mousey musings

Inside Higher Ed has a story about teaching college-level History courses useing Civilization III. I love Civ III and I'm currently playing the heck out of Civ IV. I love history; I was a history grad student for a year before switiching to political science because I preferred its approach to the study of war. However, I'm left with the feeling that these courses are pretty frivolous. Students have to put in 20 hours or so before they get the hang of them game and its rules. That's a huge amount of out-of-class time that could have been spent reading another book or two Moreover, additional time must be spent in the classroom to separate the absurdities of the game (Abraham Lincoln building the Pyramids in 500 BC, for example) from its useful tidbits of knowledge (military spending imposes opportunity costs in developing societies; wars are often fought when seemingly worthless territory turns out to harbor valuable resources). Finally, many of the game's rules were designed for game balance rather than realism. Nuclear weapons are underpowered and global war is the norm; a small bribe can convince your worst enemy to attack its closest ally; people can overthrow any occupying force if their "culture" is strong enough; government sponsorship of religion is always good and never disruptive; religion always makes people more likely to suypport the government; etc. I love history and Civ, but Civ should not be thought of as a historical simulation but rather as a strategy game to which historical decor has been added.

posted by Jeffrey # 11/29/2005 07:58:00 PM