An intellectual's review

[Unimatrix11]

This is not a typical poly-thread as far as i can tell - just to keep you here...

See, you have a very healthy point of view on this: Civ is a game and better not think too much if it resembles reality or not - its just a game. But someone brought up, that it was more, that it contained elements of a simulator giving us the opportunity to learn from it. Then i (and others) said, that it could do that, but that it doesnt (and if it did, then it would be less fun).

Forgive me if the following sounds insulting, that is not its intentsion: The naivity that you express in the main sentence of your post is so "good and pure" that it is basically all that needs to be said to reply to those who say that civ was a sim (or contained meaningful elements thereof) - cause in order to do that one has to be ready to believe A LOT. It starts with the existence of the "omnicient force controlling all aspects of a [....] for over 6000 years" (a realistic simulation can not contain irreal actors / decision-makers) and it just goes on like that like you wrote it.

[DirtyMartini]

I guess that did sound a bit naive, but no offense taken for pointing it out. I don't think I'm really that naive, I just think the issue is a simple one.

I find the whole thread fascinating. Everyone is so invested in being right about what seems a completely trivial issue. The venom, condescension, and pretension fly from all sides. It's so over the top, I can't help but suspect it's all a sham -- Adam and Kuci are sitting next to each other blasting this all out just to see what kind of reaction they can get. Maybe, though, I don't know enough about internet forum debates and how they usually work. This example is so odd because all of the participants are so clearly intelligent, and the level of churlishness they've exhibited is usually reserved for arguments on the level of -- "Patriots sux" "Nah, they rulz, you sux". (Or politics and religion).

[Petrus2]

The internet brings out the childishness in people. It also, as does any anonymous forum, brings out the meanness.

And hey let's face it, what are the odds ANY of the primary antagonists will change their mind at this point??? The whole thing is really pretty pointless at this point due to that.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Petrus2
The internet brings out the childishness in people. It also, as does any anonymous forum, brings out the meanness.

Yeah, but most of the time when I lurk on Poly, people are pretty civil (off topic forums somewhat excluded), even when they disagree pretty vehemently. That's probably why I noticed, and why I've been so convinced it's a hoax/pointy-stick-poking session.

There hasn't been much new posted about gameplay lately, so it has been an interesting diversion. What's up with that, by the way? Everyone have this game clocked? Nothing new to say about strategy?

[wodan11]

Regarding the logic analogies.... back to the original assertion. Kuci said "population wasn't too highly correlated with high food production" and also that "Large metropolises didn't form because there were good farms nearby".

I asked about this, and he affirmed that large metropolises required nearby farms. That contradicts the statement that there wasn't a high correlation. It's a one-way correlation, but a correlation nonetheless.

Secondly, that large metropolises didn't arise because there were good farms nearby. Actually, they did. They also had other causal factors, yes. But that doesn't mean the good farms are not themselves a causal factor. Before mass transportation it would be effectively impossible for the large metropolis to arise without the good farms nearby.

Wodan

[Krill]

Large metropoli require farms to feed the population, though, as in the case with Rome and Eygpt, the farms could be on another continent. The fact that there are large farms in an area does not mean that that specific area has to have large metropoli. That is Kucis' assertion. The limiting factor is the distance one can transport food before it spoils. While it does require a greater popuklation to grow more food in a preindustrised time period, huge metropoli of farmers weren't needed...

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Petrus2
The internet brings out the childishness in people. It also, as does any anonymous forum, brings out the meanness.

And hey let's face it, what are the odds ANY of the primary antagonists will change their mind at this point??? The whole thing is really pretty pointless at this point due to that.

I seriously consider every post. I wasnt too sure of my opinion when this all started - actually you can watch waver back and forth for a while in the middle pages (mind the "p") for some time. The discussion finally led me to think that civ is even less of a simulation than i might have thought before. So: Even if you dont count me to be among the primary antagonist, this discussion at least caused someone (me) to think about the whole thing without pre-formed concrete opinion.

[Adam Weishaupt]

I don't deny that I may have become more fixed in my position because the tone of criticism leveled against me was juvenile and asinine. This isn't something that emerged because of my own tone -- the initial critiques came across as anything but rational insights. Perhaps I gave as good as I got, but even my disdain was genuine. Kuciwalker provoked a thought or two along the way, but I believe the extent to which I have engaged the substance of his arguments is more evidence of patience than evidence of dismissiveness. Hindsight, and his own long history of never conceding error in numerous other clashes here, suggest much of that effort to be responsive was foreseeable waste, save perhaps where it may have been read by others.

Insofar as there is still discussion ongoing about the relationship between food and population, it is also worthy of note that until recently (or even today in some parts of the world) the threat of famine was persistent. From year to year there are variations in harvests. Without a consistent surplus, no buffer existed to prevent crisis from even a slightly lean year. Taking this consideration into account strengthens the justification for a model in which a region is not credited with useful population growth until substantial sustained agricultural surpluses have been demonstrated.

A superficial analysis would hold that variable harvests should be modeled by a incorporating a random element in food production from turn to turn. Yet Civ's approach is more meaningful in the context of population growth -- the specifics of those fluctuations are irrelevant noise while the relevant signal is the ability to sustain the surplus of working acreage.

Incidentally, it may also be worth noting (apart from offering a reminder that Rome was an extreme anomaly rather than an example of how ancient cities generally obtained their food) that even interpretations of history holding that most Roman bread was made with imported grain still do not hold that the Italian countryside ceased agricultural productivity. Instead those interpretations suggest that Roman agriculture shifted its emphasis from wheat and barley to pricier commodities like fruit and nuts. I place stock in the source I cited earlier regarding what a gray area this is.

Still, whether cereal imports to Rome were supplemental or vital, it remains the case that food production was a way of life in much of the surrounding countryside. Keeping that in mind shifts the criticism from a "big cities shouldn't need to be surrounded by farms" to "the existing approach to trade may minimize the extent to which one nation can become dependent on food imports from another." I grant that in modernity the situation changes, but for most of the eras Civilization spans, I still see this sort of criticism as less absolute proof the model is absurd and more a possibility that it may feature a specific imperfection.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Unimatrix11]

Could it be that it was that surplus of food, that was sold to neighboring communities, resulting in the trade, which then in turn atracted more people to the city ? Is this the gordian knot ?

[Unimatrix11]

So in one year one community had good crops and the other bad crops and so they started to trade. So the dawn of civilization was caused by: a bad crop ! In the end it might be the same what started it, thats gonna end it: climate change... but thats a different topic...

[Adam Weishaupt]

Incidentally, I still don't get how someone could deny the idea that the game contains elements of a macroeconomic simulation. I disagree with, but can understand, a claim about the model being of poor quality. However, if we recognize that there is a model of economic activity taking place on a national level in the game engine, and we further recognize that it isn't a real economy, that can only lead to the conclusion that Civ's economic model is a simulation. It is not a historical simulation like Europa Universalis, but the standard game is not intended to simulate history. I'm just wondering where this "it's not a sim" comes from.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Unimatrix11]

From attending classes about simulation.

[Unimatrix11]

Okay it does contain elements of a simulation, but not to any noteworthy extent - at least not for a game with that title. Its like saying "it contains green, too" when talking about a picture - obviously i dont have to name that picture, cause it could be anyone...

[Adam Weishaupt]

I wasn't asking for you to profess authority. I was asking for you to explain the underlying thinking. I could say, "well, I think it does because I invented simulations!" or something more plausible but still authoritative. Even when they are legitimate, credentials are still pointless to drag into online discussions between natural skepticism and the fact that they don't actually shed a bit of light on the underlying issue.

If you cannot explain why you believe Civ does not contain elements of a macroeconomic simulation to a noteworthy extent, perhaps you could offer up an example of something that actually does. Assuming you do not believe macroeconomic simulations are mythic entities, then hopefully you can provide an example of the kind that we might scrutinize for useful comparison. Better still would be such an example accompanied by a few thoughts on why it meets your criteria.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
Even when they are legitimate, credentials are still pointless to drag into online discussions between natural skepticism and the fact that they don't actually shed a bit of light on the underlying issue.

false.

If you cannot explain why you believe Civ does not contain elements of a macroeconomic simulation to a noteworthy extent, perhaps you could offer up an example of something that actually does. Assuming you do not believe macroeconomic simulations are mythic entities, then hopefully you can provide an example of the kind that we might scrutinize for useful comparison. Better still would be such an example accompanied by a few thoughts on why it meets your criteria.

Sim City

too lazy for examples. figure it out.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

pieceâ„¢