Why are Western civs so seldomly scientific?

[Arent11]

Civ 4 - there is no explicit science trait, although Russia and Arabia were notable for their unique buildings.
Philosophical/Commercial were probably the two most science traits again (commerce working the same way as in 3, but now could be divided into science/gold/culture however you want with the sliders). Alexander, Frederick and Victoria possessed one of those traits. Elizabeth possessed both.

Philosophical was faster universities & great people which was basically a science advantage & great people could be applied to anything. I think calling it "philosophical" is fine.

Ok, I just noticed that some of these civs were philosophical in civ 4 as well:

• Alexander ( Greek)
• Elizabeth ( English)
• Frederick ( German)
• Gandhi ( Indian)
• Lincoln ( American)
• Pericles ( Greek)
• Peter ( Russian)
• Sitting Bull ( Native American)
• Suleiman ( Ottoman)

-> So, ok, in civ 4 actually the Greek, English, German, Americans,. Russians were *all* philosophical.

 

[Arent11]

So in civ 4:

English/Elisabeth: Commercial/Philosophical
German/Frederick: Organized/Philosophical
Greek/Alexander: Aggressive/Philosophical
Greek/Pericles: Creative/Philosophical
Americans/Lincoln: Charismatic/Philosophical
Russian/Peter: Expansive/Philosophical

Apparently, in civ 4 and civ 3 lots of these civs were scientific I redact my statement that Western civs in the civilization series were generally "rarely scientific". In older civ titles lots of them were. That was just my impression from the newer civ titles.

 

[JNR13]

Out of 21 European + anglo colony civs (including all leaders), the ones with a direct science bonus: Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Macedonia, America, Australia, Russia (10). Gaul (they even get a free tech!), Germany, and England come on top with their strong industrial focus (3) - even Canada has one but it's not really their focus. So overall we're at about 2/3, with most civs here without a science or strong industrial bonus being in eastern-ish* Europe: Poland, Hungary, Georgia, Byzantium, Greece.

Only, Rome, France, and Canada are the "western" in a narrower sense civs without any science or science-adjacent industrial bonus.

 

[IdiotStyle]

I'll take an example of why europeans civs are not often scientific , it's because most of them had aperiod of basically golden age/superpower status.
And i can take an example of a non european civ that could probably fit every criteria: the question is which one do you pick in the end?
America is my example:
Cultural: America's culture has expanded to be everywhere. Thanks to capitalism, everyone truely is having access to blue jeans, but american movies and music are spread worldwide even if they have to get censored in parts of the world. America dominated the market of culture since the end of WW2, whether we like what it brings or not.
Diplomatic: America has always tried to have diplomacy ties with others, ben franklin is a great example of that himself. the monroe doctrine or the forced opening of japanese market can be other examples, and WW2 and the cold war go deep into the diplomatic game.
Economic: Once more, America has became a super power after WW2, but their importance started even before. The growth of factories, the golden years of the motor city, having 75% of the worlds gold reserves after WW2, and free trade really make america a good choice for this one.
Militaristic: The usa has been at peace for only 17 years during it's nearly 250 years of existance. I think everyone can see the Us as a very aggressive country nowadays, mostly due to cold war, but even before with local wars caused by doctrines like manifest destiny.Their implication in the two world war also helps with that view.
Political: America was literally founded on political struggles. The revolution set way for a democracy, the struggle for years between the industrial north and the plantation south, the political outcry of the people during the cold war for things like vietnam. America is full of diverse community which forces it to be extremely politically active.
Religion: This is probably the lowest point on the list for the US, but the original 13 states were founded after they were sent away for following their own religion. It might be something less determining after the actual start of the united states in 1776, but they still have a bank note with in god we trust and the religious voices have always fought in USA against what they don't believe in.
Scientific: The USA is an amazing candidate for scientific discoveries.It often feels like most inventions between the civil war and WW2 come from over there. The plane? check. Edison and all his patents(not necessarilly his inventions)? big check. The telephone? once more a big play. They also made the first computer (if you don't consider ones that don't run on electricity).
Again ben franklin might play into that aspect, as he is often known to try experiments (or the fact he wanted bifocal glasses or played under thunder).

So now with that aspect... How do you pick only 2? that's the thing, you'll probably have to pick just 2, because if you get a bit of everything your civilization might be bland and underpowered , or too good at everything and overpowered.

 

[Arent11]

I'll take an example of why europeans civs are not often scientific , it's because most of them had aperiod of basically golden age/superpower status.
And i can take an example of a non european civ that could probably fit every criteria: the question is which one do you pick in the end?
America is my example:
Cultural: America's culture has expanded to be everywhere. Thanks to capitalism, everyone truely is having access to blue jeans, but american movies and music are spread worldwide even if they have to get censored in parts of the world. America dominated the market of culture since the end of WW2, whether we like what it brings or not.
Diplomatic: America has always tried to have diplomacy ties with others, ben franklin is a great example of that himself. the monroe doctrine or the forced opening of japanese market can be other examples, and WW2 and the cold war go deep into the diplomatic game.
Economic: Once more, America has became a super power after WW2, but their importance started even before. The growth of factories, the golden years of the motor city, having 75% of the worlds gold reserves after WW2, and free trade really make america a good choice for this one.
Militaristic: The usa has been at peace for only 17 years during it's nearly 250 years of existance. I think everyone can see the Us as a very aggressive country nowadays, mostly due to cold war, but even before with local wars caused by doctrines like manifest destiny.Their implication in the two world war also helps with that view.
Political: America was literally founded on political struggles. The revolution set way for a democracy, the struggle for years between the industrial north and the plantation south, the political outcry of the people during the cold war for things like vietnam. America is full of diverse community which forces it to be extremely politically active.
Religion: This is probably the lowest point on the list for the US, but the original 13 states were founded after they were sent away for following their own religion. It might be something less determining after the actual start of the united states in 1776, but they still have a bank note with in god we trust and the religious voices have always fought in USA against what they don't believe in.
Scientific: The USA is an amazing candidate for scientific discoveries.It often feels like most inventions between the civil war and WW2 come from over there. The plane? check. Edison and all his patents(not necessarilly his inventions)? big check. The telephone? once more a big play. They also made the first computer (if you don't consider ones that don't run on electricity).
Again ben franklin might play into that aspect, as he is often known to try experiments (or the fact he wanted bifocal glasses or played under thunder).

So now with that aspect... How do you pick only 2? that's the thing, you'll probably have to pick just 2, because if you get a bit of everything your civilization might be bland and underpowered , or too good at everything and overpowered.

Did America dominate because it was a genuinely militaristic or diplomatic *culture* or just because it was strongly leading in tech & economy?

And was the tech lead just coincidence or was there a reason industrialization occurred in Europe and not in China, among Aztecs oder in ancient Rome?

 

[Patine]

Did America dominate because it was a genuinely militaristic or diplomatic *culture* or just because it was strongly leading in tech & economy?

And was the tech lead just coincidence or was there a reason industrialization occurred in Europe and not in China, among Aztecs oder in ancient Rome?

It's foundations of greatness in the Modern Era is the same as Russia and China's - lot's of people, land, and resources in their borders.

 

[Arent11]

It's foundations of greatness in the Modern Era is the same as Russia and China's - lot's of people, land, and resources in their borders.

Then why could a "small" country like England threaten China and India for so long and even install governors in India? Why were China and India so unimportant for several centuries?

I agree on population. But wasn't the population surge during industrialization due to advances in health and food?

It wasn't because there was much land or resources. The surge in growth was because much fewer children died, life expectancy rose and there were fewer famines.

 

[IdiotStyle]

Did America dominate because it was a genuinely militaristic or diplomatic *culture* or just because it was strongly leading in tech & economy?

And was the tech lead just coincidence or was there a reason industrialization occurred in Europe and not in China, among Aztecs oder in ancient Rome?

I think the reason europe is so develloped is thanks to communication. It's the key to devellopement, whether economic or scientific. the horse, the mediterranean, the spice road, all this lead to a share of scientific growth

 

[IdiotStyle]

Then why could a "small" country like England threaten China and India for so long and even install governors in India? Why were China and India so unimportant for several centuries?

I agree on population. But wasn't the population surge during industrialization due to advances in health and food?

It wasn't because there was much land or resources. The surge in growth was because much fewer children died, life expectancy rose and there were fewer famines.

the problem in china was less scientific than political i think

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Just to bounce back on the whole "Civ VI's Scotland is just Britain except for Robert the Bruce" : that's true, it is, and it's quite sad that Scotland was represented by the British civ which was already here.

However, an important note to add: all the interesting things of Scotland is for the post-1707 era. Robert Bruce (the only true-Scotsman element of the civ) is notoriously the most boring and useless one, reliably ranked amongst the lowest (if the the lowest) Leader ability.

Sure, I would prefer to have equal representation of civs and cultures; however, I put on a higher level having cool and nice gameplay mechanics. And Scotland is a perfect example of that. They get a science bonus, but through an interesting twist: you don't just get flat yields, you have to earn them through happiness/amenities. The Golf Course, while gimmicky, plays with that, giving additional amenities.

So, is it sad that we had British Scotland instead of True Scotland? Yes. But I prefer that rather than a science civ playing boringly with flat bonuses like Korea (at least the reversed-adjacency bonus of the Seowon is interesting) or yet-another-medieval civ that would have Robert the Bruce levels of interest.

Best of the world, of course, would be to give interesting bonuses to cultures in their own right. But as far as we go, Scotland is still -at least in my opninion- one of the most interesting science civ of the game so far. I don't count Babylon or the Mayan as science civs, as the first one is actually at a disadvantage for a science victory (as there are very few available eurekas in the end-game) and the Mayans are more an economic civ -as said several time by, IIRC, @Zaarin. The other usually considered "science civ" are often boring (Korea-get science from mines and a campus with a slight twist; Sweden-get more great scientists from universities, so from a thing you'd already do).

 

[Arent11]

Just to bounce back on the whole "Civ VI's Scotland is just Britain except for Robert the Bruce" : that's true, it is, and it's quite sad that Scotland was represented by the British civ which was already here.

However, an important note to add: all the interesting things of Scotland is for the post-1707 era. Robert Bruce (the only true-Scotsman element of the civ) is notoriously the most boring and useless one, reliably ranked amongst the lowest (if the the lowest) Leader ability.

Sure, I would prefer to have equal representation of civs and cultures; however, I put on a higher level having cool and nice gameplay mechanics. And Scotland is a perfect example of that. They get a science bonus, but through an interesting twist: you don't just get flat yields, you have to earn them through happiness/amenities. The Golf Course, while gimmicky, plays with that, giving additional amenities.

So, is it sad that we had British Scotland instead of True Scotland? Yes. But I prefer that rather than a science civ playing boringly with flat bonuses like Korea (at least the reversed-adjacency bonus of the Seowon is interesting) or yet-another-medieval civ that would have Robert the Bruce levels of interest.

Best of the world, of course, would be to give interesting bonuses to cultures in their own right. But as far as we go, Scotland is still -at least in my opninion- one of the most interesting science civ of the game so far. I don't count Babylon or the Mayan as science civs, as the first one is actually at a disadvantage for a science victory (as there are very few available eurekas in the end-game) and the Mayans are more an economic civ -as said several time by, IIRC, @Zaarin. The other usually considered "science civ" are often boring (Korea-get science from mines and a campus with a slight twist; Sweden-get more great scientists from universities, so from a thing you'd already do).

Yes, well, I'm not a fan of many of the science civ designs, either.

It would have been straightforward to grant a civ a slight(!) science advantage (maybe just a half cost campus without any advantages), a tech military advantage (get the first new unit you just researched for half cost) and then a slight advantage for building the space rocket.

That would be military/scientific (which is usually really popular among civ fans), and could easily be balanced.

 

[Patine]

Just to bounce back on the whole "Civ VI's Scotland is just Britain except for Robert the Bruce" : that's true, it is, and it's quite sad that Scotland was represented by the British civ which was already here.

However, an important note to add: all the interesting things of Scotland is for the post-1707 era. Robert Bruce (the only true-Scotsman element of the civ) is notoriously the most boring and useless one, reliably ranked amongst the lowest (if the the lowest) Leader ability.

Let's look at the alternatives. Kenneth MacAlpin and and Malcolm III would be accused of coming across too much like Irish leaders (for understandable reasons, but...). MacBeth would be pure Shakespear over history - we all know it. William I (the Lion) and Alexander II were huge Anglophiles ad emulators of England. William Wallace would be pure, "Braveheart," (a title he didn't hold in his lifetime) over history - we all know it. Alexander Livingston hosted the Black Dinner, an infamous incident that inspired Martin's Red Wedding in, "the Game of Thrones." The seven James' of the House of Stuart are mostly boring, save for maybe the IV and the two after Personal Union with England. So, maybe James IV or Mary, Queen of Scots (who were both Lowland Scots English speakers raised in England and France, respectively), and perhaps Andrew Moray or Malcolm IV. Clan Thomson on my mother's side.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Again ben franklin might play into that aspect, as he is often known to try experiments (or the fact he wanted bifocal glasses or played under thunder).

If Ben Franklin isn't Scientific and Diplomatic, I don't know what else he would be?

Sure, I would prefer to have equal representation of civs and cultures; however, I put on a higher level having cool and nice gameplay mechanics. And Scotland is a perfect example of that. They get a science bonus, but through an interesting twist: you don't just get flat yields, you have to earn them through happiness/amenities. The Golf Course, while gimmicky, plays with that, giving additional amenities.

So, is it sad that we had British Scotland instead of True Scotland? Yes. But I prefer that rather than a science civ playing boringly with flat bonuses like Korea (at least the reversed-adjacency bonus of the Seowon is interesting) or yet-another-medieval civ that would have Robert the Bruce levels of interest.

I agree with you, that the Scottish Enlightenment is the best part of the civ. My main gripe is that they didn't have to make the Highlander UU based off when it was a part of the British Army.

 

[E.C.H]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already in this thread, but I have a long-brewing feeling that this and many other Civ oddities is partially a consenquence of the Civ series peculiar tendancy to overlook / barely represent around 200 years of history between ~1600 - ~1800, skipping visually and thematically from the High Renaissance to the brewing Industrial Age. The result being that it feels like most European civs are rooted either in Pre-Modern/Westphalian feudal statehood and the somewhat brutal state of warfare and/or religious focus therein, are a civ focused on colonial efforts during the early Age of Discovery or at the height of the Victorian Age, or are Industrial civs with a natural focus there or in modern warfare.

 

[JNR13]

Maybe it should be noted that civs aren't the only way to represent a period of history. For example, the early modern age sees a massive uptick in the frequency of Great People. Out of ten Renaissance and Industrial era Great Writers in Civ VI, the easternmost is a single Russian. All three Renaissance era Great Scientists are western. All the Industrial era Great Merchants are British or American. It's also the time we get Great Musicians added, with 4/6 of the initial set from Western Europe. From the industrial era onwards, there are barely any non-western world wonders anymore (and of the four that are, one is a catholic wonder and another is a Russian wonder in western style).

European civs often have very little other than unique units from this period because everything else is already a *general* element available to all civs. It's not that European civs don't have their Enlightenment period represented ingame. It's just that *everyone* has that stuff.

 

[Quintillus]

I'd never noticed an underrepresentation of European civs as being scientific, so I did the numbers for Civ3:

Scientific:

Greece
Babylon
Germany
Russia
Persia
Ottomans
Korea
Sumeria
Byzantines

9/31 (29%)

European Scientific:

Greece, Germany, Russia, Byzantines, Ottomans
European tally: 13 (including Ottomans, not including Americans)

Ratio: 5/13 = 38%
Or 4/12 = 33% without the Ottomans
Or 4/13 = 31% without Ottomans but with Americans

So at least for Civ3, the ratio of scientific European civs is roughly the same as for all civs, slightly above if you count the Ottomans.

----

As for the question of "should European civilizations in general be more scientific than they are?" It depends on what time period of history you are looking at. Yes, from 1500 to 2000, Europe did quite well scientifically. But from 500 to 1500, not so much. And that's one of the challenges in choosing traits in a history-spanning game like Civilization - most civs have eras of scientific advancement and others of relative backwardness. China, Persia, Arabia - all had they day in the sun scientifically, but like Europe, they also had their days in the shade.

The new era system has the potential to tap into these era-specific scientific variations more. Though whether that would lead to engaging gameplay in an epic campaign setup is another question, and with only three eras, there might not be enough detail to highlight all the historical variations.

 

[Zaarin]

But from 500 to 1500, not so much.

Really, from the beginning of history to 1500, not so much. Greek science was based almost entirely on Babylonian (and to a lesser extent Egyptian) science (though the Greeks made some important contributions in the field of mathematics). Roman science was based almost entirely on Greek science. That being said, the Romans and their successors were marvelous engineers; the Middle Ages saw a boom of practically applied science--but that perhaps better reflects industrial bonuses than science bonuses.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Then why could a "small" country like England threaten China and India for so long and even install governors in India? Why were China and India so unimportant for several centuries?

I agree on population. But wasn't the population surge during industrialization due to advances in health and food?

It wasn't because there was much land or resources. The surge in growth was because much fewer children died, life expectancy rose and

Base and superstructure - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For places like China and India at the time, ‘culture’ held them back. The ruling systems were so complex and traditional they limited progress, to maintain the class base of their power.
Because England was so backward it allowed a space for the seeds of capitalism to break through and catapult their society ahead in technology.

I don’t think Western Civ should be scientific until the modern era. Seems like the modern era will start with early industrialization.
Keen to see The German Empire, Great Britain, The French Empire and America with a strong science and economic focus.

 

[Arent11]

I'd never noticed an underrepresentation of European civs as being scientific, so I did the numbers for Civ3:

Scientific:

Greece
Babylon
Germany
Russia
Persia
Ottomans
Korea
Sumeria
Byzantines

9/31 (29%)

European Scientific:

Greece, Germany, Russia, Byzantines, Ottomans
European tally: 13 (including Ottomans, not including Americans)

Ratio: 5/13 = 38%
Or 4/12 = 33% without the Ottomans
Or 4/13 = 31% without Ottomans but with Americans

So at least for Civ3, the ratio of scientific European civs is roughly the same as for all civs, slightly above if you count the Ottomans.

----

As for the question of "should European civilizations in general be more scientific than they are?" It depends on what time period of history you are looking at. Yes, from 1500 to 2000, Europe did quite well scientifically. But from 500 to 1500, not so much. And that's one of the challenges in choosing traits in a history-spanning game like Civilization - most civs have eras of scientific advancement and others of relative backwardness. China, Persia, Arabia - all had they day in the sun scientifically, but like Europe, they also had their days in the shade.

The new era system has the potential to tap into these era-specific scientific variations more. Though whether that would lead to engaging gameplay in an epic campaign setup is another question, and with only three eras, there might not be enough detail to highlight all the historical variations.

Yes, as I wrote in the OP, in civilization 4, a *huge* amount of European civs were philosophical (which was basically "scientific"). So that's again a reason why I like civ 4 so much.

So basically, I want that civ 7 does the same as civ 4/civ 3.

I would be completely fine if civ 7 makes Germans, Greek and Russians, Americans scientific. (Or English). Just like civ 3 or civ 4. These installments of civ did it 'right'.

May I point out that Germany in civ 3 was originally planned as expansive/commercial? And was changed to scientific because a *lot* of people (including me) made polls and the designers either had the same idea or actually listened to the civfanatics audience?

 

[IdiotStyle]

Really, from the beginning of history to 1500, not so much. Greek science was based almost entirely on Babylonian (and to a lesser extent Egyptian) science (though the Greeks made some important contributions in the field of mathematics). Roman science was based almost entirely on Greek science. That being said, the Romans and their successors were marvelous engineers; the Middle Ages saw a boom of practically applied science--but that perhaps better reflects industrial bonuses than science bonuses.

Yeah whenever i hear about roman inventions its basically stealing something invented by someone else they are at war with with a roman twist added on top