Ludohistory

the first argument is that games produce "historical information" - that is to say, historical *arguments* that need not be true or right, but are still influential lenses to process history. These are not inherently bad, but can be "deeply misleading"

he then talks about visual accuracy (stay tuned eventually for a video from me on that, when I can afford to buy and play them lol, around WW2 shooters like *Enlisted*). Visual fidelity conveys authority.

examples include GRRM's ASOIAF series and #acvalhalla for cases of visual authority. If you've read ACOUP for any length of time, this is rehashing those posts. Which are good choices, but he imo overstates his case just a bit here.

now to Dune - "Luxury" and "Decadence" as failures that cause weakening ("Hard times create strong men"). This is a theory of history, attested as early as folks like Tacitus. (see Christopher Krebs' *A Most Dangerous Book* for more on that)

He notes that the primary goal of EUIV is mere survival, and that playing with surviving as a goal causes players to act in specific ways that mirror historical act. Case study: The duchy of Burgundy. Challenge 1 - the French crown and "French" consolidation.

solution: Acquire new land to get resources to hold off France, because that is more efficient than developing the lands the player already controls. Burgundy must victimize non-French neighbors, like the Swiss (historically failed in 1477, in EUIV might succeed). Very zero-sum.

EUIV lets players experience the pressures of "inter-State anarchy," including mandated militarization and normalized war. this is highly persuasive because it is experiential. *But* it is only one theory of International Relations and we should probably keep that in mind.

additionally, small mechanical changes = big interpretation changes. Comparison between EU IV and Vicky II's "manpower" systems - generic vs particular pops.

this also reflects one historical theory (of many), that the Industrial Revolution shifts war from something enriching to something demographically devastating, as machines make investments more valuable.

@BretDevereaux concludes that games in particular generate historical theories that students will be bringing to classrooms, that games are relatively understudies and underrepresented in history teachers' consciousness, and this needs to change as games get more prominent.

Q&A: question about asymmetric strategies/counter-insurgency. Computers struggle to simulate this, as binary outcomes aren't really something computers deal with well.

I then ask a question re these streams and outreach sans institutional support - luckily and unsurprisingly, he agrees that it is important that outreach through non-tradition, non-writing media are seen as professional work, rather than paraprofessional at best.

next q is abt #TTRPGs and if #DnD can introduce preconceptions (and can GMs shape these perceptions) - answer: they already do. Pitch-perfect accuracy for GMs/hist. fiction authors isn't expected, but critical thought about meaning and "responsible narrative" should be.

Q: how should pop hist. media deal with challenging historical misconceptions and malexpectations - e.g. diverse Middle Ages, "Lions led by donkeys" in WW1, etc. A: prioritize getting the history right over popular discourse, and be gracious around good-faith imperfections

Q: is "Impartial benevolence" in EUIV possible? i.e. being pacifist, minimizing colonization/enslavement, etc. A: yes, but it is deeply suboptimal.

Q: "ViOlEnT ViDeOgAmEs" is discourse - are there thoughts about how impactful high-fidelity games can be on behavior? A: little evidence that there is *any* influence on behavior. but, narratives can have impact and thought is required on what arguments the game makes.

Q: were there any ancient states that disliked violence, or is that truly a result of increasing casualties in 19th/20th c? A: Roman attitudes towards war changes during civil wars! reiterates argument that states' calculus changes with industrialization.

Q: games, war, and diversity - do games/pop media reflect increasing cognizance of historical diversity? A: games are modern products of modern discourses. EU IV is better than Empire: Total War, though still flawed. Games struggle with non-state peoples/bad assumptions.

bonus: Criticism can "defang" bad histories by identifying what elements should be disregarded (e.g. *300*'s Spartans fighting for democracy with 80% of population enslaved). but bad histories are powerful and persuasive, and so visibility of that criticism is important.