For this being my fight playthrough of Civilization VI, I got a lot farther than I thought. I played Queen Victoria of England in my playthrough because despite her harsh personality, she was liked by the public for her civic duties and imperialistic policies. Victoria is so well known for her long reign from 1837-1901 (The Victorian Era). The advantage the game offers for choosing The English Empire are that cities founded on other continents as well as building a Royal Navy Dockyard result in a free melee unit. Specialized units include the Redcoat, the Sea Dog, and the British Museum which holds double the artifacts (six) and archaeologists (two). I was either going for the diplomatic or science win. I had robotics skill almost unlocked on my first playthrough but lost at turn 425 to France and their rocket launchers. My second playthrough, I also failed at turn 400 to the French after they captured London (my capital) and two neighboring cities which had the seven wonders I constructed. This left me with my severely underdeveloped cites on another continent which I could not level up because it took too many turns to build anything there. In hindsight, I made a lot of mistakes early on that led to my demise. The first, I did not figure out how to send a settler overseas until turn 400 of my first playthrough. So, for my second playthrough, I reloaded from a previous early save and scouted out the map. I quickly discovered that the only other major continent had my enemies’ cities settled along its entire coastline which prevented me from exploring any of the continent's interior. My two settlers then had to settle on a tiny peninsula and each city ended up having a dockyard, a couple of farms, and a mine. Another mistake I made in my first playthrough, I built up a navy of galleys and quadriremes led by The Great Admiral that ended up in a war with a city-state. These ships got promoted all the way to level five only to end up becoming completely useless against my enemies later, taking one hit then sinking. I will say, my proudest accomplishment was keeping a galley alive until the end of both playthroughs (appropriately named “Ballygally” by my roommate after an Irish castle).
Civilization VI does an excellent job portraying the personality of each leader and specializing their gameplay around it. It was interesting to see how each reached to your progress, especially going to war. Montezuma (Aztecs) and Gorgo (Greece) encourage warfare while France encouraged espionage and Gandhi detested when you participated in violent acts. My only friends ended up being Indonesia because they were my neighboring civilization and Gandhi because my playthroughs were very passive. It was ironic that I ended up befriending India instead of taking it over. One of the mistakes I almost made was allowing open borders with the Aztecs before I was told they would most definitely betray me. I think it was historically accurate that I had a feud with France the entire game and ended up losing to them. Another was that I adopted Teddy’s historically accurate strategy of fixing the housing issues by sending away settlers to colonize, although most of the time my citizens were “ecstatic”. I also find it ironic that as Britain, I ended up being the least industrialized and technologically advanced. There was always a leader who had better technology than me or who stole my own technology to use against me.
Additionally, Civilization VI is a fantastic way to show students all the complex components that are required for a civilization to survive and explains why empires do not last forever. The science tree is designed in a way to show what is needed to establish a civilization and shows how today’s technology came to be. Jeremiah McCall talks about the disconnect students experience when it comes to history in “Gaming the Past”, “Students at all levels […] forget that the people of the past lived and operated in a multitude of … systems, all which provided the context for their lives and actions […] Simulation games help remedy this forgetfulness of context and of the functioning systems that encompassed the people of the past” (13).I think that students could also compare the civilizations in the game to the differences between first and third world countries today. It gives students a chance to experience what it is like in a time or place where there are barely enough resources to survive. There is immense anxiety that comes from knowing that anything can just wipe what you have worked so hard on off the map whether that be a natural disaster, an enemy, your own people revolting against you, etc. Therefore, you must have a lot of forward thinking with all your choices such as where to start your civilization, which civilizations possess the greatest threat, and what your priorities.
From a history and education major perspective, coupling traditional teaching methods and playing Civilization VI would cater to all types of students. In Chapman’s “Is Sid Meier’s Civilization History”, he debates the learning strategies of reading textbooks vs. playing video games. Based on the claim that both refer to events of the past that can be either factual or not based on our understanding of where people came from, Chapmen argues that “historical videogames are recognizable metonymic narrative devices that are created by a developer making authorial choices, like those made by historians who write ‘proper’ history” (320).Students who need visuals can reenact different historical events in video games while those who like guided instruction will still have game play reflections, lectures, and readings. It was super interesting to see representations of how battles could have occurred.(Especially watching the ships sink, reminded me of the sinking of The Spanish Armada. Other ideas I thought would be cool to try, D-Day on a realistic map or since there is a nuclear route, seeing what would have happened if The Cold War went nuclear on the realistic map.) I feel like students are more likely to remember these types of engaging educational activities way into the future over material from a test they crammed for or essays they wrote in one night. McCall explains that “[a] simulation game exercise is not comparable to a writing assignment, but to a lecture or a movie as a method instruction available to teachers to help students learn about the past” (18). Speaking from personal experience, I still remember in sixth grade when my history teacher arranged us like we were fighting as Spartans and taught the lesson like he was our commander. Civilization VI and other simulations are also great because they have limitless replay ability. Children love nothing more than having control over their own world and receiving immediate feedback. (Plus, I am sure the destruction also adds to the excitement.)Students often question how history is still relevant today so having them try to beat the game in the way their civilization is designed to can show why understanding is beneficial for the progression of society. I agree with McCall and Chapman’s arguments that the educational system needs to be revised to give students a greater appreciation for history and prepare them for the new technologically focused world.
Comments