1

2

3

These suppositions are theoretically conceivable; and one can always play a parlour game with the might-have-beens of history. But they have nothing to do with… …history. -E. H. Carr The genre of alternative history became widely known during the twentieth century as a mainstay of popular culture. Enduring tropes emerged: What if the Nazi’s had won World War II? What if the South had won the Civil War? While most of the popular texts were decidedly pulp-ish, a few literary works of alternate history were eventually acknowledged for their artistic merit, and respected authors—such as Michael Chabon, and Phillip Roth—dabbled in the genre, giving it an air of literary respectability. The genre was also given an degree of academic respectability through the collection Virtual history, edited by Niall Fergusson. Tropes from alternative history are commonly adapted to other popular formats like cinema and digital games. Edward Hallett Carr, What is history? (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964), 97.

4

Ubisoft’s blockbuster Assassin’s Creed series exemplifies how digital games have utilized the genre. Assassin’s Creed II, set against the backdrop of the feuding Italian city-states of the Renaissance, intricately involves the player in subplots involving Rodrigo Borgia, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Leonardo de Vinci. This theme is revisited more explicitly in “The tyranny of King Washington”—three downloadable content episodes for Assassin’s Creed III that tell, “…an alternate history of the American Revolution. In this new timeline, George Washington decides to become king of the American colonies instead of establishing a democracy.” In the era where parlor games have given way to digital games as the de rigueur after-dinner form of entertainment in many households, can Carr’s absolute dismissal of alternative history still stand? He asserts that while alternative history is enjoyable, it is ultimately a meaningless, bourgeois intellectual diversion. I suggest that far from being meaningless, emerging popular genres of alternative history offer a substantial way of critically engaging with history. Digital games, particularly strategy games—exemplified by Europa Universalis II—offer a mode of engagement with an alternative historical text that provides an opportunity for the player to consider critical and reflective interpretations of historical events that challenge ‘official’, ‘orthodox’ history.

5

Europa Universalis II spans the era of 1420-1820; the main focus of the game is the expansion of the European powers to dominate trade and create colonies around the globe. Important strategic concerns in the game include: developing technology, trade, diplomacy, and military; well-managed colonial expansion is also crucial. The player is invited to select the country they will play; the initial choice is: Austria, England, France, the Ottoman Empire, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Sweden. However, a key innovation of the game is that ultimately the player many select any country. While it is impossible for many nations to win, another innovation of this game is the remarkable flexibility in terms of goal setting. Appropriate goals can be discussed and shared through dedicated online communities hosted by Paradox Interactive (the designers of Europa Universalis II).

6

What players do with Europa Universalis II provides them an opportunity to reflect critically on historic events. A critical level of engagement with the game is encouraged by two drives in the online community: the desire for historical verisimilitude leads players to discuss styles of play aimed at making the historical events depicted more realistic; and the desire to explore counterfactual imaginings of history, where players discuss how to establish and explore fantastic alternative histories with the game. Through the materials shared by the online community both of these apparently contradictory drives are able to provide an accessible segue from expert play and deep knowledge of the game, to a more technical understanding of its operations and design through practices of counterplay.

7

Scholarly analysis of how digital games represent history has paid relatively little attention to Europa Universalis II, in favor of the less obscure, easy-to-use and popular Sid Meier’s Civilization series. This series is often collectively referred to as “Civilization” or just “Civ”. While the series does depict history—or historical processes—these depictions are almost entirely abstract, they completely lack the historical verisimilitude of Europa Universalis II. However, criticism and analysis of “Civ” is relevant to this discussion, in particular the crucial distinction that Galloway makes between: ideological critique, that focuses on the ideological biases in how digital games represent history; and, informatic critique, which argues digital games are merely the visual output of complex algorithms which in themselves have very little to do with history. The core of Galloway’s argument is that the particular ideologies of “Civ” become less relevant concerns than “the transcoding of history into specific mathematical models.” The modeling of historical processes through algorithms means that each ideological factor becomes simply a variable or input within an overarching informatic system. Past research on ‘Civ’ has focused on ideological critiques, in particular the problems associated with representing history abstractly. This position is outlined eloquently by Friedman, who argues that Civilization II obscures the violence of “exploration, colonization, and development.” Europa Universalis II allows for play that varies across a spectrum, from attempting to complete the game with a total historical accuracy, to an exploration of alternative

8

history. These interrogations of history take place across both the ideological and informatic critiques outlined by Galloway as players both recognize the ideological underpinnings of the game, and unpack and modify its coding. In this lecture I want to conceptualize the relationship between these two layers, particularly in relation to ‘counterplay’. Alexander Galloway, Gaming: Essays on algorithmic culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 95-103. Galloway, Gaming, 103. Ted Freidman, “Civilization and its discontents: Simulation, subjectivity and space,” in On a silver platter: CD-ROMS and the promise of a new technology, ed. Greg M. Smith (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 145.

8

In Europe, the discipline of history has traditionally been dominated by a teleological paradigm. This notion, that history makes purposeful progress towards a particular end reached its apex in the philosophical paradigms of Hegel, Marx, and Smith. This was further entrenched when the scientific discoveries of Darwin were incorporated into the social sciences, serving to justify the hegemonic view of the European Empires. One of the key problems with this paradigm is that it establishes a coherent narrative over historical events is that fails to acknowledge past contingencies. In The Landscape of History, John Gaddis writes: Gaddis’s point is that each historical factor is contingent; the importance of the factor is only established when they are ‘discovered’ to contribute to a significant event. What was contingent in the present seems inevitable in hindsight. In the past the future was a field of plural possibilities to the subject present in that past. Teleology legitimizes the present as the only possible (thus inevitable) result of the cumulative events that constitute history. While the future is open to speculation and the consideration of plural possibilities, the past is homogenized; by focusing on the chain of events, a single path is forged that ignores branches of possibilities.

9

Counterfactual history is a notion that challenges the tendency of the multiple contingencies of the past being homogenized into a singularity in hindsight. Thus, counterfactual history becomes a powerful tool for examining both the past and present. Counterfactual history examines how “multiple potential temporal and spatial trajectories of change exist simultaneously at different conjunctures.” This approach opens up the past to multiple heterogeneous possibilities. The vastness of this multiplicity however threatens to undermine the scholarly use of the counterfactual. Carr’s rather negative appraisal of counterfactual history frames the discussion of counterfactuals in a strict ‘all or nothing’ fashion. But it is simply not the case that the only choice is between accepting teleological interpretations of history, and declaring nothing to be feasible apart from actual historic events; or accepting that history is meaningless, that literally anything is possible. Warf suggests this dilemma is resolved by rethinking the arbitrary boundary between the ‘real’ and the ‘possible’. He states: If, however, the ‘real’ is not simply equated with the observed we broaden the definition of ‘reality’ to include not only what is, but what might have been, then the lines between the real and the might-have-been become blurred in productive and imaginative ways. Even the more orthodox Ferguson is able to accommodate the counterfactual into his

10

historical methods by strictly limiting his inquiry to those scenarios that are both plausible and articulated in historical evidence. Rather than rejecting counterfactual history as unhistorical both Ferguson and Warf embrace productive positions that acknowledge its usefulness. The strict limits imposed by Ferguson indicate how the counterfactual can be used as a starting point for historical knowledge when it is used to interrogate history. Counterfactuals encourage reflection on what is considered as valid historical evidence, and an evaluation of plausibility. By evoking the imaginative dimension of counterfactuals, Warf suggests a broader basis of its interpretive function. Counterfactuals allow people to imagine a different world where strange and unfamiliar mappings and trajectories of time and space have been produced. This allows the ‘what if’ to challenge deeply held certainties, and opens the historical dynamics of power to question.

10

Europa Universalis II provides scope for players to articulate and explore their counterfactual imaginary. It does this in two key ways. First, by encouraging reflection on historical rigor by providing a platform for dialogue around plausibility; and second, by encouraging imaginative approaches to history by permitting and encouraging gameplay that is divergent from strict historical events. It encourages counterfactual play and reflection because it deals specifically with the representation of history. The core play of Europa Universalis II revolves around a dynamic, real-time map which displays the movement of troops, development of infrastructure in towns and provinces, the establishment of trading posts and colonies, and the changing market forces at play. On this map the players deploy their troops and other commands, producing through conflict and expansion numerous variable counterfactual mappings, while also dealing with the demands of the ‘real’ historic events for the country which they have chosen to play. Engaging in counterfactual mappings through play creates the opportunity to re-imagine the actual event, as it involves considering how that event may have otherwise occurred, or indeed what the world would be like had it not.

11

Through play—and counterplay—players may change and transform the paradigm provided by the ‘official’ version of history. In this respect the game works to deconstruct teleological paradigms that declare events to be inevitable. More specifically, counterfactuals can undermine the sense of fate that dominant groups adopt to justify their hegemony. In this respect counterfactual history provides players with what Manual Castells calls ‘counter-power’: strategies for resisting and potentially challenging institutionalized power relations. Counter-power, he argues has been recently enabled by the new technological framework of ‘mass communication’ which allows the public more access to media space.

12

In terms of Europa Universalis II players’ may explore their counterfactual imaginings through mastering the game; the more expert the player, the more likely that they will be able to achieve their desired outcomes based on skill alone. But as players become more involved in expert play, and involved in discussions of expert play, they develop an understanding of the algorithm of the game, and what variables to change in order to produce the outcomes that they desire from that algorithm. Their interest in the ideological layer of the game, can lead them to en engagement with the algorithmic layer and a new perception of how those layers inter-relate.

13

The relationship between the available variables and the algorithm is contextualized through the play—and replay—of the game. It is also re-contextualized through the process of ‘counterplay’, which I have described elsewhere, but in this context mean extending play beyond the framework of the game, so that rather than playing the game, the game itself is also being played with. These processes are supported by the gaming blogs and journalism, etc. Collectively these forums may be described as ‘paratexts’. Paratexts are “communications and artifacts” pertaining to digital games that are derived both from official and unofficial sources. Paradox Interactive has extensive forums on their official site, which include player-authored strategy guides, and player-created wikis that aim to break down and examine every aspect of play and counterplay (which in this case is modding). Mia Consalvo. Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007), 8-9.

14

A sub-genre of paratexts that is particularly important for illustrating the role of the counterfactual imagination in the play of Europa Universalis II has also emerged in the official game forums, that of the after-action-report (also known as AAR). The after-action-report focuses on reporting sessions of play, often in episodes as it is played, with an emphasis on the counterfactual imaginary. The report may be made in a purely instrumental manner, in the style of a walkthrough; however, it is more common that they are recounted in the form of an elaborate fiction, which may include occasional references to the practicalities of play. In the following example from the Paradox Interactive-run Europa Universalis II forum, a player, using the pseudonym “Dell19” writes an after-action report on a game played as Venice. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The after-action-report acts as a dual display of game and writing prowess; in some cases the posts are illustrated with maps and portraits of the historic figures being discussed. The AAR may also be used to share the tactics that the writer adopted to succeed in their goals (in Dell19’s case it was to unify Italy under Venice). After-action-reports often show a remarkable counterfactual imagination, although many illustrate the tension between counterfactual imagination and the desire to adhere to historical verisimilitude by using the AAR as a forum to discuss and justify the plausibility of the scenario that they postulate. Other reports, however, discuss the

15

pitfalls and difficulties of using the game to recreate historical events accurately.

15

The after-action-report acts as a dual display of game and writing prowess; in some cases the posts are illustrated with maps and portraits of the historic figures being discussed. The AAR may also be used to share the tactics that the writer adopted to succeed in their goals (in Dell19’s case it was to unify Italy under Venice). After-action-reports often show a remarkable counterfactual imagination, although many illustrate the tension between counterfactual imagination and the desire to adhere to historical verisimilitude by using the AAR as a forum to discuss and justify the plausibility of the scenario that they postulate. Other reports, however, discuss the pitfalls and difficulties of using the game to recreate historical events accurately.

16

In the paratexts found on the official online forums maintained by Paradox Interactive strategies for counterplay are also shared. In particular, a great deal of effort goes into discussing—and evaluating— the various strategies and tactics for the many playable factions. But the discussion often continues past the formal limits of the game, expanding into the area of modding the game code. Some users of these forums turn to algorithmic layers of Europa Universalis II, in order to have better control over the ideological layer; their desire to explore their counterfactual imaginary in a way that reflects their predilections leads them to explore the coding of the game it self. Participants in the official online discussion boards often articulate their concerns with both the play and modding of Europa Universalis II in relation to a notion of historical verisimilitude, often wanting to create more realistic play experiences, or conversely perceiving realism as an undesirable, inhibiting factor. Nuanced discussions emerge on topics such as how to alter the game code to allow the historical ‘losers’ to win (Can the Aztecs repel the Spanish?), without the fight seeming one-sided or unrealistic. The online forums negotiate the conflicting concerns of those players who wish official history to be strictly adhered because they desire play to be ‘authentic’ and those players who regard exploring the historical possibilities presented in the game as fun. Players from both camps will discuss and share tactics of play and modding, in order to produce the play experience they desire.

17

An exemplary online discussion is “Rise of the Condor”, a thread reporting on a game where the Incas successfully repelled Spain from South America. In the standard version of Europa Universalis II it is possible to play as the Incas—or a number of other historically important civilizations—but the game is coded in such a way that it is improbable they will be able to win the game (or even survive the onslaught of European expansion into the New World). Even a highly skilled expert player, playing as the Incas would eventually be defeated because of the sheer inequality of resources and infrastructure between them and the typical European sea-faring power. When the coded rules and values of Europa Universalis II strongly suggest that, despite being more flexible than many other historical strategy games, it still should be played in particular ways, counterplay becomes a crucial intervention. “Rise of the Condor” commences with a discussion of how to mod the game to make the Incas ‘playable.’ This is done by modifying certain easily editable text files to change key variables that represent the Incan Empire. The AAR discusses increasing the size of both the Incan armies, and its economic infrastructure, importantly it also illustrate how these changes were made. In this case the counterfactual imaginary is tempered by the desire to be as historically accurate as possible, whilst still providing reasonable scope for the player of the Inca faction to consolidate their power and repel the Spanish within the, albeit modified, rules of the game. “Rise of the Condor” demonstrates that the boundaries between play and counterplay are being blurred. The easy segue between play and counterplay is supported by the relative simplicity of the process, and the wealth of easily accessible community-created guides that describe it step-by-step. Guides cover all aspects of modifying Europa Universalis II and are made by both individuals and collectives. One collective, “The Alternate Grand Campaign and Event Exchange Project,” was formed through the merging of two separate projects. The focus of the project is to develop mods that introduce more historic events into the game. As the game was originally designed particular events were typically connected to a certain country, and only countries that were originally intended as the main playable factions have large numbers of events designed for them. “Inca: Rise of the condor.” “Introduction.”

17

On both the ideological and algorithmic layer Europa Universalis II presents an official history. The game does not question the dominant portrayal of the past, rather, it attempts to simulate it. Through play, often in encounter with the online community, this simulation can form amusing, unusual and challenging depictions of history. While seeking to both conform to and challenge official versions of history on the ideological layer, players must understand the algorithmic layer. This layer reduces all ideological representations to numerical—and text editable—values within a larger algorithm. Through playing by the rules, players are not forced to uncritically accept the official version of history that is portrayed. Rather, there are opportunities within the game through counterplay that provide key moments of opportunity for critical reflection. The core critical element of counterfactual play is the focus on feasibility and the possibilities provided by imagining things ‘differently.’ Desire for historical verisimilitude drives a constant evaluation of feasibility and redesign of the variables built into the game. This push to produce an authentic ideology—while naive—leads to an engagement with the algorithmic layer. The counterfactual imaginary stimulates a similar impulse, led by the designed counterfactual possibilities players begin to explore more fantastic scenarios. However, because this takes place within the framework of a game, counterfactuals must also be playable—to still be a game there must be some sense of challenge and balance.

18

Through modding the game, players challenge its authority as a text that represents the official version of history. Through producing a version of history that is a dialogue between the official history of the game, their own understanding of feasibility and verisimilitude or their counterfactual imagination, players contribute to an understanding to the past as plural and contingent. In this sense, the way that Europa Universalis II encourages counterfactual counterplay that contribute to the formation of counter-power by challenging the authority of hegemonic and linear official history.

18