The Paradox of Civ6

[acluewithout]

Australian Aboriginal cultures dominated their lands for 8 times longer than
Civ's total game time of about 6,000 years. Successful, and over a large land
mass, but almost totally extinguished in less than a century.

Civ definitely has a particular view of history, which is definitely out of date, particularly around the ideas of ‘success’ and ‘victory’. I recognise the problems with that view point, and agree it is a problem when analysing, discussing and reaching conclusions about history generally (particularly when that analysis is used to justify present day political decisions). But, that view point, and where it takes the game, is sort of what makes Civ fun.

In this way Civ is very much a fantasy: a fantasy that technology always improves lives, that the fate of peoples is determined by nation states and how they conflict or cooperate, and that (there’s probably a better word) western ideals and values (including expansionism) are how successful societies should develop. I mean, my goodness, Civ categorically won’t let you advance from the Classical Era without a ‘government’ or the medieval era without researching ‘feudalism’.

I’m okay with that fantasy in a game, provided it doesn’t stray into being offensive (which I don’t think it does). It’s make believe. Civ uses this view point to make a fun game.

...but it’s things like the bit I’ve quoted above that do bother me. Civ completely ignores certain other view points and histories. Australia in particular really bothers me: the current Civ quite explicitly only represents Australia post colonialisation. But that is such a small part of Australia’s history. It’s not only inaccurate, but also a bit on the nose: Aboriginal Australian history and culture was utterly ignored in Australia until (at best) only relatively recently, with fairly dire outcomes as a result.

I’d like to see Civ represent a broader view of history, even if this doesn’t mean making eg a ‘nomadic’ civ playable. But I’ve no idea how that would work. And I can see lots of ways that could be offensive. And I’m not sure how big the payoff would be anyway. Perhaps just ignoring these issues is better. It’s not like conversations about these issues can’t happen somewhere else. And Civ tries hard on other issues, eg female representation.

 

[RealHuhn]

Well, as someone from the more competitive mindset with a strong dislike for exploitative game design elements like Magnus chops, I'd say that this paradox isn't unsolvable for Firaxis. A more balanced game with diverse efficient strategies doesn't mean that the immersive crowd can't play the game how they want to anymore.

Features like small random events could be implemented as an optional feature like goodie huts and nobody would complain about it.
I do enjoy the roleplaying approach from time to time, especially if the game or patch or addon is new to me. However, what truly keeps me going is the feeling that I get better as a player or goofing around with very new and creative strategies. That feeling of progression is fun for me and CIV6 does an excellent job at this. However, if something is clearly the optimal path to victory from a strategic point of view, doesnt matter if it's historically correct or not, it does limit the immersion and fun for many players. Even worse are exploitative strategies like abusing the overflow from chopping because that introduces a 3rd crowd, the hardcore min/max players who use every advantage they can get over the AI.

All three crowds, the immersive, the competitive and the min/max crowd have a right to exist of course. I still think that the best way to get these crowds closer together is through developing a more balanced, strategically rich game. The sandbox element is there already and could be enhanced by optional random events for example.

Anyway, nice read!

 

[Karpius]

The strategies that work well in the game must be the ones which worked well in history, and vice versa

Again, we are faced with a paradox. Some of the strategies that worked well in history did not start out as strategies. They were more like opportunities that knocked on the door and the right combination of people took advantage of them. But for a strategy game, such 'opportunities' are often seen as unbalanced.

However, I'd probably not like the completely random elements of surprise.

Quite understandable simply from the game point of view. Random elements can destroy strategy. But, random elements are a large part of history. Paradox.

Beautifully argued, K, but I have problems with the entire notion of "successful"
strategies.

I never meant to allude to what might or might not be "successful" strategies in history. In fact, I agree with you completely about how the game scale works against that notion in the historical context. But, without the ability to plan from the very beginning to see a strategy through to the end of the game - representing several millenia in a fantastical way - how much would the game appeal to 'gamers'?

Getting the time scales right is a major problem. How do you judge the success
or failure of a strategy when you incorporate long stretches of time?

You can't...which is one of my points about the game. Not a complaint or derision....simply a point for discussion.

In this way Civ is very much a fantasy: a fantasy that technology always improves lives,

Given the success of the human species in the last ten thousand years and the hugely accelerated rate of social development in just the last two centuries, I think there is quite a strong case for technology improving lives. At least on the scale in which Civ6 is designed.

...but it’s things like the bit I’ve quoted above that do bother me. Civ completely ignores certain other view points and histories. Australia in particular really bothers me: the current Civ quite explicitly only represents Australia post colonialisation. But that is such a small part of Australia’s history. It’s not only inaccurate, but also a bit on the nose: Aboriginal Australian history and culture was utterly ignored in Australia until (at best) only relatively recently, with fairly dire outcomes as a result.

I think the overall game mechanics represent the total of human achievement quite well. Australia, in the game, is meant to represent the former British colony just as America is meant to represent the United States. It would certainly not be inappropriate to try to represent the Australian aborignal culture as a separate civilization in the same manner as the Cree, Aztecs or any other civilization that is now, essentially, dead. (Which is most of the civs represented in the game.)


I very much appreciate all the comments from everyone and the whole purpose of my post was to generate discussion. My original comments were not meant to complain about the paradox I see. The truth is, the paradox is part of the appeal to me. In fact, I believe the very fact that Civ6 can generate such interest and discussion from so many different perspectives (from gamer to storyteller) is a testament to the broad appeal of its concept and design. I often wonder which way sales would go if the developers tried to favor one perspective over the other.

 

[Karpius]

Civilization is not a wargame? ;-)

The huge scale of the game does not lend itself to being a 'war game' in the traditional sense. Having played and designed numerous table top war games in the 70's and 80's, Civilization is nothing like them. Such games were almost always built around a scenario with well defined objectives and time limits. Most of these scenarios were taken right from history, such as the Battle of the Bulge, the Yom Kippur war and a zillion others. Each game started the same way. The map was static. The order of units was the same. There were more specific rules to better represent the historical scenario at play. These games, by their very nature, gave much importance to unit types in play.

Civilization6 tries to emulate war games in some ways, but it does not fit the scale of the game at all. I will admit it can be fun to toy around with different unit types, but they really have no place in this scale of game.

If we look at the map scale, how do we justify ranged attacks? Or the inability to stack units? How is a scout even a viable military unit? But these are things that are important to the 'game', but have no historical relevance within the scale of the game.

Based on scale alone, the only units needed would be land 'armies', sea 'navies' and an air arm in the latter eras. Each unit might represent a different size or tech advancement or other means of measuring their relative strength. But differentiating between infantry and cavalry and archers, etc is just for game flavor and completely out of scale otherwise.

Let me add....I am not opposed to this! Lets face it, we all enjoy 'different' units. (I love my Roman Legions) But here too we are faced with the paradox of what is historically relevant and within scale and what is there for the 'game'.

 

[historix69]

This reminds me of the classic "Empire" PC Game where the only land unit was simply called "Army". In a later version they added a Tank Army unit with higher movement and hit points, but also double the transport size. Empire had the same map scale as Civ games ...

 

[acluewithout]

Given the success of the human species in the last ten thousand years and the hugely accelerated rate of social development in just the last two centuries, I think there is quite a strong case for technology improving lives. At least on the scale in which Civ6 is designed.

I think the overall game mechanics represent the total of human achievement quite well. Australia, in the game, is meant to represent the former British colony just as America is meant to represent the United States. It would certainly not be inappropriate to try to represent the Australian aborignal culture as a separate civilization in the same manner as the Cree, Aztecs or any other civilization that is now, essentially, dead. (Which is most of the civs represented in the game.)

On the first point above, I don’t disagree technology has overall made things better overall. I’m a techno optimist. But the benefits come with costs; for all the winners, there are losers; and sometimes people reject some advances or knowledge is lost for some reason, and technology doesn’t actually deliver the potential benefits.

I mean, there’s an argument that the invention of the cotton gin resulted in a massive expansion in slavery in the US.

On the second point. Gee wiz. I really don’t want to say the wrong thing or annoy people. I agree the current Australian civ represents post coloninisation Australia, and that it would be hard to represent pre-colonial Australian culture / society. But that’s sort of my point: in a game about civilizations, including ancient civilizations, post colonisation Australia gets represented and indigenous Australians don’t... again.

Literally, you get to play modern Australia in the ancient era, an era it never existed in historically, but the “Australian” people who actually existed in that era don’t get a mention.

Honestly. I’m not trying to make a big deal. It’s a game. It’s not fair to over think these things.

 

[Karpius]

Literally, you get to play modern Australia in the ancient era, an era it never existed in historically, but the “Australian” people who actually existed in that era don’t get a mention.

I have no problem with the representation of ANY culture or civilization no matter how small or how short in time span or how disconnected they may have seemed. However, there are literally thousands of such possibilities and I believe Firaxis only looks at those that are most marketable. That, I'm afraid, is perfect business sense.

On the first point above, I don’t disagree technology has overall made things better overall. I’m a techno optimist. But the benefits come with costs; for all the winners, there are losers; and sometimes people reject some advances or knowledge is lost for some reason, and technology doesn’t actually deliver the potential benefits.

There are always costs and consequences, but how do we represent them in a game where such costs and consequences are essentially erased by the overall progress of human achievement?

Literally, you get to play modern Australia in the ancient era, an era it never existed in historically, but the “Australian” people who actually existed in that era don’t get a mention.

The same argument could be made for the indigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest. Numerous different tribes in Africa. The Innuit, Laplanders, Cossacks (before they were 'Russianized') and a whole host of others. For the foreseeable future, market will drive those selections more than general sentiment.

 

[historix69]

I'm not sure that's a fair thing to say. Sure, there have been people in Australia for 60,000 years, but there's absolutely 0 evidence that there has been *any* continuation in culture. For all we know 1 tribe 60,000 years ago split off from another, completely overthrew their previous traditions, and over 500 years ended up invading, massacring and wiping out the previous culture. This could have happened countless times in 60 millennia. Nobody even really has any idea how many waves of immigrations came into Australia.

There have also been people in Europe for well over 60,000 years, but nobody would say "European Aboriginal culture dominated their lands for 100,000 years". Because there isn't the slightest reason to believe that there was a single European Culture that existed over such a vast expanse of time. Exactly the same statement is true about Australian Aboriginal culture.

Sorry for the slightly angry off topic rant, but the whole "Noble Savage" point of view is incredibly outdated but inexplicably widespread.

I suppose that the number of genetic differences can tell us when Australian Aboriginal ancestors split from other populations in South East Asia ...
It is estimated that at the time the British discovered Australia, around 300.000 to 1 million indigen people lived in 400-700 tribes, speaking over 250 different languages ... Similar to the discovery of the Americas, contact with european explorers spread diseases and indigen population collapsed (down to 50.000 in 1930).
Australia has a size of ca. 7.600.000 km², to a large part hot desert except for coastal regions and the east. (For an estimated population of 1 million people this results in 760 km² territory (including desert and other arid climates) for every group of 100 people in average.)
There was a wide variety/mixture of different Australian Aboriginal Cultures, not a single dominant culture. For semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers in a mostly dangerous climate, the resources were enough to survive but obviously not enough to also support large population, large armies and Empire-building wars (e.g. in contrast to China).

Many Indigenous communities also have a very complex kinship structure and in some places strict rules about marriage. In traditional societies, men are required to marry women of a specific moiety. The system is still alive in many Central Australian communities. To enable men and women to find suitable partners, many groups would come together for annual gatherings (commonly known as corroborees) at which goods were traded, news exchanged, and marriages arranged amid appropriate ceremonies. This practice both reinforced clan relationships and prevented inbreeding in a society based on small semi-nomadic groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia

Spoiler :

 

[Karpius]

I don't see the paradox. Simply don't include luck dominant strategies amongst those which are to be emulated by a game. Having your entire civilisation wiped out by a huge volcanic eruption is a real historical thing (as happened to the Minoan), but it sucks. So don't have it in the game.

As I said in previous posts, I understand that such random events would be unwelcome by many in a 'Strategy game'. The paradox is that despite Civ6 being a strategy game, there are many who do not play it as such. It is a game intended to emulate much of human history, yet avoids the random events that played a huge part.

Most players want to be able to plan and prepare for every possible eventuality in the game. The paradox is that no person or group or empire had the advantage of such prescient planning. No one predicted or planned for the plagues when they struck the first few times. No one predicted or planned for the times when the climate warmed or when it cooled and now one area is more fertile than another which spurs population growth in a new area.

My point isn't to advocate for one or the other as much as wanting to illustrate the paradox.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This thread has some pretty heavy abuses of the word "paradox", and I don't mean the competitor company that shares many of Firaxis' shortcomings .

 

[shogun11B]

If I want to do a role-play, non-victory-drive game I just disable all the victory conditions except domination.
And, I usually enjoy it for the first hundred turn or so, but then feel like I'm just waisting my time making arbitrary decisions because it looks cool, or is consistent with whatever narrative I'm building in my head. That's when I get bored and load up a new game with a victory condition in mind.

As for random events, it seems they can easily just make them optional.
They have in the past.

 

[Disgustipated]

Having your entire civilisation wiped out by a huge volcanic eruption is a real historical thing (as happened to the Minoan),

This sounds really cool. Even if it happened to me. Sure I'd be majorly t'd off. But that would just inspire me to play again and succeed the next time. Even cooler would be if instead of restarting from the beginning, you could start as some other civilization on an empty part of the map and try to catch up.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You could hit "restart game" any time. You could even set up your own personal RNG in excel and restart whenever it gets above a certain threshold. If you couple this with an "arbitrary bad events" dartboard you could even make up a story for the restart each time!

 

[Disgustipated]

You could hit "restart game" any time. You could even set up your own personal RNG in excel and restart whenever it gets above a certain threshold. If you couple this with an "arbitrary bad events" dartboard you could even make up a story for the restart each time!

We all know that's not the same. And you wouldn't have a the pretty graphics of a volcano spewing all over you only city. Obviously if you have multiple cities you would be okay (aside from the one city). And still doesn't address restarting civs. Past civ games actually allowed this. In Civ2, kill off the English, and another civ (had to be the same color though) would appear.

 

[Karpius]

This thread has some pretty heavy abuses of the word "paradox", and I don't mean the competitor company that shares many of Firaxis' shortcomings .

I am merely stating my opinion that Civ6 is paradoxical in the sense that it holds contradictory features.

 

[Victoria]

the whole "Noble Savage" point of view is incredibly outdated but inexplicably widespread.

Well said. We can use New Zealand as a better barometer here because of its age and remoteness.
They have worked out when Polynesians first arrived and even identified that the majority of females came from Korean ancestry and males from Papua New Guinea (weird). That subsequent landings occurred and that there was few weapons... which makes you think "noble Savage" until you find out they starting wiping out lots of the local fauna and once NZ was full of "maori's" and there was no Moa left they started eating each other. Maori was really just a term for us people who live here already rather than a nation.

....

Succinct and nothing I can disagree with here... how dare you!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

We all know that's not the same. And you wouldn't have a the pretty graphics of a volcano spewing all over you only city. Obviously if you have multiple cities you would be okay (aside from the one city). And still doesn't address restarting civs. Past civ games actually allowed this. In Civ2, kill off the English, and another civ (had to be the same color though) would appear.

There is a reason why they got rid of the feature of a volcano blowing up your city, and it's not because everyone loved it so much . . .

 

[Karpius]

Succinct and nothing I can disagree with here... how dare you!

But the comment area was blank! Does that mean you only agree when I am....blank?
(Just kidding...I'm assuming it was in reference to my explanation of paradox)

which makes you think "noble Savage" until you find out they starting wiping out lots of the local fauna and once NZ was full of "maori's" and there was no Moa left they started eating each other.

I love the term "Noble Savage". It has such romantic overtones and evokes images of a peaceful and idyllic existence free from stress and violence. A people unconcerned with possession, sharing everything equally and doing nothing to upset the balance of nature.*

Unfortunately, the romantic vision does not fit with any reality observed by anthropologists or what is reflected in archeology. Humans, no matter the era or the region, are largely the same. We have an incredible capacity to hate and kill and covet what others have. We also have a similar capacity to love and care and show compassion. (Another paradox?) In the end, we have always tended to place our own 'clan' above all others and used such mentality to justify conquest and subjugation. We are driven as much by greed, sloth and fear as anything else. But we also continue to learn and grow. Our clan mentality continues to expand and become more and more inclusive while we justify less and less the actions of the past that brought us to where we are today. We may have a long way to go, but I think we are much further along than the so-called "Noble Savage".

*Note; I feel "Balance of Nature" is another romanticized misnomer that is an utter contradiction. There has never been, nor ever will be a 'balance'.

 

[Karpius]

1) Purely strategy game - something like Chess or Advance Wars or the like
2) Strategic History game - what I was advocating previously - a game where the best strategies to use are those which were best historically
3) History Simulator - Replicates what happens in history as faithfully as possible

I can't disagree with any of those and I would love to see all three options available as selections in the game set-up. However, I believe there would be a small percentage of us eager to tinker with the 'dry simulator' you describe with tons of micromanagement. Again, no right or wrong here, just a matter of preferences. But it continues to amaze me that a single game title can even begin to appeal to so many preferences.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You could hit "restart game" any time. You could even set up your own personal RNG in excel and restart whenever it gets above a certain threshold. If you couple this with an "arbitrary bad events" dartboard you could even make up a story for the restart each time!

Reminds me of
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies

But yea, you could definitely just arbitrarily delete things to "challenge" yourself too.