On Cyrus depiction in Civ VI : should gameplay overcome historicity, or the contrary (or balance)

[Liufeng]

We're still waiting for the new DLC's to come, one day, maybe, maybe not, ...
So mean while, I would like to discuss the case of our friend Cyrus the Great, King of Kings.
In game, they gave a lot of boni about surprise wars, which is clearly a reference to the battle of Opis, in which Cyrus deviated the Euphratus course to introduce soldiers in the city and attacked during a religious ceremony. It is also very likely the devs thought it would be fun, gameplay wise, that Cyrus would have the opposite agenda of Tomirys, since she's the legendary "killer of Cyrus". Besides, all his lines of dialogue are tainted with felony and treason, like "we'll be friends ... for now".
Now, of course, the real Cyrus was a big warmonger, there's no doubt in it. But historically, well Cyrus is very different for his in-game protrayal. I would like to cite this text from a site* that is not fully impartial, but nailed rather well Cyrus' legacy :

"Cyrus the Great is famed as a triumphant conqueror, a superb warrior, and the founder of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. However, with the Cyrus Cylinder and a range of Jewish texts, plus extensive writings by Xenophon, Cyrus is generally more admired as a liberator than a conqueror. Cyrus the Great was mentioned twenty-two times in the Old Testament, where he is unconditionally praised. This followed his active liberation of the Jews from Babylon in 539BCE and his support as more than 40,000 Jews then chose to return to their homeland. Cyrus then funded the subsequent rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus was also eulogized by many other writers and his actual or legendary exploits were used as moral instruction or as a source of inspiration for political philosophies. For example, the Greek author and soldier Xenophon believed him to be the ideal ruler, and in the Cyropedia - often considered Xenophon's masterpiece - he offers a fictionalised biography of the great man. This is more "a treatise on political virtue and social organisation" than a history. It was influential in ancient times and then again in the Renaissance. It may have been composed in response to Plato's The Republic, and Plato's Laws seems to refer back to it. Scipio Africanus is said to have always carried a copy of the Cyropedia with him.[1] Later on, in the Renaissance, Spenser, in his The Faerie Queene (1596), says: "For this cause is Xenophon preferred before Plato, for that the one, in the exquisite depth of his judgment, formed a Commune wealth, such as it should be; but the other in the person of Cyrus, and the Persians, fashioned a government, such as might best be: So much more profitable and gracious is doctrine by ensample, then by rule."[2] The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse The Garden of Cyrus after the benevolent ruler. This dense treatise of hermetic philosophy may be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Cromwell. Cyrus' name and his doctrine is still cited and celebrated into modern times. On 12th October 1971 Iran marked the 2500th anniversary of Cyrus' founding of the Persian Empire . The then Shah of Iran, in his speech opening the celebrations, said: "O Cyrus, great King, King of Kings, Achaemenian King, King of the land of Iran. I, the Shahanshah of Iran, offer thee salutations from myself and from my nation. Rest in peace, for we are awake, and we will always stay awake." In 1994, a replica of a bas relief depicting Cyrus the Great was erected in a park in Sydney, Australia . This monument is intended as a symbol for multiculturalism, and to express the coexistence and peaceful cohabitation of people from different cultures and backgrounds.

By pursuing a policy of generosity, instead of repression, Cyrus demonstrated his Greatness. So successful were his policies of conquest, mercifulness and assimilation that the empire continued to thrive for some 200 years after his death. Cyrus' compassionate principles continue to resonate today: his religious and cultural tolerance and commitment to the liberation of enslaved peoples remain an aspiration in our troubled modern world." And there is also the cylinder of Cyrus, considered as the oldest text on humans' universal rights (although it was certainly more a propaganda more than anything else).

And heck, even Forbes made an article about his exemplarity**.

Of course, it is impossible to put in an agenda, an ability and 5 lines of dialogue the complexity of human being. But it is clearly a gameplay choice to make Cyrus the "traitor' of the game, while history tends to portray him as an exemplary ruler. That is why I ask : Should gameplay fun and value overcome historical depictions, or the other around, or should there be a balance between the two ? Or if you prefer, should the devs think of an ability and try to find a ruler to fit it, or should they study the ruler and then come up with the ability ?

*http://www.cyrusthegreat.net/
**https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanho...ip-lessons-from-cyrus-the-great/#776db02b2209

 

[Uberfrog]

A balance between the two, certainly.

Gameplay fun and value are most important because they will ultimately control how fun, different and balanced a leader or civilisation will be to play in the context of the game systems. But Civ as a series thrives on its alt-historical fantasy and recognisable leaders are a big part of that, and so picking agendas to fit is also key.

Cyrus is an interesting example, and you're right that as far as the AI goes, they seem to have gone all-in on the treacherous warmonger aspect of his personality. But at least that opportunistic streak is an aspect of his historical character. I'd argue that the stuff about tolerance and liberation after his conquests is much more difficult to turn into useful gameplay features (at least in the absence of meaningful mechanics representing ethnic population and resistance to occupation). They also rely on his Persia being strong enough militarily to make those conquests in the first place. So I think Firaxis have made a reasonable choice with Cyrus' agenda and abilities. After all, how exemplary you are as a ruler is firmly in the player's hands .

 

[dagriggstar]

Just compare his civilpedia entry in IV with VI. Clearly was pigeonholed from the moment they added Tomyris.

 

[Tech Osen]

People's, and especially the ruling elite's, opinion of war was very different in the past. With WW1 as a main turning point. It was a thing of honor.

 

[Victoria]

Rulers are all a question of perception and belief and history being written by victors. Also of course ancient writings become compounded as time goes on. I am not disbelieving but the truth is often times in the middle somewhere.

It is also important to realize that games like this can also contribute to historical perception to a small degree but it is important to appreciate that first and foremost it is a game and the mechanic is there for a purpose even if just to have opposites.

In my view you do need to at least have some historical content in a game like civ that touts such features by its design. How much the developers deviate from this is about balance... no historical accuracy puts people off and having too much accuracy sacrifices game balance.

To me the game gets it bang on that in ancient times there was a lot of war and conquest and modern times less. Choosing ancient rulers for a majority of civs does encourage more violent agendas and the more modern civs in the game are the more peaceful.

I do find it a little odd how you have a "maturing" political angle as you move through history but the leaders do not adjust their agendas to this changing world. That would add more complexity I guess and to be honest I am happy with what is there... it just could be developed so much more. Great framework for the game, just not convinced by everything painted on the canvas.

 

[Arent11]

By pursuing a policy of generosity, instead of repression, Cyrus demonstrated his Greatness. So successful were his policies of conquest, mercifulness and assimilation that the empire continued to thrive for some 200 years after his death. Cyrus' compassionate principles continue to resonate today: his religious and cultural tolerance and commitment to the liberation of enslaved peoples remain an aspiration in our troubled modern world."

Okay, now this goes over the top & is clearly biased. Obviously he used both violence & generosity, as he saw fit. To claim that he would be an "aspiration in our troubled modern world" is as absurd as to claim Alexander the Great's conquests would have been done by pillow fights.

But I don't know enough about Cyrus to judge whether he was backstabbing. Certainly rulership in a factioned society demands intrigue.

 

[Liufeng]

People's, and especially the ruling elite's, opinion of war was very different in the past. With WW1 as a main turning point. It was a thing of honor.

Well, not quite. Certainly, war was far more present and "honorable" before WWI, as you stated. There's no denial in that. But the term "honorable" is important here, because there were wars or fighting ways considered as dishonorable, like the use of the bow among ancient greek or the crossbow use in the middle ages. Spilling blood during the truce of God in medieval Europe was also considered as a terrible crime. Buoverall, you're right in your statement.

Okay, now this goes over the top & is clearly biased. Obviously he used both violence & generosity, as he saw fit. To claim that he would be an "aspiration in our troubled modern world" is as absurd as to claim Alexander the Great's conquests would have been done by pillow fights.

But I don't know enough about Cyrus to judge whether he was backstabbing. Certainly rulership in a factioned society demands intrigue.

As I said, the site didn't seem that impartial, but it was more his legacy rather than his tributes from the writer of the text that I thought were interesting. Keep in mind that Cyrus is one of the very rare Kings in which the Bible depicts positively, and that already says much of his rule over the controlled populations. Also, it is well accepted among historians that slavery did not existed in persian society (although that non-use of slaves probably is prior ti Cyrus, and is more about mazdeism than Cyrus' own views).

Just compare his civilpedia entry in IV with VI. Clearly was pigeonholed from the moment they added Tomyris.

I have to admit that I haven't checked on it. I'll probably do it later, now that you got my curiosity.

I do find it a little odd how you have a "maturing" political angle as you move through history but the leaders do not adjust their agendas to this changing world. That would add more complexity I guess and to be honest I am happy with what is there...

Well, technically speaking, they added that aspect by increasing the warmonger penalties through the ages (despite the concept still needs much balance).

 

[Tech Osen]

To me the game gets it bang on that in ancient times there was a lot of war and conquest and modern times less.

Is this true? The 20th century was a very bloody one. Haven't done any research but I wouldn't be surprised if the death tol of the two worldwars combined is higher than all the wars that came before.

 

[Siptah]

Is this true? The 20th century was a very bloody one. Haven't done any research but I wouldn't be surprised if the death tol of the two worldwars combined is higher than all the wars that came before.

you have to put it into proportions though when it comes to population.
But what is sure, is that the earth wasn't as peaceful as in the 20th century. Maybe in the Bronze Age for some time... But before/after that it was more or less constant war time (or a war season each year). Living 30 years without having your country go to war is something really special in history.

 

[Uberfrog]

you have to put it into proportions though when it comes to population.
But what is sure, is that the earth wasn't as peaceful as in the 20th century. Maybe in the Bronze Age for some time... But before/after that it was more or less constant war time (or a war season each year). Living 30 years without having your country go to war is something really special in history.

Let me know when that 30 years happens

I suppose it probably helps that you live in Switzerland, but the UK certainly has not enjoyed 30 years where it has not been at war at any point in the 20th or 21st centuries. Granted many of the recent wars have been very remote for much of the British Isles, but there were still the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

 

[Tech Osen]

While Western Europe hasn't seen war since WW2 on their own soil the same can hardly be said for the rest of the world. And Western Europe often participated in those foreign wars in one way or another.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Here's the Civ 4 entry (sorry, had to pull it from the XML hope it's not completely ugly):

Cyrus the Great, King of Persia

Lived: c.576 - July, 529 BC

Background: Cyrus was the first Emperor of Persia (which occupied about the same land upon which Iran now stands). He is known as a great warlord and a great ruler. He created one of the largest empires the world had seen, and he ruled his subjects with fairness and compassion. Cyrus also founded Pasargade, the capital city of Persia.

At the time of Cyrus's birth, Iran was divided between two major tribes: the Persians and the Medes. Ascending to the Persian throne, Cyrus conquered the Medes. He joined the two tribes together, creating the country of Persia. To ensure full cooperation of the newly-conquered Medes, he allowed their nobles to become government officials and gave them equal status with the Persian nobility.

Once he had secured Persia, Cyrus turned his attention to the east. He conquered Drangiana, Arachosia, Margiana, and Bactra. He built a series of fortified towns along the border to secure his flank and protect his empire from the nomads of Asia. He then turned west, conquering mighty Babylon.

As a civil leader, Cyrus was progressive far beyond his time. He left the institutions in conquered lands alone, allowing the people to largely govern themselves. He didn't meddle with local religions, and he tried to put an end to religious persecution - when he conquered Babylon, the Jews there welcomed him as liberator. In fact, he freed about 40,000 Jews from bondage in Babylon, allowing them to return to their homes in Palestine.

During the early part of his rule, Cyrus issued a decree on his objectives. This decree is now recognized as the first declaration of human rights. When he died, Cyrus was mourned by millions, including his conquered subjects. The Hellenes called him "Law Giver," and the Jews named him the "Anointed of the Lord."

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Hey, here's the Civ 3 reference while we're at it:

"The term Persia has been used for centuries, chiefly in the West, to designate a region of southern Iran formerly
known as Persis or Parsa, the name of the Indo-European nomadic people who migrated into the region about 1000 BC,
eventually supplanting the Assyrians and Chaldeans. The first mention of the Parsa occurs in the annals of Shalmanesar
III, an Assyrian king, in 844 BC. Cyrus II (559-529 BC), heir to a long line of ruling chiefs in Mesopotamia, was a
tolerant and venerated monarch, called the father of his people by the ancient Persians. After a successful revolt
against his Achaemenian overlords in 550 BC and inheriting the kingdom of the Medes, Cyrus consolidated his rule on
the Iranian Plateau and extended it westward across Asia Minor.

In October 539 BC, Babylon, the greatest city of the ancient world, fell to his Persian forces."

He sure seems a lot less nice in Civ 6....

 

[Japper007]

Is this true? The 20th century was a very bloody one. Haven't done any research but I wouldn't be surprised if the death tol of the two worldwars combined is higher than all the wars that came before.

Stone Age/Early Metallurgy civilizations are extremely violent. In Modern "primitive" cultures, like certain tribes in Meso-America and the Amazon, over one third of people die due to tribal warfare and internal violence between tribe-members*. All 20th century wars combined didn't even kill as large a percentage of the European population, though the Spanish Flue did. If you were born in the 20th century you were far more likely to die of the flue than due to violence! Compared to even the Early Modern Period, the 20th century was an oasis of peace...

* Source: Sapiens; A brief history of Humankind. by Yuval Noah Harari

 

[Victoria]

Is this true? The 20th century was a very bloody one. Haven't done any research but I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll of the two world wars combined is higher than all the wars that came before.

Its a question of how you look at it. If you combine pure numbers of dead then sure. The weapons used now are so devastating in comparison and the population was less.

The stability of nations is much better now due to the likes of Nukes and United nations but I guess you are right. Human nature still raises its ugly side far too often. But in Ancient times countries were always warring... I think I stand partially corrected. @Japper007 has some good points also... although I would hate to think what could kill you apart from the Flu in 0 AD

 

[Liufeng]

Here's the Civ 4 entry (sorry, had to pull it from the XML hope it's not completely ugly):

Hey, here's the Civ 3 reference while we're at it:

Oh my ... the difference is ... outstanding. Now you made me remember why I did not like the civilopedia entries on Civ VI. They're simply too partial, designed to accomodate what they made with the leader. Would I make a biographical infra notices as the Cyrus' one in Civ Vi in one of my history works, my teacher would kill me Seriously, the majority of Civ VI entries in civilopedia are horrible (just check, for instance, Philipp II).

 

[Scaramanga]

The agenda is centred around the fall of Babylon, which the Babylonians weren't expecting because they thought their city was invincible so it's about natural justice against the proud as well. One aspect is enough for each leader otherwise it would be Awesome leader 1, Awesome leader 2...

 

[bbbt]

Well, as long as "Ghandi has nukes" is a pre-eminent Civ meme incorporated into the game, I think anyone else pales as claims to historical character assassination

I don't think it's possible not to end up reductive, when creating a gameplay mechanic out of a person or civilization. Especially in a game that often leans towards "pop history". The Mongols are always going to have the conquering emphasized, not their extensive number of vassal relationships or their ability to adminstrate such a wide domain.

And I'd say some of the depictions go the other way as Cyrus. I.e. the emphasis on Peter the Great as a westenizer, while not inaccuracute, sort of make the man who basically founded the Russian navy (after studying shipbuilding undercover) come off as a sort of pompous, sycophantish dandy.

 

[Ogro]

It is part of the dumb down vibe of the game. He could have this agenda but this shouldn't turn it in a backstabbing caricature.
But look at the game and you will see that the tone is not what a lot of us would like.
-Silly graphics and animations (I hate that stupid and cartoonish animation of the workers "building" stuff...)
-Inaccurate and wrongly authored quotes (This should be a priority fix IMHO, since this game always was somewhat educational)
-That stupid text they put in the Ruhr Valley wonder, I won't dare to ponder about it.

 

[Morningcalm]

While we're at it, it would be nice to have the Civilization VI Civilopedia text for comparison purposes. I agree that Cyrus was clearly pigeonholed in VI (due to Tomyris' presence in the game, the story of Cyrus fighting "dishonorably" using wine to win a fight against Tomyris' son became Cyrus' new agenda basically). Cyrus was not known for surprise attacks--his conquest of Babylon was no more a result of a surprise attack than any typical ancient period attack really was. As the general info about Cyrus' humanitarianism and kindness show, he would be a better fit for something like India's Dharma ability (which gives bonuses for multiple coexisting religions in your ciites).

In fact, Hammurabi better fits Cyrus' current "surprise attack" agenda (he was known for making alliances with neighbors only to break them and defeat them, and he did this multiple times):

When the Elamites invaded the central plains of Mesopotamia from the east, Hammurabi allied himself with Larsa to defeat them. That accomplished, he broke the alliance and swiftly took the cities of Uruk and Isin, previously held by Larsa, by forming alliances with other city states such as Nippur and Lagash. The alliances he made with other states, would repeatedly be broken when the king found it necessary to do so but, as rulers continued to enter into pacts with Hammurabi, it does not seem to have occurred to any of them that he would do the same to them as he had previously to others. Once Uruk and Isin were conquered, he turned and took Nippur and Lagash, and then conquered Larsa.

Civilization VI's Civilopedia is indeed horrible. Many of them are barely disguised Wikipedia rewordings, and some of them are unduly negative. I note that for Saladin they went with him being a scholar more than a warrior as well (to fit the Civilization VI recasting of him as a scholar rather than a warrior).

I have often thought that in many ways, Civilization VI has strayed from Civilization's basic premise that you play "against" the world leaders we know from history, and has instead reshaped these leaders into caricatures without subtlety.

Civilization IV I thought was relatively successful in that each leader was different from the other in subtle as well as obvious ways (some leaders were more likely to backstab than others, etc.) In Civilization VI you get AI like Alexander with ridiculous agendas that are almost impossibly unstable, which ruins the immersion rather than aiding it. It also doesn't help that most neighboring AI will attack you no matter who they are. Gandhi, for example, can and will declare war despite his Peacekeeping agenda *if* that war carries no warmongering penalties. So if you start next to him you're about as likely to be attacked by him as if say, Alexander was next to you. This is silly and not at all a reflection of history. With situations like that in the game, there would be little difference had Gandhi been replaced in the game by a fantasy character.

In Civilization IV you had AI who wouldn't attack you unless provoked, but could easily beat you in peaceful ways if you didn't attack them (but that left the interesting choice of becoming their friend and encouraging them to go to war with neighbors to weaken them).