Something on topic on "meta-level". There is one thing that troubles me about "debating" (on this thread and everywhere else) that wasn't mentioned yet (either that, or I missed it), so I add it here.
Both sides of the argument are usually so sure that "If we can not agree, one of us must be wrong. And because I know I am right, it must be YOU who is wrong.", they didn't consider the third option: fundamental misunderstanding (I bet it has a name in English today, "something-something fallacy" or "Whatsher-Nameagain theorem", but I don't know the name).

There is the already classic Orwellian 2+2=5 example of obviously false statement, let's run with it.
If A states that "two plus two makes five", B usually automatically sign A off as troll, brainwashing victim, brainwasher or idiot. It's pretty rare that B do something like this:

B> Would you start counting from one up, please?
A> Why? You think I cannot even count on fingers?!
B> No, no insult intended, I just want to check something. Please?
A> All right; one-two-three-five-four-six-seven-eight-nine-
B> Thank you, that's enough. And how much is eight minus four?
A> Three, of course.
B> The third power of five.
A> Wait a sec... sixty-five I think.
B> Thank you very much, now I know why we were arguing. Believe it or not, neither of us is stupid!

The fundamental misunderstanding I see here is treating CIV games as simulations of real world. They are reality-themed strategy games, and they are great as a games. As simulation of human history they are completely off :-).

And blues are right, using dropping global warming mechanics from CIV 6 as excuse to discuss climate change in real life will result in closing the thread. For that case, I offer different spin: what about discussing representation of long term changes of enviroment and depleting of resources in videogames as game element/mechanic rather than commentary about real life?

I wouldn't readily subscribe to that. Maybe you would like to start counting from one up for me, please? :)

The thing is that many people say that they learned a lot about history through the Civ series. Yes, I know it sounds like a single history book would teach you more, but people spent so much time with Civ - some facts will stay. The tag line of the original Civ One was "Stand the test of time" and I always had the impression there are at least some references to history in this game.

It is conceivable that the designers of Civ would incorporate popular topics like global warming in it and they did right from the beginning, if I remember correctly. One can, if one want, see the omission in Civ VI as a political statement. I don't say you have to, but one can. It's just one possible view. In the end, one cannot completely separate politics from gaming and gaming from politics and I think this is completely okay. Gamersgate showed it and other stuff too.

Maybe a general question about those who already played Civ VI: is it in general much simpler than Civ IV and V? Could one with a bit of goodwill subscribe the omission of global warming to a general dumbing down of the franchise with Civ VI?

If I remember correctly that changed with Civ V, maybe already with Civ IV, in that locally they showed a flat map and when zooming out they would bend the map (and the tiles) and show something more like a 2D projection of the 3D spherical surface. Or at least there was some perspective change going on while zooming in and out.

In this image you see that the tiles are smaller outside of the center of view: http://www.nohighscores.com/wp-content/uploads/old-images/todd/civ5_diary/japan/civ5_turn309.jpg

I don't know exactly what physical model they had underlying this perspective.

The best "proof" that the Earth is round in Civ V+ would probably be zooming in and going in any direction always along a straight line and arriving at the starting point again after some time (I don't remember if you could cross the poles).

At least for freeciv web (https://www.freecivweb.org/) I know that they have a complete 3D rendering of the Earth as a 3D sphere. And global warming they have too.

It's not rare. But it never goes that way. It usually ends up like:

B> Would you start counting from one up, please?
A> Why? You think I cannot even count on fingers?!
B> No, no insult intended, I just want to check something. Please?
A> No, you intend to insult me. You bigot! You troll!

It'd be nice to have another TBS with Alpha Centauri's approach, where you can mess with entire regions' weather by using terraforming to raise/lower the landscape. And while they're at it, incorporate planet-wide climate warfare.

There's something to be said about judging a game by authenticity. After playing Falcon 4, I just don't feel the same about Ace Combat. Not to say I can't play it, but it's a totally different feel, and it's worth merit.

Right: if you can't agree to the definitions of the terms, then you can't even hold a discussion. It's like two people with two different forms of color blindness arguing over the color of an object. That doesn't seem to be going on in this case, though, but something related to that most certainly is going on: we have totally different views on fundemental things, which i actually thought about bringing up, but concluded that if no one's really willing to read anything, it's not even worth it. For example, people on the right distrust science due to all the scandals, backpeddling, etc, while a good portion of the progressive left fundementally oppose empiricism if it doesn't fit the narrative. Imagine being that poor scientist who discovers something that the right is skeptical of, but can't get it published because it goes against the narrrative of the left controlled publishing organizations (and believe it or not, i found a few, since sometimes they get published if they tweek their opinions on their results to fit an agenda): it's just plain too controversial. But we have other separations that keep us from fundementally being able to communicate with each other: have a gander at this. There's where the problem lies: politics by nature is about controlling others' lives. There is no haven that is safe from politics, not even sexual relations between two consenting adults: there are even people who want to either force mixed relationships and there are people who want to force the opposite. No safe haven, especially in things of art, like video games, which are much more public than the bedroom. The mechanics in question are wonderful, just like how revival from death (respawning) is a wonderful game mechanic. Honestly, games would do good (but are not obligated) not to add or remove mechanics based on politics. How many people honestly took the evolution mechanic in pokemon as a serious threat to Christianity? No one: 'cause the real threat to christianity was assuming subversion in something that isn't taken seriously, just like how people understand that Red Dead Redemption 2's allowance of killing a sufferagist doesn't actually make people go out and kill feminists. There's a reason why a shitposter like Dankula got alot of support: regular people seem to know themselves better than people who accuse various media of making them do things they normally wouldn't do, and going after a guy for making a silly joke about a dog even knowing what Nazism is, let alone actually being a Nazi is so ridiculous that anyone going after him for such a thing is clearly the same kind of person who would arrest someone for jay-walking in the middle of the night on an empty street, then claim they had to do it to keep them from ever risking their lives in such a way again.

Frankly, when i play games that have a pollution mechanic, i'm just like "ugh, really, after all the time i spent raising the population of my roman city so i could get enough money and people to raise an army to move in on the gauls, no one told me i'd have to dedicate some of that money to developing toilets. It would've been really nice to know that before i went all in population building strategy just so I could use Russian tactics as Rome." I don't sit there and say, "ugh, really? They implemented this for political reasons, surely! I need a refund!" Now, if the game just randomly docked me points for "evil fascist, you probably hate the planet, don't you?" but otherwise doesn't even address it in gameplay, otherwise, that's not a mechanic, that's just being politically preachy and you deserve the hate you get. If the mechanic is something that only shows up end game, i could imagine people being a bit jaded, then, too, but you'll find those people are jaded even if they believe in global warming. But this goes back to the conflation thing: waste products (which have environmental effects) is a separat issue for global warming, and even then, if it wasn't, a game using mechanics doesn't mean worldview support of those things (yea, how many RPG makers who tell you to go to a church or monestary to learn healing spells are religious?). This immediate outrage shit needs to end, i don't care who you are, politically.

TBS or BTS? :-)

I am all for a graphical update of SMAC (even if it does not look even half bad). Civ4 looks amazingly well, even on very large screens.

See the update in the original post regarding the source for Firaxis's declarations from the mouth of Sid Meier'shimself at and their full context within the presentation gala for Civilization 6.

Well... it starts at spearmen beating up tanks and goes all the way up to the series' strange and often misleading conception of what a "civ" is.

I think specific examples are not entirely necessary though, as this is kind of subordinate to the question of what of history the games actually have to teach in the first place (which covers both worth as simulation and teaching tool). I mean, think about it - with little or no prior knowledge - what will someone actually learn?

They'll hear some quotes, learn some names and dates... but how much useful information is being shared? There's often little or no context given to those things, perhaps just a short aphoristic paragraph (if that), so there is not much of worth being taught to someone in that case. You've heard a nice line read of that "plastics" quote... so what? You don't learn much from that on it's own.

But OK, OK, maybe that's just there for theme. I don't even completely disagree with that assessment. What might someone pick up from the process of playing them?

Firstly though, two ideas I think we can operate under. One, that while these games don't necessarily paint themselves as accurate simulations, it is fair to say they take themselves seriously enough that the player is expected to view them as a "good enough" abstraction for gameplay purposes. A workable analog for the real thing. Two, that most actions (including many non-violent ones) in the games are ultimately motivated by the central goals of domination and conquest. I don't think the latter really needs stating, but just so I'm clear.

Alright then, what might someone learn from the playing of the game? These are likely to be less consciously known to a player, so these are more vague.

I think it would be easy to pick up or reinforce the notion that human history was and is always exclusively motivated by plans of imperial conquest. This is not true obviously, but among the game's core conceits is; that is what makes for an interesting game, so concluding that's what the worthwhile history is can follow on directly from there.

In similar ways, the game's conception of technology and society is decidedly a linear one, all progress framed as predestination. Something that just happens, and towards a (largely unspoken) ideal. Again, not remotely true, but - if we are to take this as a serious abstraction - based upon a credible supposition of what history "is".

And lest I forget the erstwhile thread topic; even setting aside more modern questions, actions like the deforestation of Europe under the Roman empires (one of the more widespread and drastic changes made by humanity past) can hardly be irrelevant to a game professing to cover the rise of civilisation. To its credit, Alpha Centauri knows this; if you wish to live upon Planet, you must tread with care. An unwise change, a mistake, even on a local level can easily imperil your colony. The worms are just the most overt expression of that.

Meanwhile, the mainline games treat such things as a nuisance, an inefficiency to be patched up later; minus happiness, a % production malus (or whatever). It doesn't occur that you could even make such a mistake, never mind that you could be punished for it. Whole cities have been abandoned and forgotten over a diverted river!

And honestly, in that light, removing such an already worthless feature makes sense to me. Shame they decided not replace it.

Anyway, do you see the point i'm making? Thousands of years of human history being suborned into "lol, immortal god-king Ghandi nuked me again" fatally undermines any attempt to be seen as an accurate reflection of the real world... and that's just the start of it.

What are you crazy!?

Look at those dimensions!

It doeasn't get any more realistic than that! :P

which is one thing I really like about AoE2 :
https://www.mobygames.com/images/promo/l/11859-age-of-empires-ii-the-age-of-kings-screenshot.jpg
It looks as if those villages could actually fit into and live in those structures.
Civ4's visuals has aged a little bit poorly for me as of late. I actually think civ 3 looks better these days! However, Civ 4 still offers the best civ experience out there I think.

Not to mention the mining.
My father grew up in farming country, and as a kid, when I used to visit my grandparents (his parents), I always marveled at the large chunks of gold sticking out of the ground next to the corn and soy fields. :D

@Carradice
If I'm derailing here, let me know, I'll stop. Just trying to interject some humor.

Almost as baffling as all the gold strewn about in America's cities in Red Alert 2. Tons of the stuff just lying about in in city's parks!

With gusto! :)

And I agree, that's what I meant by "reality-themed" - CIVs are full of historical facts, and in a reasonably sound manner, but the game itself didn't reflect how the "history" works.

Phalanx beating battleship is not really a problem, if we see the units as abstract representations of something much more complex, which is given by the scale of the game. Let's say: Battleship destroyed by phalanx = unsuccessful colonial attempt led to the fall of militaristic cabinet and slashing of naval funding, so old battleship weren't replaced, so the size of the navy shrinks. historically plausible.
Byzantium, Constantinopole and Istambul as three separate cities in competing Civs - hilarious, but historically irrelevant.
Cultural, technological and scientific advancement as string of discrete "researched techs" with fully predictable results and deadlines - that's not how it worked/works!!. Compare with what I see as pretty realistic model of advancement in medieval time in Paradox's Crusader Kings: Player - as a head of the ruling dynasty - can affect a bit the chance existing "technologies" in his realm evolve to higher level and choose the preferred ones, but it's random and "technology levels" are province-based; new techs are spreading organically, with religious, cultural and political borders slowing the spreading, and sometimes from multiple centers - yep, that fits well.

And thanks to SELF for addressing this "the biggest picture" side of the topic instead of me; writing in English tires me.

But my point wasn't that CIVs failed to be good historical simulations, I'm stating that they was never meant to be ones, that the final question was always "what will work for the game" rather than "what is historically realistic". I never tell those two things are mutually exclusive, mind you.
After the various game-related problem with giant army stacks in CIV 4, the formula was changed to "1 unit per tile" in CIV 5, although those "uberstacks of doom" were (within the scope of game) historically realistic. Western front in WW1 was essentially three major "civs" stacking most of theirs land combat units on "Flanders" tile. But changing it was IMO game-designing decision, not a political stance.
Avoiding potential controversy (and risk of bad publicity) is likewise marketing-related game-designing decision. No more, no less.

On the other hand, dissecting if and how different CIV games matches different historical narratives would be worth an essay; I am just unable to write it down myself. Just notice how the potential victory condition changed from game to game (aside of world conquest and highest score, of course).