Guns, Germs, & Steel

[bignickel]

Is anyone here familiar with the book by Jarod Diamond? I was interested in playing or making a mod that utilized the ideas in his book (geography determines game difficulty, etc)

bignickel

[bignickel]

I did find this site: http://civ3.sourceforge.net/. Couldn't find any mention of Jarod Diamond, but I have emailed them to inquire. Looks like a Civ-like game, not a mod.

Patrick

[heardie]

Well thats strange, we exist here on apolyton. go to the forum list, then go the other agmes, and GGS.

And the websitie is http://ggstoc.sourceforge.net

[bignickel]

Well, all the forums in the alt Civ section still seem to be unavailable. Tried the link; looks like there are 2 websites for GG&S. The link you provided mentions Jarod Diamond.

How many of Jarod's ideas/theories are being incorporated into the game? The concepts of domesticatable plants/animals availability, as well as the development of disease, would certainly prove interesting in a Civ-type game.

bignickel

[HardWay]

Hmmm... interesting. For those who haven't read _Germs Guns & Steel_. It's essentially the Geographic determinism argument, from an evolutionary biologist/anthropologist perspective.

The big points that Diamond makes are:

a) Food, of all kinds, have gotten better over time through human selection and cultivation. For example, the grain of the sumerians was tiny and more grass-like than the giant, robust grain of today. This is also true of food animals, like cows and pigs.

b) food, and the evolution of food products determined the growth and viability of ancient civilizations. Civilizations could spread more easilly into an area that was geographically similar to where they came from, because their tools for feeding themselves were the same. Whereas, to spread into a completely different area, you have to completely re-invent a new way of feeding yourself.

c) Therefore, it is easier for civilizations to spread east-west, than north-south, since earth's terrain is banded with the earth. Civilizations which start which have to spread along a skinny north-south oriented continent, are pretty much stuck.

d)It is also important to have animal protien sources. Some geographies (S. America) simply had no protein sources available, leading to things like poor nutrition, as well as canibalism.

e) Animals for labor is another big advantage: you don't have to have humans doing that work, they provide vastly improved transportation. Many continents (Africa, Australia) simply do not have any animals which can be domesticated. Not all peoples had them.

f) Geography determines type of government. For example, Europe is a very geographically varied area, so it developed many diverse cultures and political entities.

g) More trade leads to more contact with other people. That leads to more diseases and epidemics, which lead to higher immunity, after some time. S. America was virtually destroyed by European diseases, which spread far faster than the Europeans themselves.

Being an evolutionary biologist first, his arguments presuppose that humans are unthinking in their behaviour. He gives the example of the chinese treasure fleet, that reached as far as south africa, in the 1200's (!) only to be completely abandoned forever because of political struggles within imperial china. Compare this to individualistic Europe, with one wildcatting crackpot (Christophoro Columbo) who takes a longshot and discovers the new world.

He calls this 'other cultural factors', but you could also call that IDEOLOGY. At that point, the geographic determinism argument breaks down. But it's still a very thought provoking book.

So, how could you apply that to a civ 3 environment? Well, that's open for discussion. My initial thoughts, in no particular order, are:

It would have to be in the early game, mainly. (Really, Diamond is talking about prehistoric peoples.)

You'd need a much more complex series of food-cultivation-related techs, that applied to the various geographies; grasslands, floodplains, and so on. Maybe you'd have a tech for each type of terrain, so you'd tend to expand along the lines of each terrain type. You'd need to research 'whaling' before you'd benefit from the whales, resource, etc. but some civs would start with 'whaling'.

Maybe these techs are given out at the beginning of the game, and have to be traded, but can only be researched much later in the tree. (so they couldn't just become lost)

You probably would want to make mountians just flat-out impassable, so that major ranges would be more major barrier to growth.

The disease / immunity angle would be really hard to implement with the current system. There aren't even any disease settings in the editor...

Having pack animals should be an important resource, allowing greater mobility or trade through your empire. Some (pigs) would be good for food, but not for commerce, whereas others (cattle) would be good for both.


Hope this helps the discussion!


Hardway

__________________________________________________ _
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia - 1787

[bignickel]

I'm more than halfway thru Diamond's book; from what I understand so far, a strong centralized government goes hand and hand with statehood; however, that same strength can be ultimately become a weakness (aka China's decision). So: geography, domesticatable plants/animals, diseases, are all of crucial importance in the formations and fates of societies; but the odds of success can be still be pushed in one direction or another by individuals in a strong regional government (aka the emperor). So, no, I don't think that Diamond presents humans as unthinking; they just don't have access to 20/20 hindsight that modern humans do. They can't forsee that building their chiefdom into state is going to bring about massive irrigation projects (which, whether true or not, would be of interest to them), or that by having large cities they will cultivate diseases that will wipe out the natives of the lands they eventually will invade.

G forbid that this turn into a thread about whether Diamond was correct about this or that idea; there's threads enough out there for that. Rather, I'm interested in a game that deals more with the earlier pre-histories of man, that is fun to play but at the same time educational.

The Civ series certainly gives the player a good lesson in resource management in managing a chiefdom/state throughout history. The non-player lacks this knowledge, and can second-guess any particular ruler's decisions in history, without understanding many factors that led to the decisions being made. One of the many reasons I suspect that people have enjoyed the Civ series (besides it's addictive playability, among other things).

However, there is still more that such a simulation could do. Too many people unfamiliar with Diamond's book simply think "well, why didn't so & so invent the alphabet? You have to have alphabet if you want the Monarchy tech!" The second-guessing still occurs too often even among players, who are, or were, like myself, unknowledgable about the general lack of domesticatable animals and plants outside the Fertile Crescent, the competition between farming and hunter-gatherer, the formation of tightly-knit communities arising from a switch to a farming culture, the first practical uses of an alphabet, etc.

I certainly was astounded by many of these ideas; I may not be an anthopology buff, but I certainly hope that I keep an eye on what's going on in matters scientific/historical (I can't be the only one listening to Science Friday, can I? ), and I had not heard of many of the ideas that Diamond presented in his book.

If I had my druthers, the level of difficulty would be determined by:
1. Placement of domesticatable plants/animals
2. East/west, North/south orientation
3. Accessibility of other cultures (aka isolation/non-isolation)
4. and finally, for the really tough games: NO tech tree. You can still pursue active techs, but what they lead to is been 'somewhat' randomized (ie alphabet may NOT be a prerequisite for monarchy) (NOTE: I've played Civ2 extensively, but haven't installed my Civ3 Xmas present yet; I don't know if alphabet is still a prereq for monarch in civ3)

bignickel

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ive read it. Its intense and you cannot read it in a week or 2. YOu need to read a few pages at a time and then digest for a few days, then continue. His book has so many ideas which just blow your mind

[Kal-el]

Is anyone still working on this project?

I am in the process of reading the book and have tried to incorporate as much of Diamonds theories as I could into my mod, but there is only so much that can be done given the limited parameters of Civ3. I would love to a full blown game based soley on his theories.

Hope you guys haven't given up.

[Bane Star]

Originally posted by bignickel
4. and finally, for the really tough games: NO tech tree. You can still pursue active techs, but what they lead to is been 'somewhat' randomized (ie alphabet may NOT be a prerequisite for monarchy)

bignickel

I've Allways thought that seeing what technology will arrize from current technology is a bit of a "hindsight Ability' and not something that should be 'allowable' Somehow If I could Turn off the actual tech chosen, but players chose to put thier research into a field of research such as.. Military, Economic, Happiness, Sciences, etc etc would be more appropriate. Then after the given number of Turns, The Tech is 'discovered' and the player only Now knows what to do with the tech.

I've Incororated some of these ideas into My Mod, I had them as concepts but thanks to this thread they make more sense as actual game parameters, especially having a set of Techs that while discoverable later in the game, Are Terrain/Racialy avaiable at the start, Allowing players who 'stick' to the terrain that thier race knows and prospers, they will have a greater growth than If they venture into different climates and terrains they will have difficulty adapting.