Civilization and History

[Jonkie]

Hi all,

I am writing a paper about Civilization as a part of a class at college. It is supposed to be a presentation of the game from a historical viewpoint. So I am looking for information about where the historical elements of Civilization have come from. Things like: where there any historians consulted, did the series use any historical books and on what kind of a basis where historical elements (like wonders and great people) selected and where did that information come from. Where there people working on the project with an historical background.

I would also be interessed in the reviews of the game and the number of copies sold.

I would like to thank anyone who replies for their help.

[snoopy369]

Sid Meier has done several interviews on the subject, it's pretty widely available, Google should find you that (or search around through our news articles on http://apolyton.net/civ4/ ). There are also many articles on the net about using Civ in an educational environment, which might have useful information for you (as it's typically in a history class).

I think the original wonders were based on the actual wonders of the world, and by the time it got to Civ4 it became something of a discussion of balancing time periods, world cultures, etc.

[Locutus]

Unless I am very, very much mistaken no professional historians were ever consulted at any point during the development of any of the Civ games. However, many of the designers of the game, from Sid Meier to Soren Johnson to Jon Shafer and also many of the community testers that helped develop Civ4 (such as myself) have an interest in history and have read many history books over the course of their lives, and have certainly drawn inspiration from that.

For example, for the original Civ1 Sid has said that he based the tech tree almost entirely on a book about the history of technology that he owns (I don't know that he's ever disclosed the name of that book), and Soren Johnson used the same book with Sid's notes when he worked on the tech trees for Civ3 and Civ4. I also know Soren is a fan of Guns, Germs and Steel, although the deterministic ideas presented in that book make it less suitable to use as basis for a computer game (you don't want the winner to be determined by starting position but by skill). However, in Civ4 much more than in previous games your early game strategy is quite strongly determined by what your starting terrain looks like, especially by what resources you have: if you have Corn in your radius you'll want to focus on researching Agriculture first, Marble will make you prioritise Masonry, if you lack Bronze and Iron you'll want to rush to Chariots and/or Horse Archers, etc. One could argue that that's simply a good gameplay mechanic and therefore clever design (which is true), but one could also say that was drawn from GG&S. Only Soren can say if that was indeed an inspiration but it makes perfect sense.

But most of the historical stuff in Civ is based on what the designers happen to have read, what books they happen to own or what facts they happen know about history. I don't believe any extensive research was done specifically for the game and no historians were consulted. That being said, Soren Johnson does have a BA in history, but he mastered in Computer Science and worked in the game industry since leaving college so he's not really followed up on that. (I have no idea how bachelor degrees are valued in the US but over here they're not all that -- still, it certainly pwns any historical background I have.) As far as I know is he's the only designer on the Civ series with such a background though, certainly the only lead designer.

And frankly for most of the game that's not what you want anyway: Civ is not a history simulator, it's a game. First and foremost it should be fun and the concepts in the game should be easily recognizable for the average player (and the average player from Firaxis's point of view is still American). Making sure everything is perfectly historically accurate and including all sorts of obscure historical references the average gamer doesn't understand would detract a lot from the gameplay. Some people argue that there's an educational aspect to Civ as well and I know that's in the minds of the developers, but fun trumps any other aspect: Civ is educational because it's fun, not fun because it's educational.

It's really only when it comes to labels, names of things that you can really delve into history (and even then only within limits). And in that respect things changed a little bit with Civ4, when they brought in the fans (such as myself) to help test the game very early on -- we were allowed to affect every aspect of the game, including the historical stuff. Soren felt strongly (and I very strongly agree) that the previous games were too US/Western-centric and could benefit from more globalisation but admitted he mostly didn't have the background to provide that and certainly didn't have time to research it himself, so he asked for help from the testers. I myself am responsible for a good number of the historical elements in the game: most Great People names, almost all city names in Warlords and BtS, a fair number of (unique/religious) unit/building/wonder names, many flag concepts (not art) and probably more that I'm forgetting.

Other fans contributed to the historical elements as well. E.g. I believe parts of the Civilopedia were written by one or two fans with a background in writing; the German city list was compiled by ColdFever, the webmaster of civilized.de (the premiere German Civ fansite); Rhye among other things helped a lot with the flags in the game (both coming up with concepts and making some of the artwork) and made a lot of the historical maps; Nolan did a lot of research for various scenarios (as did their respective designers, whether they were fans or Firaxians) and other people contributed in different ways as well. As far as I know none of these people have history degrees but they're all history buffs.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm certainly a big history buff and have read a good number of history books. However, when working on Civ4 I really wanted to get things right so I spent a good of time researching everything I contributed to the game, even if I thought I knew all about it already. So I spent a lot of time reading up on great scientists, engineers and merchants/explorers from Eastern Europe and ancient Egypt and Babylon, on the military and economy of the Holy Roman Empire and the Khmer, on religious buildings and holy sites in China and India, on city histories from Meso-America and Europe, etc. I especially spent a ridiculous amount of time researching the city lists for the new civs in Warlords and BtS -- far more than any company could justify spending with paid employees. I just really enjoy doing it...

So while Firaxis didn't consult any real historians they got a good deal more information than they could've afforded to research themselves or by hiring a proper consultant, if from people with little or no formal education or accomplishments in the area (personally I've minored in history but that doesn't count for much TBH).

As for sources, I relied on a many different sources depending on what I was looking for. My own book collection, my local public and university library and especially their online resources (I JSTOR) and frankly also a lot of the time just the open Internet. I'm usually highly skeptical of any non-expert sources whether it's Wikipedia*, Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Oxford Atlas of World History, but if you can't find useful expert articles on something you're looking for then comparing what multiple generic sources like those have to say and doing some googling will usually provide you with knowledge that's good enough for a game like Civ (not to mention I have a very extensive list of good history websites in my Favourites).

As for copies sold, before Civ4 was released 2K and Firaxis frequently said in press releases the game had sold over 5 million copies. As I understand it that's the sum of Civ1, Civ2, Civ3 and all their expansion packs (and things like Gold Editions, Limited Editions, Complete Editions, etc). Since Civ4 was released the number has been rising continuously obviously, but I'm pretty sure they're up to "over 8 million" now for the entire franchise (for Civ4 specifically it's 1.7 million last I heard, but I don't know if that includes expansions -- probably not).

There are hundreds if not thousands of reviews of the game available online, just google 'Civilization review' (or check meta-review sites like MetaCritic.com or GameRankings.com). I am of course biased but I feel the ones right here on Apolyton are pretty good. If you're looking for anything more specific, please specify.

* Although Wikipedia definitely ranks by far as the lowest on my list of trustworthiness, it's also by far the best place to find leads that you can then follow-up elsewhere, especially for pretty obscure stuff like Zulu city names or ancient Mesopotamian Great People.

[wodan11]

Wow, wtg Locutus. Jonkie, good luck with your project.

Wodan

[Jon Shafer]

Re: Civilization and History

Originally posted by Jonkie
Hi all,

I am writing a paper about Civilization as a part of a class at college. It is supposed to be a presentation of the game from a historical viewpoint. So I am looking for information about where the historical elements of Civilization have come from. Things like: where there any historians consulted, did the series use any historical books and on what kind of a basis where historical elements (like wonders and great people) selected and where did that information come from. Where there people working on the project with an historical background.

I would also be interessed in the reviews of the game and the number of copies sold.

I would like to thank anyone who replies for their help.

As Locutus said, most of the basis for Civilization is "wouldn't it be cool to rule an empire?" Many gameplay mechanics stem from that premise. Conquering your neighbors with armies, conducting diplomacy, building great wonders, improving your land, etc. Sid originally started with a concept that was very similar to SimCity. Civ I was actually a real-time game at one point, with much less focus on warfare, and more on improving your lands. Many of the features of the game were brought about by "hey, wouldn't this be cool?" and seeing if it works. Sid gets a lot of his ideas for games from books, and much of the original game is probably owed to a book or two Sid was reading at the time.

No professional historians were consulted for the games, but Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 4 and co-designer of Civ 3) and myself both have Bachelor degrees in History. Although they don't have degrees in the subject, Sid, Brian Reynolds and Alex Mantzaris all have a strong interest in it as well.

In my own design work on Civ 4 and the expansions, there were quite a few books I referenced, ranging from Oxford's Atlas of World History to a variety of Osprey history books. Soren gave me a book on ancient Mesopotamia, which he may have used with Civ 4. Much of the Civilopedia is written by consulting books and various online sources. So while there wasn't a lot of in-depth professional research for the games, there was at least a fair bit of reading done.

Good luck with your paper, hopefully this information will be useful to you Jonkie.

Jon

[Verrucosus]

On the last page of the Civ1 manual, there's a "further reading" section listing some of the books "examined" (whatever that means). Just going by the title, "A History of Scientific Ideas" might be the one mentioned by Locutus.

The Civ1 manual also includes a 20-page section "The Dynamics of Civilization". It consists of a short discussion of the essential elements of a civilised society and a mini "history of the world" mentioning each civilization advance from the game at least once.

I am confident that none of this background information kept the designers in any way from making the player's experience as entertaining (rather than educational) as possible, but it gives the game a certain flair that was never quite captured in the later version. For example, you could set up the civilopedia in a way that the text entry would be shown whenever a new advance was discovered. In a way that reinforced the player's immersion, his feeling of reliving the history of civilisation. In the more recent games, the civilopedia text is always one or more clicks away which is more than most players bother with in the middle of a game.

If you are looking for actual history in Civilization, you should look at the scenarios. That should give you a lot of material to discuss. (How accurate are the setups? Would the way that scenarios can play out have been possible outcomes in real history?)

However, even from a history lover's perspective, it's not the scenarios, but the standard game that makes playing Civilization such a fascinating experience. The standard game is so heavily randomized that it cannot even be considered a "what if" history. It may get you to think about the real world (see the "Intellectual's Review" thread for a somewhat over-the-top example), but it's not about the real world anymore as soon as you use a random map. Still, as unhistoric as it is, the game can give you a sense of history that is very difficult to describe.

An association (one that reminds me of my age) would be the old BBC documentary "Civilisation" about the history of Western art. The first programme discusses the fall of Rome and the survival of European civilisation during the dark ages in places like Iona and Skellig Michael. At the end of the very last programme (dealing with the late 19th and 20th century), they show, very slowly and without further commentary, shots of many of the works of art that had been covered (Sistine Chapel, Chartres Cathedral etc.), moving backwards in time and ending with one of the coastal refuges discussed in the first programme. It's very effective when you see it and it's the same feeling that you get - in a decidedly less educational, but more entertaining way, when you pause in the middle of a space race and remember that all of this started two nights ago with nine empty squares and a settler unit.

In that very abstract way, Civilization is, after all, about history, not about the specifics, but about allowing you for once and in a fictional context to see the whole of it.

Anyway, good luck with your paper, Jonkie. Please come back to post a summary when you are finished.

P.S.: As a teaching tool, Civilization is much more valuable in mathematics than in history classes. A friend of mine wanted to use the Civ2 combat mechanism to teach statistics. Fortunately, both for the sanity of his class and the success of his teaching career, he gave up on that.

[Solver]

You will also find that people who designed historical mods for the BtS expansion have a high degree of interest in history. Road to War (a World War 2 mod that includes a historically accurate mode) was made by Dale Kent. He has a degree in computing but he also has a strong interest in history. Rhye's and Fall of Civilization is a very popular mod created with historical gameplay in mind - a version has been included in BtS. It's designed by Gabriele Travato (Rhye), another designer for whom world history is a great interest - Rhye has a very good knowledge of history. Jon has a history degree, like he says, and did a historical post-release scenario for Civ4, about the American revolutionary war.

The really big influences are visible also in city lists, flags, civilopedia and the like. Locutus mentions it - he helped with city lists a lot, Rhye with the flags, Sullla helped heavily with the vanilla Civilopedia, I had a hand in the Mayan-related pedia writeups, and I believe Paul Murphy of Firaxis also did something related for BtS (Jon will correct me if I'm wrong).

Good luck with the paper, it should be really interesting

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Jon Shafer
No professional historians were consulted for the games, but Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 4 and co-designer of Civ 3) and myself both have Bachelor degrees in History.

Interesting, I knew you knew a lot about history but I didn't know you actually had a degree in it.

Originally posted by Verrucosus
On the last page of the Civ1 manual, there's a "further reading" section listing some of the books "examined" (whatever that means). Just going by the title, "A History of Scientific Ideas" might be the one mentioned by Locutus.

That's the one.

The Civ1 manual also includes a 20-page section "The Dynamics of Civilization". It consists of a short discussion of the essential elements of a civilised society and a mini "history of the world" mentioning each civilization advance from the game at least once.

Cool, I don't remember that at all and I think I read that manual front to back at least 3 times. Unfortunately I lost it years ago I do have the Chronicles CD with digital manuals (untouched so far), I'll have to check that out...

P.S.: As a teaching tool, Civilization is much more valuable in mathematics than in history classes. A friend of mine wanted to use the Civ2 combat mechanism to teach statistics. Fortunately, both for the sanity of his class and the success of his teaching career, he gave up on that.

IMO Civilization as a teaching tool is most useful if you make the students design their own scenarios. Trying to apply the abstract concepts of Civ gameplay to real history isn't nearly as meaningful as trying to abstract the concepts of real history in the form of Civ gameplay.

In mathematics, yeah, it's just gonna drive you mad

[Saygame]

As I bow with admiration to the obvious and ample creative genius of these prior posters I would like to add an observation.

While Civ is a fun game first and foremost, to me, Civ shines as a highly demonstrative historical eyepiece viewing two constant threads within humanity practiced thoughout human history. Civ offers (for me) thought provoking awareness of these two constant threads that run the entire bandwidth of human history: human desire for power (dominance) and human desire for safety (survival).

When my tanks roll over a neighboring country in Civ, in my attempt to obtain his aluminum, it is motivated by my premptive desire for game safety. The safety that this resource gives my country ensures superior modern armor. And this, in turn, seems, to me, to help guarantee continuing safety for my own country from other would be aggressors in the game. The desire to therefore conquer other country's resources seems to lead to my own society's continued survival. And while this is a debatable historical paradox, it would seem to have been a common leadership mantra thoroughout the ages: that out of aggression lies a group's safety. Civ, the game, can demonstrate and replicate that attitude.

The need for group safety could serve as a simplistic rationale and possible explanation for Western involvement in IRAQ today. Without "stability" and an assurance of some increasing Western control in an oil producing neck of the world, our mechanized society remains more at risk (i.e.-unsafe). This example is not meant to argue the rectitude of current US envolvement in IRAQ , but rather to show the possible transference of themes in the real world to Civ, the game.
If you want a less timeframed emotional example, take the Suez Canal incident of the fifties between the Egyptians, French and English. Same principles at work I think.

In a game of Civ, my successful game aggression enhances my own sense of continuing game safety. Without possessing the game resources of oil, aluminum, copper and iron in the game, it is easy for me to fear for my country's future game safety. A simplistic, yet for me, exacting replica of world history.

This leads to the other historical thread of dominance (one might opine "winning" as a synonym for dominance). There seems to be an inherent human trait (or maybe a learned one) that leads some to favor the concept of "power over" rather than "power with". It is readily observable in any country's history given a sampling of some length. Civ's preoccupation with winning the game by proving the dominanace of one's gameplay is kind of a benign form of this. And human history is replete with more sinister examples. From Julius Caesar's "might is right" to Machiavelli's "the end justifies the means" to the Nazi party's "Weltpolitik" the examples of "I shall dominate you because I can" is exemplified with the use of many of Civ's game mechancis.
Does this not present one fundamental mirror of much of our real world and its history so far?

The word "power" has suffered a denegrating fate as I equate it solely to think "power over" when I hear the word. Experientially, it comes from my remembrance at some point in my life being "overpowered" against my own will. And I forget power can also be used in the phrase "power with". The act of joining "powers" to create more together than separately. And while the game gives many more examples of the use of "power over" (as does history) it also gives us other possiblities to explore and postulate change (i.e.-teams, "no war" scenarios and permanent alliances).

There is a piece of winning a game that has its feet firmly planted in dominance. Being better than. Being more powerful. Being masterfully dominant. My team is better than your team. To me, this is an inherent human trait that weaves its way into all human history.

In tracing the thread of dominance, I believe Civ creates a simple yet excellently interpretative view of human history. It acts as a simplistic microscope observing the fabric of human nature and its role in our human history. From prior posts I think this is no coincedence. Civ is a game borne of historians, often feeding historians. And while it is just a game, I think the view it can render is one of stunningly real. One can play and experientially see and feel where humankind has been and where it can go from here.

The world's history of standing defensive and offensive armies as well as pursuing military technological developments are high priorities for governments. Offense and defense follow these two basic threads: desire for safety and desire for dominance.

The game, in simplistic form, shows us our own history as it traces our historical methods of chasing our desires and rendering our fears impotent.

My response to the never ending question of "why can't we all just get along" is because of our individual and group fears of the potential for being in each other's bondage. At least so far in human history. I think and hope that human spirtual and consciousness evolvement may one day lead to a different world indeed. The game Civ, to me, renders a graphically beautiful view of where we have been and allows me to ponder and postulate, with hope, where we can go.

And it was done for me with a game.

I hope this adds some philosophical perspective that is useful for your paper, Jonkie.

Wayne

[Solver]

Originally posted by Locutus
Interesting, I knew you knew a lot about history but I didn't know you actually had a degree in it.

While Jon was born with the perestroika about to start and has never, I believe, left the US, his thesis was on the Cold War

[Theben]

For the civIII List we did have a professional historian working on it, IIRC the poster Didorus Sicilius(sp?). But I haven't seen him since then.

[absimiliard]

I would be curious if the television history show Connections written and narrated by the historian John Burke had some influence on the tech-trees we have in Civ.

I am a history buff myself, and took my bachelors in archaelogy, and always felt that the show shared a vast number of similarities to the game. Not so much in the sometimes obscure connections that John Burke mentions specifically in the show but more in the concept of how technological development goes in general.

But what I'm really here to point out is that no one has mentioned the board game Civilization by Francis Tresham and wondered if it influenced our beloved computer game. Initially published in Britain by someone who I forget and in the US by Avalon Hill it focused on the Mediterranean in the ancient age and seems an obvious antecedant to Sid Meiers game. In particular the tech-tree shows what seems to be it's influence.

Jonkie should probably investigate the historical influences that led to that game as well if there is a connection. I'd be very interested in knowing if there's an actual link or if it just looks that way.

Oh, and I also would love to see the results of his research. But I would understand if he's reluctant to post it to an internet site like us. (although I hope he does)

-absimiliard

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by absimiliard
But what I'm really here to point out is that no one has mentioned the board game Civilization by Francis Tresham and wondered if it influenced our beloved computer game. Initially published in Britain by someone who I forget and in the US by Avalon Hill it focused on the Mediterranean in the ancient age and seems an obvious antecedant to Sid Meiers game. In particular the tech-tree shows what seems to be it's influence.

Although it's often cited as one of Sid's sources, he's always said it was really SimCity and Risk which brought most of the inspiration.

Jon

[absimiliard]

Ah, so they're coevals from the same concepts rather than one being descended from the other. Cool.

Almost a pity though, since it seems like such a good fit. Of course seeing excellent fits that aren't actually so is pretty common in real history too. *laughs*

Thanks Jon.

-abs

[Jon Shafer]

Yeah, you might say the desire to rule an empire isn't exactly an original one.

Jon