Quoth Sid: "We're not trying to duplicate history," he said. "We're trying to provide you with the tools, the elements of history and let you see how it would work if you took over."
It is time to clarify what we mean by historical accuracy in order to understand the ways in which the Civ games are historical games, and which ways they are not. In order to do so it is necessary to discuss alternate history, and some terms.
WI = What-if, a question we ask about history
"my favorite WI's revolve around confederate victory in the American Civil War"
TL = time line, a sequence of events
OTL = Original Time line, the actual sequence of events which occurred in history
"the germans developed the panzer tank, in OTL"
ATL = Alternative Timelines, Proposed alternative sequence of historical events. "in my ATL the Confederate victory leads to an economically weaker North, and Thomas Edison emigrates to Germany, creating a Germany storng enough to conquer the world." ATL's may be likely, plausible, possible, or impossible.
POD = Point of departure, the point where events change to create an ATL. Must be carefully specified, to determine if the ATL is plausible. "if the POD for your confederate victory is rebel win at Antietam, followed by British intervention, dont forget that this would mean a different Britain, even more than a different Germany"
ASB's = Alien space bats - deus ex machina invoked to create an otherwise impossible POD. "im interested in determing which British pols would have collaborated with the Nazis. To avoid rehashing endless discussions of the feasibilty of Sea Lion, lets simply say that ASB's enable the Germans to cross the channel".
All historical games involve some degree of alt history. Main difference is the timing and scope of the POD.
In say, The operational art of war korea scenario, the game start is June 1950, and the difference is that you are the theatre commander of one side (for this discussion lets say the allied side) You may give your units orders different from those of OTL - eg while OTL the allies landed at Inchon, you may choose to land elsewhere, thus establishing a POD and an ATL. If i do so I would not expect to get the same results as in OTL. EG if i land all my reinforcements at Pusan I should not get the sweeping victory MacArthur got in OTL.This is not inaccurate - it is ahistorical, but it IS accurate, since it proceeds on an ATL. On the other hand the ATL's that proceed from a POD in an historical game should be roughly plausible. If my armor units can keep operating at 100% strenght for months after having been cut off from fuel supplies, that is an impossible ATL, and renders the game "historically inaccurate"
On the other hand it is possible to retain historical results and thereby create historically impossible situations. Suppose one creates a Civ WW2 scenario in which the Germans automatically get a battleship (in the events file) in spring 1941. Now suppose that in this game Italy does not ally with Germany, Germany never conquers west europe, and the BEF takes the GErman north sea and Baltic coasts while German forces are engaged in eastern europe (not terribly plausible, but stay with me) Then the Germans get a battleship even though they have no ports!!!!!! Now in OTL the Germans did get a battleship in sping 1941 - the Bismarck. But in this ATL it is impossible. We have an historically accurate result, but a dreadfully inaccurate game. It is this that I call "history on rails".
When people say Civ2 is "not about history" they are generally referring to one of three issues
A. They expect a game to replicate OTL, and dont understand that a game about AH can be historically accurate. In particular they are more distressed with Civ because of its long time frame.
A game about say the Battle of the Bulge will only last a few weeks. By the time the game ends dramatically ahistorical things may have happened (like the Germans winning) but Americans and Germans will still be fighting in Belgium. In civ, with a 4000 BC POD, ATLs may diverge more dramatically from OTL. Rome may create a global empire, and build nuclear weapons. Though this may be ACCURATE, it is too AH for some people.
B. In a traditional wargame one has historically accurate starting positions - the POD for the TOAW Korea is an accurate map of Korea, with the historical starting deplyments for the armies. In CIv2's original game this is not so - the POD is a different earth, with different groups of starting civs. The POD is ahistorical. This is remedied by playing historical scenarios which have more accurate POD's.
C. The CIv engine creates implausible AH's. An easy example - no supply model in civ - SO - in WW2 scenario, 1941 POD, Rommel and the Afrika Corps proceed across the Sahara desert from Libya toward Khartoum. This is inaccurate NOT because it differs from OTL, but because even with a POD in which Rommel tries it, success is impossible - the Germans would have died of thirst long before arriving at Khartoum.
The A type issues do not make Civ game where fun trumps history - they make it a game where alternate history is fun. The B type issues are a choice. You can play like that, or you can play on a real world map, or just with civs that would actually have been around at a given date, or in a detailed scenario. C type issues DO detract from historical accuracy - but some are more important than others. While Civ2 had large and small inaccuracies of this sort, it is still remarkable how accurate it turns out to be, given the challenges of its borad scope and time frame.
LOTM
It is time to clarify what we mean by historical accuracy in order to understand the ways in which the Civ games are historical games, and which ways they are not. In order to do so it is necessary to discuss alternate history, and some terms.
WI = What-if, a question we ask about history
"my favorite WI's revolve around confederate victory in the American Civil War"
TL = time line, a sequence of events
OTL = Original Time line, the actual sequence of events which occurred in history
"the germans developed the panzer tank, in OTL"
ATL = Alternative Timelines, Proposed alternative sequence of historical events. "in my ATL the Confederate victory leads to an economically weaker North, and Thomas Edison emigrates to Germany, creating a Germany storng enough to conquer the world." ATL's may be likely, plausible, possible, or impossible.
POD = Point of departure, the point where events change to create an ATL. Must be carefully specified, to determine if the ATL is plausible. "if the POD for your confederate victory is rebel win at Antietam, followed by British intervention, dont forget that this would mean a different Britain, even more than a different Germany"
ASB's = Alien space bats - deus ex machina invoked to create an otherwise impossible POD. "im interested in determing which British pols would have collaborated with the Nazis. To avoid rehashing endless discussions of the feasibilty of Sea Lion, lets simply say that ASB's enable the Germans to cross the channel".
All historical games involve some degree of alt history. Main difference is the timing and scope of the POD.
In say, The operational art of war korea scenario, the game start is June 1950, and the difference is that you are the theatre commander of one side (for this discussion lets say the allied side) You may give your units orders different from those of OTL - eg while OTL the allies landed at Inchon, you may choose to land elsewhere, thus establishing a POD and an ATL. If i do so I would not expect to get the same results as in OTL. EG if i land all my reinforcements at Pusan I should not get the sweeping victory MacArthur got in OTL.This is not inaccurate - it is ahistorical, but it IS accurate, since it proceeds on an ATL. On the other hand the ATL's that proceed from a POD in an historical game should be roughly plausible. If my armor units can keep operating at 100% strenght for months after having been cut off from fuel supplies, that is an impossible ATL, and renders the game "historically inaccurate"
On the other hand it is possible to retain historical results and thereby create historically impossible situations. Suppose one creates a Civ WW2 scenario in which the Germans automatically get a battleship (in the events file) in spring 1941. Now suppose that in this game Italy does not ally with Germany, Germany never conquers west europe, and the BEF takes the GErman north sea and Baltic coasts while German forces are engaged in eastern europe (not terribly plausible, but stay with me) Then the Germans get a battleship even though they have no ports!!!!!! Now in OTL the Germans did get a battleship in sping 1941 - the Bismarck. But in this ATL it is impossible. We have an historically accurate result, but a dreadfully inaccurate game. It is this that I call "history on rails".
When people say Civ2 is "not about history" they are generally referring to one of three issues
A. They expect a game to replicate OTL, and dont understand that a game about AH can be historically accurate. In particular they are more distressed with Civ because of its long time frame.
A game about say the Battle of the Bulge will only last a few weeks. By the time the game ends dramatically ahistorical things may have happened (like the Germans winning) but Americans and Germans will still be fighting in Belgium. In civ, with a 4000 BC POD, ATLs may diverge more dramatically from OTL. Rome may create a global empire, and build nuclear weapons. Though this may be ACCURATE, it is too AH for some people.
B. In a traditional wargame one has historically accurate starting positions - the POD for the TOAW Korea is an accurate map of Korea, with the historical starting deplyments for the armies. In CIv2's original game this is not so - the POD is a different earth, with different groups of starting civs. The POD is ahistorical. This is remedied by playing historical scenarios which have more accurate POD's.
C. The CIv engine creates implausible AH's. An easy example - no supply model in civ - SO - in WW2 scenario, 1941 POD, Rommel and the Afrika Corps proceed across the Sahara desert from Libya toward Khartoum. This is inaccurate NOT because it differs from OTL, but because even with a POD in which Rommel tries it, success is impossible - the Germans would have died of thirst long before arriving at Khartoum.
The A type issues do not make Civ game where fun trumps history - they make it a game where alternate history is fun. The B type issues are a choice. You can play like that, or you can play on a real world map, or just with civs that would actually have been around at a given date, or in a detailed scenario. C type issues DO detract from historical accuracy - but some are more important than others. While Civ2 had large and small inaccuracies of this sort, it is still remarkable how accurate it turns out to be, given the challenges of its borad scope and time frame.
LOTM
Comment