It's probably folly to expect games, even very rich history-based games like Civilization, to be accurate on every detail, even big details, like slavery. Every

It's probably folly to expect games, even very rich history-based games like Civilization, to be accurate on every detail, even big details, like slavery. Everything gets boiled down to a number (+2 culture, 15% combat strength in friendly territory, etc.), anyway, so it's kind of arbitrary which real world elements find their way in as one of those numbers. Slavery has been in Civs in the past, where it could be used to trade population and happiness for hammers (rushed production). That said, I miss some of the mechanics in earlier Civ games. Civ IV, with all expansions, is still my favorite of the Civs (though I haven't played Civ VI, yet, and won't until the Linux version arrives), partly because it was so complex. On the whole, Civ games are far more educational than the average video game, even "educational" games. If you dig into the Civilopedia and look past the numbers in memory (e.g. Stonehenge is +5 faith, and pyramids are free workers and faster tile improvement, but also have real world history). But, I don't expect Civ games to be "realistic"; I mean, I wouldn't suggest that pyramids were used to store grain because I saw that pyramids in Civ II/III and FreeCiv provided a granary in every city (effectively providing food storage in every city). Though I guess if a presidential candidate can make that mistake, it's not so unreasonable to think people are considering Civ games a reliable source of historic information.