In which I call "Sid Meier's Civilization" a bad game

First off I would like to say that I love Civilization. I used to play Civ regularly. Some of my best friends are Civ players. But as I was researching material for another post I came across many people claiming that students have learned about history by playing Civ. The article mentions that Civilization III was used to engage students to get them to learn more about social studies and history:

[Civ III is] introducing students to concepts such as monotheism or monarchy, but it may be an even better way of helping them tie together the disparate periods of history. A challenge of teaching world history is how to present students with thousands of years of developments across all civilizations without being Western-centric. Civilization III’s scope extends well beyond the Greco-Roman realm and thus invites us to take a global perspective on historical developments.

However, I believe that Civ is a bad purposeful game for learning history.

What is Civilization? Well this is a good start. But the shorter version is that Civ is a strategy game where you start as a small band of settlers of a Civilization. If you survive external and internal threats then you can progress through history to become the dominant civilization on the planet through violent or non-violent means. People think that Civ players must be learning about history  because Civ players play as civilizations like the Romans, the Mali, and the Incas,

This is the trap that Civilization sets for history buffs and educators. By wrapping itself in a historical aesthetic, Civ makes it seem like students learn from playing the game. Rather than teach historical concepts Civilization exposes players to these concepts. If I didn't know that there was such a thing as monarchy then  I would learn that there is such a concept because I need to research it in the game. However I can play the game forever without knowing what monarchy actually is in reality and instead just that it grants the civilization: Rate Cap: 10; Work Cap: 2; Assimilalation Rate: 2; Draft Limit: 2; Military Police Limit: 3; and Resistance Modifier VS Anarchy: -5

Proponents of Civ as an educational history game also state that students can engage in "Alternate History". 

these [minority] kids took great joy in studying hypothetical history, exploring the conditions under which colonial conquests might have played out differently.

 
However the mechanics of the game itself really do not afford the ability to give you an "alternate history". I can create games where I play as the Iroquois in their historically accurate geographical location but once I start the game what I am learning? That if the Iroquois tech-rushed gunpowder then the Europeans wouldn't have stood a chance? This seems like a rather shallow understanding of history.

 Don't get me wrong. There are mechanics in a Civ game that make it more than just a way to expose people to unfamiliar civilizations and leaders. You learn about the value of resources, project planning, and getting information out of data. In fact, Civ is a much better game for teaching project managers than it is for teaching history or historical concepts. Why? Because to be good at Civ you need to have excellent management skills; you do not need to understand the historical ramifications of your actions. Civ can only spark an interest that is then fueled by reading and study OUTSIDE of the Civ game.
  
 A good argument for what Civ is and isn't is the unofficial sequel to Civ II: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or SMAC. SMAC is a great game that uses Civ game mechanics in a science fiction world. Therefore students cannot learn about history or geography since the action takes place on an alien planet. But they do learn the same management skills that they learn in Civ. Just like Civ though, it does not stop the game from exposing you to incredible ideas about philosophy, religion, and humanity's approach to technology. 

For a time, everyday I heard these quotes. I started reading books I never even heard of because of these quotes. But I could have ignored every single one of them as well because to play the game I didn't need to understand what they meant; just like how Civ players do not need to understand history to play the game.

However there are some games that inadvertently teach players about history and geography. My next post will be about how the mechanics of these games force players to understand historical and sociological concepts since they are core mechanics of the game.