I know it's just a game and a very entertaining one at that but, when you think about it, is the whole concept of starting out on an almost barren planet with just a single city and a worker (figuratively speaking) anywhere near an accurate representation of how human civilization developed? It seems to me that around the time the game Civilization begins, 4000 BC, the Earth was fairly spotted with tens of thousands of clans or groups of people. They didn't start out in cities and then spread around the countryside. Rather they started in the countryside and eventually migrated or clustered or perhaps coagulated into city-states. The city-states eventually banded together to form countries or civilizations or regions or whatnot. But it wasn't like anyone started with Babylon and then set out to discover or found new cities. Was it? I mean, the whole settler thing was more or less a development of European civilization when they "discovered" north and south America. They sent settlers to inhabit the new territory, which of course was already populated by relatively loose bands of natives. But that didn't happen in 4000 BC. That all happened from 1492 onward.
I would think a more accurate representation of the development of human civilization would be like slowly coalescing into a city then forming an army and conquering a bunch of already existing settlements around you and incoporating them into your empire or something along those lines. The whole settler thing just seems all wrong, doesn't it?
I would think a more accurate representation of the development of human civilization would be like slowly coalescing into a city then forming an army and conquering a bunch of already existing settlements around you and incoporating them into your empire or something along those lines. The whole settler thing just seems all wrong, doesn't it?