i've been playing a lot of civilization V and VI lately. they're the sort of games i need when i need to not be thinking about anything else: they're pretty damn in-depth, with enough mechanics to occupy every part of my brain so that i can't think about much else while doing them. the thing is, though, when you're so thoroughly immersed in the mechanics, and when you're someone with a brain like mine, eventually (or, in my case, rapidly) you start asking why they made the choices they did. and, well, civilization is a game series that, well, sure does make a lot of Choices. so, now that i've done all my thinking about those choices, i'm going to write about them.
something i should say before going any further: this is an essay about the way games depict history, and so is going to include a lot of discussion of the worst of what history has to offer. i'm not going to dive particularly deep into the actual, real impacts of things like imperialism, colonialism, or slavery, both because i expect the reader to have a solid understanding of why those things are bad, and also because i really don't think i'm qualified to thoroughly explore those topics. however, i'm definitely going to talk about how violence and imperialism are used mechanically in games, so y'know, there's your content warning. essay continues (begins, really) under the cut.
i've come to the conclusion that any simulation game attempting to depict our human history must always deal with the not-so-nice details and how wars/slavery are profitable, but it doesn't mean that profit/efficiency is the end-goal of grand strategy game design.
the paradox and sid meier's civ school of thoughts both indeed differ as the OP brings up, but their end-goal remains largely the same: building a sustainable empire. many of the simulated mechanics are oriented around creating such monoliths.
however, it is -- i believe -- possible to create a grand strategy game about smaller communities and micro-nations, much like how we can speak of international relations from the lens of indigenous people. much of international relations is predicated on the most abstract/high-order level; we're talking nation-states, not neighborhoods that you and i belong to. that's why international relations and grand strategy games speak of war. instead of your bismarks, we could be focusing on mayors and the such.
one of the most interesting grand strategy-ish games i've played in Nobunaga's Ambition: Sphere of Influence: Ascension where you are given the option to roleplay as the retainer of a daimyo. the idea is that you are rising up the hierarchy from lowly retainer to daimyo commandeering the troops, but what i find most interesting is this particular level of gameplay. you are looking at your little town and wondering how to help and develop your people.
a farmer might beseech you directly to ask for more attention to their farms, so they can harvest their rice better. a samurai might ask for a teashop in which more samurais from all over the country would flock in and talk about how calming your tea is. a young boy notices how deprived your miners are and asks you to build an entertainment district for them.
obviously, this light city-building element is designed around the growth of towns to help you raise your army better, but i found it more engaging than it has any right to be because i've started to be attached to my town. i'll once in a while literally zoom out of the town and see what my superiors are doing: engaging in ruthless warfare with other sengoku leaders because they want to conquer and attain new riches. meanwhile, i'm doing quite well enough that i'm able to send emergency supplies and soldiers to my daimyo.
when i finally became a commander and later turned independent, i started conquering other cities like any other people. that switch between gameplay behaviors has always fascinated me. the more i rose to higher levels and turned toward abstraction, the more i just became another Oda Nobunaga.
one of the reasons i find city-building games more interesting but unfortunately under-explored is because you are necessarily attached to the members of your community. i think games like Frostpunk (flawed they might be) are intriguing because they push you to consider terrible decisions like slavery and child laborers to optimize. those games are closer to roleplaying games in the tabletop tradition: you may have all the grand strategy in the world, but you must speak to the people. in the paradox games, you do have some factions to deal with -- but they're merely statistics you can push and pull. in the ideal citybuilding game i've imagined, you are actually accountable to the people who want things out of you.
and i don't believe this would make games avoid the critical issues that plague our history either. much of what i find fascinating about meiji/taisho japan is how gradual and organic their turn toward fascism is: manchukuo, that puppet state, was very popular with the japanese masses because it rejuvenated the economy and people saw opportunities to settle and colonize those lands. just because your actions are well-liked by the average person doesn't mean they are actually ethical!
all that said, i think the main dilemma of simulation games is that -- much like history -- their stories remain open to multiple interpretations, more so than any other genre. a leftist like me might read the imperialist histories of meiji/taisho japan in disgust, but mishima yukio would politely disagree. even if the paradox games devs happened to stumble upon this post and want to try something different, i think it remains up to how people see it.
grand strategy, as often remarked, is beloved by extreme leftists and rightists. military history wows maoists and nazis. the same facts can inspire and sicken people. that's history, a fluid beast that can be tamed or slayed in so many different ways. we know what's bad history, but i think what is "good" history remains an open question.
yet, i do think the current trends in grand strategy games to dehumanize people into a bunch of numbers can be avoided. my experience roleplaying an officer in Ascension made me rethink how grand strategy games can avoid being cold, efficiency spreadsheet simulators. of course, to fully explore this would require a seismic paradigm shift.
we already are seeing some changes in how grand strategy games depict indigenous people and them "barbarians". instead of turning them into rampant NPCs that harass your little colonial empires, they can be playable and there's something cathartic about them overcoming some empire. there's ... a lot more that can be done in that realm, but i would love to see more games exploring indigenous and diasporic communities in the context of grand strategy and city-building games.
perhaps, this is me coping from my useless masters degree in international relations, but i think it's entirely possible to depict international relations in a more humane way. instead of seeing violence and compromises everywhere, we've seen real coalitions and alliances between indigenous and diaspora communities all over the world. likewise, i can see someone making a stab at some grand strategy game from the lens of the marginalized banding together. what that looks like might require paradox to clearly hire me, but i don't think it's an impossibility.
i think, if the history of game design says anything, there's still new stuff to be found. we just don't know how or where to look, but i can see someone stumbling their way into finding a way to make a "good" grand strategy game.
--
i'd be remiss to not mention historians' takes on the paradox games. askhistorians has explored Crusader Kings II and medievalists.net has some articles on teaching history through video games and white nationalist imaginations in video games based on medieval settings.
i've always been fascinated how historians lately are quite receptive to discussing these games because they enjoy discussing the strengths and flaws of these simulations. it's one of the few non-indie game design stuff i actually follow...
p.s. here are more round-ups by historians thanks to a friend telling me: Europa Universalis IV, Victoria II, Crusader Kings III.