it is! It just covers such a broad time period over the entire world that it's never going to come close to simulating much of what really happened. It is a very simplified simulator built around having fun.
Yes it will never do history as well as Total War or Paradox or others...but then they stick to manageable time periods and/or area's of the world. Name me another game that goes from 4,000BC through to now, that actually simulates history how you'd like it to? It will not exist.
So Civ isn't a simulator cos history as a whole is impossible to simulate. Doesn't mean that it isn't a useful tool in the hands of the right teacher.

The goal is noble, the method is lazy rubbish.
Yes, Johnny, Cleopatra had problems concentrating after a Maccas lunch,
just like you. She had Asp Burgers Syndrome.

You and I, and most people are not the average student yawning in history class. I'm not saying the whole years course should be handed over to games. But incorporating games into teaching will engage some of those falling through the cracks. Obviously I'm talking more about younger students who have it as a compulsory subject, rather than those who have chosen to study history in high school.

Not teaching them claptrap in the first place seems better.
What happens if they don't get follow up to correct the crap that
some lazy teacher instills in them?

Someone's more likely to get the chance if they are actually interested in history.

Really?! 0_0
As someone who taught ancient history, that's really not something that would come to my mind.

The Civ series, like most games with a historical inspiration, does a good job presenting some historical "trivia", but it would be terrible as a support to teach history. It's not even that some stuff is missing or that there are some mistakes. It's just that... it's not historical at all. Just like being a samurai fighting viking in For Honour will never be historical, no matter how accurate are the weapons/gears.
Typically, Civilization is a game where history is used for its iconic, easily recognizable, value.
But comparing how history "works" with Civ gameplay is simply stupid, or at the very best, obsolete. Real people don't produce more and more ressources of different types in a linear way towards progress and victory. The closest thing to reality in Civ is probably warfare. But it's still extremely simplified and abstracted to the point that I would never try to use it as an example... It would be way simpler to use Total War for that. And when teaching other stuff like the roman imperial administration or the developement of the first cities in Europe... Civ simply doesn't have anything to help. People didn't just found cities with "settlers" and start producing "food" on tiles.

No one is actually suggesting that Civ comes close to reality. Given it's parameters it never will.
I'm talking about interesting kids and getting them to make and own choices, which a sandbox game gives them better than a tighter strategy game built more around war does.

 

[Victoria]

The bible does have references to flying machines, maybe that was Kongo’s biplanes?

The whole city negative population thing is anecdotal. I read somewhere that ancient horsemen formed wedges and chopped through opposition lines, maybe that where civ hot the horsemen power from. It’s one of my pet peeves.

But it is that, just a pet, it’s a game and mimicking one human is not possible for an AI currently, let alone a world full.

 

[pietro1990]

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

 

[historix69]

Really?! 0_0
As someone who taught ancient history, that's really not something that would come to my mind.

The Civ series, like most games with a historical inspiration, does a good job presenting some historical "trivia", but it would be terrible as a support to teach history. It's not even that some stuff is missing or that there are some mistakes. It's just that... it's not historical at all. Just like being a samurai fighting viking in For Honour will never be historical, no matter how accurate are the weapons/gears.
Typically, Civilization is a game where history is used for its iconic, easily recognizable, value.
But comparing how history "works" with Civ gameplay is simply stupid, or at the very best, obsolete. Real people don't produce more and more ressources of different types in a linear way towards progress and victory. The closest thing to reality in Civ is probably warfare. But it's still extremely simplified and abstracted to the point that I would never try to use it as an example... It would be way simpler to use Total War for that. And when teaching other stuff like the roman imperial administration or the developement of the first cities in Europe... Civ simply doesn't have anything to help. People didn't just found cities with "settlers" and start producing "food" on tiles.

https://ngvcivilization.wordpress.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/642toolbox/civinclassroom
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/using-civilization-in-the-classroom.468089/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-iv-classroom-unit.286692/

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1yldpn/civ_5_in_the_classroom/
https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/12023958/civilization-v-education-high-school
https://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12019632/sid-meier-civilization-edu-learning-game
http://edu4.me/civilization-v-the-most-popular-strategy-game-ever-is-reaching-the-classroom/

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/civilizationedu-takes-the-strategy-franchise-to-school/
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-08-14-sid-meiers-civilization-is-it-educational
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/06...-civilization-game-heading-to-schools-in-2017

https://www.commonsense.org/education/game/sid-meiers-civilization-v
https://www.commonsense.org/education/game/sid-meiers-civilization-vi

 

[Depravo]

I think using Civ or Diplomacy (the boardgame which is also used in classrooms) to make kids more interested in history, economics, geography, diplomacy, and (most importantly) critical thinking... is a good idea.

Exactly. Even a game as basic as Diplomacy can get people thinking along lines like 'better not get into a war with France and Russia at the same time' or 'if Turkey collapses, I'm screwed' or 'what can I promise Italy to get them to switch sides'. In short, the foundations of geopolitics. It's not remotely accurate in any historical sense, but you have to start somewhere.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

This thread is tempting to comment what I think about this game, but I'll sit back and eat some popcorn.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's not even that some stuff is missing or that there are some mistakes. It's just that... it's not historical at all.

I agree. I'm not sure there's a single thing in this game that is represented in a realistic or historical way. Using it as a teaching tool just seems too fraught to be worth the time.

 

[Temppu]

I wonder why so many long for literal slavery in particular from all the missing items of history. After all, you can steal civilians and purchasing buildings can be considered an abstraction of slavery. Implementing explicit slavery in a game in 2018 would obviously cause a massive media controversy, and hence is something that no big game company would do in their right minds.