Alternate history and historical accuracy

[lord of the mark]

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

[lockstep]

Normally I don´t rate threads, but I gave this one five stars.

Congratulations, LOTM, for a 'civilized' essay about the greatest game series so far.

(And I wish I didn´t know about the dawning Civ3 multiplayer fiasco.)

[KrazyHorse]

Good points, LOTM.

Now, for the "historically accurate, unrealistic" situations inherent in Civ 3 (I know you want to talk about this):

Civ abilities are not a problem. Why? Because you have a choice before you start the game. Ignore the fact that the civs are called certain things, and imagine your choice of civ as determined solely by its civ abilities. This isn't "history on rails"; it's just a choice of playing style, as long as you don't care what your civ is called.

Golden Ages are not much of a problem, if implemented correctly. In other words, they need to take into account the Civ abilities. If it is noticed that at a certain point in development militarist/scientific civs were historically dominant, whereas at another point the religious/commercial civs came out on top, then the GA is simply a recognition by the designers that there are certain historical factors not yet understood which favour industrious/expansionist civs at the dawn of the Iron Age.

The real problem is in the CSUs. It is unrealistic for the Brits to start out as a land-locked civ and end up with an enhanced Man-O'-War. However, if the Firaxis team was nice enough to somehow guarantee that a civ's CSU determined its geographical placement on the map, and that its CSU corresponded to the same timeframe as itsGA, then I'd be in heaven...

[Sirotnikov]

So, if you have a POD of 4000BC, and you create a compltely alternate history, isn't an attempt to "straighten" the AH with unique units for the game, actually disrupt the whole idea of making AH??!!

Yes it does!!

In a different history I don't want the germans to invent the panzer EVERY TIME.

I would understand if those were early units. But, comeon.

To have a POD of 4000 BC and then have 20th century units (like plains for USA and RUSSIA and tank for GERMANY) exactly the same for each civ, is very bad logic.

[KrazyHorse]

Ah, but not if the devlopers find that civs tend to fall into, say, 16 historical "types". It's simply an attempt to account for "unknown factors" that cause this to happen.

[lord of the mark]

Krazy

First - though the civ-specific issues are in the background, i did mean this as a response to comments some have made on the Times article, and broader historical issues, not just another salvo in the civ-specific war, wherein I have come to terms with the result. (surely you noticed that I had ceased to post on it lately?)

That said, let me respond to your gracious post.

I largely agree with you. I agree that from the point of view I have enunciated the CSUs are more of a problem than the other two features.

I also agree that the civ specific abilities COULD be realistic. Only 3 issues. 1 - the particular combos are designed for balance - one of each, not accuracy. 2. At least in the original game, the identification of particular traits with named historical civs is problematic

Both of these problems could be resolved in scenarios however. Indeed I can envision scenario makers doing great things with the abilities - asking what abilities did say the Carthiginians, Macedonian, Romans, etc have at the beginning of the Punic war, and implementing them. That is the bright side of the abilities.

The negative side (number 3) is that in the original game the same abilities will last for 6000 years. While that makes sense for some civs (eg China) it makes little sense for most - civs like the Germans, Greeks, Brits, changed over time in response to circumstances.

As for golden ages - I can see your point. Let me rephrase it.
In every game there are some things that are taken as given and are not modeled within the game. For example in civ certain infantry units (pikemen) have superior skills in defeating attacking cavalry. One could ask a WI - what if cavalry tactics had been such that pikemen had no advantage against cavalry - a nice WI, but one which Civ is incapable of addressing - and rightfully so, it falls at the wrong scope for civ. In this case the OTL result (the superiority of Pikemen) is taking as given, a result of "unknown" factors, because this kind of tactical question is NOT what this game is designed to model. Similarly the superiority of an industrious religious civ during the Bronze age is a given, its not what we expect this game to model.

From the point of view of formal logic your case is unassailable (unlike so many that have been made on this subject). However I think it is incorrect. What kind of civ will thrive in what era and under what conditions is PRECISELY what civ IS designed to model - on an island commercial republicis work well, on small continent with lots of close enemies militarism is best, on a large, continent with more spaced civs peaceful expansionism works well
- similarly expansion is important early, then trade and science, finally production and war. (or production and diplomacy, or presumably in civ3, production and cultural growth) The ability of Civ2 to deliver these generally historically accurate patterns without having them built in, purely because of the dynamics of the gameplay, is Civ2's glory. To build in these patterns as based on unknowns seems to me a cop-out on the part of Firaxis.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

sirotnikov

Yes, i agree - to some extent what i wanted to do here was to introduce the language common in AH discussions (eg on soc.history.what-if) as a way of clarifying these issues. The German Panzer is an extreme case, since there are many ATL's one can propose that lead to Germans not being superior in armor tactics in mid 20thc. OTOH it has become clear lately that the CSU's are really there to sequence the golden ages, which, a KH has pointed out, present a different set of issues.

LOTM

[jdlessl]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
WI = What-if, a question we ask about history
"my favorite WI's revolve around confederate victory in the American Civil War"

More definitions

I see there is someone else here who frequents soc.history.what-if.

--
Jared Lessl

[Stefu]

The term 'AsB' alone tells that we have soc.history.what-if'er here.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

OTL = Original Time line, the actual sequence of events which occurred in history
"the germans developed the panzer tank, in OTL"

Not sure what LOTM is trying to say here. Panzer is German for tank, IIRC, so naturally only the Germans are able to develop something called a panzer since other countries would apply native language name to their tanks. Would it not be highly improbably that the Russian create tanks and give it a German name?

Also, what is TOAW Korea?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Ya lost me here. If I choose to punch out of Pusan, it is possible that I can achieve the sweeping "victories" achieved by MacArthur, The statement "I should not get the sweeping victory." is problematic. It creates confusion about the "this" in the next sentence. Does the "this" refer to landing reinforcements at Pusan or does it refer to not getting a sweeping victory?

I am still trying to decipher what LOTM is trying to say. If he/she is trying to claim that Civ is an alternative history game, then that would require quite a stretch of the imagination. Civ is simply a game that uses bits and pieces from history to create a framework. It is certainly not meant to test what could have happened.

As for LOTM's three issues behind why people say CIV is not about history, he overlooks many reasons why people would say this.

I would contend that Civ is not about history because it ignores things that have immense influences on historical events. For example, the role of weather (be it rain on one day or global climatic events) or the effect of disease (the plague or small pox in North America), politics (even a dictator must play politics) and the effects of death from war (kill off a good chunk of a generation and you will have problems fighting another war).

Finally, to say that Civ accurate portrays alternative history is a meaningless statement since it can easily be argued that Civ does nto accurately portray alternative history. There is no way to prove either argument.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Not sure what LOTM is trying to say here. Panzer is German for tank, IIRC, so naturally only the Germans are able to develop something called a panzer since other countries would apply native language name to their tanks. Would it not be highly improbably that the Russian create tanks and give it a German name?

Also, what is TOAW Korea?

OH geez, i forgot the whole Panzer=tank discussion

substitute "in OTL the Americans developed the f-15"
or "in OTL the Americans became superior in air power"
or "in OTL a great power was fought in 1914, but not in 1960"

IS that clearer

And TOAW is The Operational Art of War, mentioned earlier. A war historical game, of the sort that explicitly puts "historical accuracy" ahead of fun. Korea is one scenario for it.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Ya lost me here. If I choose to punch out of Pusan, it is possible that I can achieve the sweeping "victories" achieved by MacArthur,

We can always argue about AH. If you dont agree on this one, Im sure we can find another example where we do agree. The point was for illustration.

The statement "I should not get the sweeping victory." is problematic. It creates confusion about the "this" in the next sentence. Does the "this" refer to landing reinforcements at Pusan or does it refer to not getting a
sweeping victory?

It refers to BOTH. The entire ATL. The point being that the accuracy of a result cannot be judged apart from the TL that leads up to it.

I am still trying to decipher what LOTM is trying to say. If he/she is trying to claim that Civ is an alternative history game, then that would require quite a stretch of the imagination. Civ is simply a game that uses bits and pieces from history to create a framework. It is certainly not meant to test what could have happened.

It is somewhere in between. It is too abstract and contains too many inaccuracies to be a history simulator, but it is far more than a game with "bits and pieces" of history, a la AOE.

As for LOTM's three issues behind why people say CIV is not about history, he overlooks many reasons why people would say this.

I would contend that Civ is not about history because it ignores things that have immense influences on historical events. For example, the role of weather (be it rain on one day or global climatic events) or the effect of disease (the plague or small pox in North America), politics (even a dictator must play politics) and the effects of death from war (kill off a good chunk of a generation and you will have problems fighting another war).

All these are part of Category C. I should have said inaccuracies AND abstractions to be clearer. All games, and indeed all simulation models make abstractions to some extent. I would not expect a PC flight sim sold to hobbyists to be as accurate as one used by aircraft designers, or by the US air force. It would not mean that it was NOT a flight simulator. I can tell you for a fact that the ridership models for mass transit used in simcity are far more abstract than used by transit agencies in the US. One could not argue that Simcity is not a city simulator. Would you argue that Avalon Hill's 1914 is not an alternate history game, because it fails to model weather? Should a 6000 year civ simulator model day to day politics (as opposed to the strategic govt change which IS part of the game)

Finally, to say that Civ accurate portrays alternative history is a meaningless statement since it can easily be argued that Civ does nto accurately portray alternative history. There is no way to prove either argument.

I was not trying to establish a "proof" but only to marshall some evidence, and lay out a framework for looking at that evidence.
Also to establish a framework to judge which features add to historical accuracy and which do not.
And to overcome the non-sense in which someone says that Civ is not about history because the Romans can end up building tanks.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Stefu
The term 'AsB' alone tells that we have soc.history.what-if'er here.

Caught


So you can understand my frustration when someone says that civ is inaccurate because the Romans can win, and that to be more accurate we must insure that Germans end up with superior armor, and the Americans with superior high tech fighters?

LOTM

[lockstep]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Should a 6000 year civ simulator model day to day politics (as opposed to the strategic govt change which IS part of the game)

I´d say eventually (definitely not in Civ3) it should 'flesh out' domestic politics. As it is now, an upcoming 'space opera' game (MoO3) will be the first one that includes political factions, internal unrest and civil war in a non-trivial way.