No, seriously. They could not have picked a more terrible leaderhead for the Russians in Civ3.

What were they thinking? With so many famous and legendary Russian leaders, they chose CATHERINE?!?!? :sad:Hell, she wasn't even actually Russian!

They could've went with Peter the Great, Lenin, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Kruschev, Gorbachov, anybody BUT Catherine!

I seriously hope that Catherine will either not be in Civ4, or atleast they give Russia a second leaderhead, preferablly Lenin, Stalin, or Peter the Great.

Also, I want Winston Churchill for England, and Napoleon for France. I'm not implying that their is something wrong with female leaders, but when you have a choice between Napoleon and Joan of Arc, Napoleon always wins in my book. For Egypt, I don't mind some female leaders, because I read that they had a lot of famous and great ones. But Joan over Napoleon? Never, never, never.

Anyone else agree that Catherine's gotta get the boot?

Peter would be far better than Catherine, but Gorbachov? No way.

I agree, I was just making a point that anybody but Catherine would've been better, somebody atleast Russian.

But she was great!

Peter would be fine. I always liked the empress Elizabeth.

I second (or third) the motion to give her the boot. Why not pick one of the Czars from Russian history.

Definitely given Catherine her walking papers. Peter the Great is second only to Teddy Roosevelet in terms of awesomeness. For a secondary leaderhead, either Stalin or Kruschev would be good I think - then you'd have the Czars and the Premiers.

Stalin was a mass murderer, I don't think he would make a good leader. Peter the Great maybe, but not Stalin.

was stalin in civ2? anyway what about kruscheve (i cant spell) it was russias most powerfull era, a golden age if you will

never played civ 2 but stalin was in civ 1. don't matter if he was a murderer. you could say the same for a bunch of those leaders. no-one ever questions shaka or genghis khan, do they?

never played civ 2 but stalin was in civ 1. don't matter if he was a murderer. you could say the same for a bunch of those leaders. no-one ever questions shaka or genghis khan, do they?

Stalin would be a bad option, as
1) he was a mass murderer of historic dimensions (comparable only to Hitler, Mao Ze Dong and Pol Pot)
2) he never was leader of the Russians, but of the SOVIET UNION (which IS a difference)
3) he actually was no Russian, but Georgian

Peter the Great would be a no.1 option for the Russian leader, obviously. Ivan could fit as well, but my knowledge about Russian history is a bit limited to judge him.

How about a KGB babe, in chic uniform, and the cute Russian girl pictured? :smug:

http://www.russiancorner.com/img/screen_savers/milla_jovovich_small_image_690.jpg

Stalin would be a bad option, as
1) he was a mass murderer of historic dimensions (comparable only to Hitler, Mao Ze Dong and Pol Pot)Not exactly true. The Soviet Union only condemned 800,000 people to death during the entire period he ruled Russia. It's not even clear that all those were Stalin's doing, either. There were competing interests during the era of the Great Purges and collectivization, both within the central leadership but more significantly between the central leadership and the regional elite. Stalin didn't really even control much of Russia. The NKVD killed a lot of people, certainly, and they had Stalin's approval, more or less, but most deaths would be better attributed to misguided Soviet idealism and paranoia, at every level of society. Casting most of the blame on Stalin simply isn't fair.

2) he never was leader of the Russians, but of the SOVIET UNION (which IS a difference)
3) he actually was no Russian, but GeorgianThe difference is marginal, especially when you consider that the Czars were in a similar case. The Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, was very close to the old Russian Empire both in terms of territory and "Great Russian" chauvanism.

Sure, Stalin was Georgian. But that doesn't mean that he did try his damn best to be Russian to the extent of hiding his accent and almost never revisiting his homeland (or his mother!).

Okay, Stalin was a bad person, certainly. But there are lots of other bad people in history, and the fact is that the Stalin is no where near as universally reviled as Hitler, especialy in Russia itself. Many give Stalin credit for defeating the Germans in World War II, which is probably fair. Genocidal Nazi Germany was certainly worst than the Soviet Union ever was.

And it's not as if the earlier Czars were very nice, either. Russia was still feudal (with an enslaved peasantry) until the 1860's. There are also definite precedents for mass murder through Russian history under the Czars on a level comparable with those in Soviet times (I wish I could remember the Czar at the moment...).

I'm not going to comment on my top pick of the Czars since I have not studied the Czarist period, but Stalin is certainly the figure most emblematic of Soviet rule, for better or for worse. The modern Soviet Union is quite arguable the most significant part of Russian civilization, so to not pick him would be a shame.

I second (or third) the motion to give her the boot. Why not pick one of the Czars from Russian history.

Catherine WAS a Czar, or actually, a Czarina. Who cares if she was not actually Russian born. She still lead the country, unlike a certain French ruler, and is one of the best rules Russia ever had. She was more in tune with the Russian people than her own Russian born husband (Peter III if my caffene deprived mind is working correctly) was.

I would have chosen Peter if the decision was left up to me, but Catherine the Great is an acceptable choice. However, they could have used a more flattering picture.

"The Soviet Union only condemned 800,000 people to death during the entire period he ruled Russia. It's not even clear that all those were Stalin's doing, either. There were competing interests during the era of the Great Purges and collectivization, both within the central leadership but more significantly between the central leadership and the regional elite. Stalin didn't really even control much of Russia. The NKVD killed a lot of people, certainly, and they had Stalin's approval, more or less, but most deaths would be better attributed to misguided Soviet idealism and paranoia, at every level of society. Casting most of the blame on Stalin simply isn't fair."

Yeah and Hitler didn't know about those gas chambers either, right? And can you name a few leaders who had more control over their states than Stalin? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was an extralegal state so regardless of where you got that figure of 800,000 people condemned to death, there is no reason to believe that it corresponds to reality. You fool, Stalin caused the deaths of millions by famine in the Ukraine and his mass deportations of various nationalities not to mention his simply stupid lack of preparation for war with Hitler. But you attribute most deaths to others' misguided Soviet idealism and paranoia, though. Genius, those two things were not unfortunate side effects of his leadership. They were how he ruled.

All that said, Catherine has to go. I vote Peter.

Even if Stalin wasn't actually truly Russian, he was more so than Catherine.

Also, to not pick Stalin JUST because he's not actually Russian, you'd not be allowed to have Napoleon as a leaderhead because he was actually Corsican!

Stalin may have been a bad person, but he did win World War II, and he did create a massive military for the USSR, and he was probablly the most influential leader of Russia to date!

Also, if you can exclude Stalin because of the bad things he did, then why have Chairman Mao in the game? He was just as bad!

I say Stalin as a leaderhead in Civ4, and Peter the Great as the second one.

you'd not be allowed to have Napoleon as a leaderhead because he was actually Corsican!

Of french descendant (sp?) and he spoke French. Plus he considered himself french. ;)

Stalin had some Russian blood in him, he spoke Russian, he masked his accent as well as he could, and he considered himself Russian. :)

Stalin had some Russian blood in him, he spoke Russian, he masked his accent as well as he could, and he considered himself Russian. :)

How can you say that Catherine can't be the elader of Russia because she was not Russian and then support Stalin by ignoring the fact that he also was not Russian? It all comes down to if the ruler chosen lead his or her respective country.

Sure, he probably had some Russian blood, but then again, Catherine probably did. Over the course of gernerations, I am that some of the Romanov blood intermingled with her own branch a couple of times. Afterall, all the Eurpoean monarchs were somehow related due to constant marriages between lines.

Stalin spoke Russian. Well, Catherine did as well plus she converted to the Orthodox church as required by Russian laws.

Catherine also eventually saw herself as Russian.


I still defend Catherine as being a legitimate choice for the leader of Russia. The best, no. Peter the Great is still the man. And despite Stalin's "questionable behavior", I would also also consider him a legitimate choice for the leader or Russia or the USSR. (As far as I am concerend, they are the same country with just a different name and form of government.)

Political Correctness should not get in the way of a game based in history. Ignoring the past does not make it go away.

...and she is a babe...

How about a KGB babe, in chic uniform, and the cute Russian girl pictured? :smug:

http://www.russiancorner.com/img/screen_savers/milla_jovovich_small_image_690.jpg
Anytime!!!!
Seriously, putting Stalin for Russia is worst than hitler for germany. He is knid of a underground Hitler. Man, I think he killed as much poeple as Hitler, just lots of poeple don't know it. Peter is good, Ivan too.

Seriously I'd think it be more accurate to say the USSR won against Germany in spite of Stalin ruling them.

Going from an army that Pioneered new tactics and developed Tanks and mobile Armor with the Germans after the Great War to an Army that had Infantry fight with as little as 1 rifle to 6 men has to be considered the second worst Blunder in the 20th century ( the first being the building of the Maginot line only to the border with Belgium... Honest what were they thinking? ooohh the Germans came through Belgium once and caught us with our pants down, they would never just go around the wall this time. DUH)

That criticized, what is wrong with Catherine? Just cause she wasn't Russian by Birth? Well I guess adding some 200,000 square miles to Russia is just a drop in the bucket.Wiki it! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_II_of_Russia) Honestly I see no reason not to keep her as one of the two leaders, although I would plead for a more aesthetic leader head, she is just too ugly.

As for the second I'd be fine with any leader BUT Stalin and Ivan the terrible... Come-on he's "the terrible" how good could he have been as a Leader? :lol:
Cheers

Catherine WAS a Czar, or actually, a Czarina.

Actually, she was called Tsarina by the masses, but her title was "Imperatora". The last Russian Tzar was Peter -he didn't like the title (the usual stuff, too backwards), and thus introduced 'Imperator' as official one.

On the original post:
I am getting more and more upset about that endless stream of posts starting with a comment revealing insane lack of historical knowledge. That Mali bashing, Hitler for Germany, Charlemagne for France, yadda yadda.
And this one falls into the same category. It is simply outright incorrect. Read a history book before posting.

Peter would be the prime choice. No question.
Stalin? See the Hitler discussion.
Lenin? How long did he rule? A revolutionary leader, no doubt. But that's it.
Chruschtov is a joke.
Gorbetchev - well, not exactly much glory left after his reign. A good leader, for the rest of the world.
Ivan the Terrible? Borderline acceptable. But, IMHO a leader for the Moscowiti, not for Russia.

Ekaterina is undisputably the second-most successful ruler of Russia. And since they wanted some females, she was a good choice.
That's only another sad example of the recent Russification of history to deny her that position; like the denial of the Scandinavian roots of the 'Rus'...

And, btw: She wasn't Russian? The very same would be true for half the European leaders. Napoleon, Victoria, Richard Lionheart, William of Orange, and nearly all current royalities. The Hohenzollern were not of Prussian descendent. Alexander was no Greek.

Catherine WAS a Czar, or actually, a Czarina. Who cares if she was not actually Russian born. She still lead the country, unlike a certain French ruler, and is one of the best rules Russia ever had.
Great point. I didn't understand why Joan d'Arc was representing France. Ok, she had a nice history, but she never ruled France. Napoleon and Louis XVI are better choices.

For Russia, I prefer Peter and Catherine. Maybe people don't like her because she's ugly and old :D. As far as I know, when she was younger she was considered very beautiful. Possibly Firaxis put her at old age due "anti-Russian feelings", very common in USA :(. Prejudice is always bad, and it's worse when people put it in a game. We are living a "politically correct age" and possibly that's why there won't be bonus for religions. In the same way, Firaxis should put Catherine when she was at 30 years old.

Isn't Stalin a good idea? So why would Ivan be? Why are Temujin and Mao in the game? Butchers existed several times in history. And who knows if Alexander was a butcher? Hammurabi, Xerxes and many others too. Wasn't both atomic bombs in Japan a butchery? History is written by winners. They wrote what they want. Hernán Cortez wrote that his small army (~1500 men) killed 150 thousand aztecs in one battle. It's very hard to believe, even knowing that spanish used gunpowder weapons, while aztecs didn't use them. It's only one example, but it shows very well what I mean.

Actually, she was called Tsarina by the masses, but her title was "Imperatora". The last Russian Tzar was Peter -he didn't like the title (the usual stuff, too backwards), and thus introduced 'Imperator' as official one.

That is nit-picking, but we are on the same page.

Yeah and Hitler didn't know about those gas chambers either, right? And can you name a few leaders who had more control over their states than Stalin?As a matter of fact, the Communist Party (essentially the Soviet government) had a remarkable lack of control during the era of Stalin's rule, especially outside urban regions. Soviet Russia was extremely undeveloped, especially in communications and organization within the Communist Party. I'm just going to cite a paragraph from an excellent Atlantic Monthly article on this by Arch Getty (March 2000, "The Future Did Not Work") which you can see online if you're a print subscriber:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/getty.htm

Clearly, both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes sought to exercise total control over their populations and deprive people of the possibility to organize or even exist outside the officially prescribed forms and institutions. Recent research shows, however, that much as they may have wanted to, the Stalinists were never able to build the coldly efficient machine of Orwell's 1984; much of the Stalinist system worked as the Russian government had worked in 1884. Clumsy implementation of vague plans wreaked havoc with attempts to pursue policies. Moscow had little information about what was really happening in the far-flung provinces, where regional satraps used distance and poor communications to insulate themselves from Moscow's control and build their own power. There was not even a telephone line to the Soviet Far East until the eve of World War II. Research in newly available Soviet archives has also documented widespread Stalin-era dissent, passive and active resistance, strikes, and even full-scale peasant revolts of a kind and scale that Hitler never faced.

And the Soviet Union under Stalin was an extralegal state so regardless of where you got that figure of 800,000 people condemned to death, there is no reason to believe that it corresponds to reality. You fool, Stalin caused the deaths of millions by famine in the Ukraine and his mass deportations of various nationalities not to mention his simply stupid lack of preparation for war with Hitler. But you attribute most deaths to others' misguided Soviet idealism and paranoia, though. Genius, those two things were not unfortunate side effects of his leadership. They were how he ruled.To quote Getty again:
Stalin's camps were different from Hitler's. Tens of thousands of prisoners were released every year upon completion of their sentences. We now know that before World War II more inmates escaped annually from the Soviet camps than died there. Research shows that Stalin's camps and deportations, unlike their Nazi extermination counterparts, were planned components of the Soviet economy, designed to provide a stable slave-labor supply and to populate forbidding territories forcibly with involuntary settlers. Rations and medical care were substandard, but were often not dramatically better elsewhere in Stalin's Soviet Union and were not designed to hasten the inmates' deaths, although they certainly did so. Similarly, the overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan.

Seriously I'd think it be more accurate to say the USSR won against Germany in spite of Stalin ruling them.

Going from an army that Pioneered new tactics and developed Tanks and mobile Armor with the Germans after the Great War to an Army that had Infantry fight with as little as 1 rifle to 6 men has to be considered the second worst Blunder in the 20th centuryI'm sorry to be so blunt, but have you guys studied Soviet history? To not give Stalin credit for winning World War II is absurd. Do you have any idea how completely unindustrialized Russia was prior to the 1930's and Stalin's Five Year Plans? Stalin lead a massive heavy industrialization and military building campaign in the 30s when others were pushing for more development of light industry (such as consumer goods). Stalin realized the threats to national security by Germany and Japan for a very long time and most of his time in power was spent preparing for the war. It was these Russian tanks and guns that won World War II. Stalin misguessed when Hitler was going to attack, but the Soviet Union would never have been prepared at all without his efforts and he certainly knew that conflict with Hitler was going to happen.

A good reference would be John Scott, Behind the Urals, a first hand account of the scale of Soviet industrialization.

My background: I took a class on Russian history this last semester under Lenin and Stalin, from the background behind 1917 revolutions until about the eve of World War II. I just wrote my term paper on revisionist interpretations of the Great Purges, which if requested I would be happy to send to you.

I think Stalin belongs in the game. This game isn't about "morally upright" rulers. If it were, we could hardly have Mao (starvation, anyone?), Ghengis, Montezuma (remember, the Aztecs practiced ritual human sacrifice on LIVE humans), Napoleon, Alexander, and so on. History is filled with a lot of ugly stuff, even for the folks we want to idolize (Edit: I wrote vilify here before... don't know what I was smoking).

The point is, these people wielded tremendous power. Whether they wielded it morally or not, doesn't matter. Whether they were native to their country or not, doesn't matter. Whether we shall wield it well in their stead... that's what truly matters! :D

P.S. To Ramalhão: What are you saying? That ugly people can't be good leaders? Of the female leaders, only Joan could really be considered attractive. Of the males... well... let's just say Lincoln and Genghis weren't put in there for female fanservice.

;) I'm funning you of course. I think they made her look like they did because the most obvious Russian female association Americans have is the babuska. To give her a certain feeling, rather than historical accuracy. After all, isn't Alexander supposed to have a shock of red hair (a la Civ I)? But as I said before, it's not like any of the leaders are real lookers.

Stephan Hoyer, this really is not the correct place for such arguments, but I felt compelled to respond to what you posted. Be careful about throwing around revisionist history arguments about the Soviet Union; I don't know the specifics of what you've been reading, but I'm pretty well read in general European historiography, and I disagree rather sharply with most of what you wrote here. There have always been Marxist scholars willing to defend the Soviet Union, although this has been more difficult to do since the opening of the Soviet archives after 1991.

That figure of 800,000 killed is accurate, but it fails to tell the whole story. That number counts only those individuals directly executed by the Soviet state; it does not include people worked to death in the camps or those who died in industrial accidents caused by forced industrialization or (especially) the millions who starved to death in the famines. The argument that Soviet blunders were responsible for the huge famines of 1931-33 no longer carries any real weight; it's quite clear that the famine was a policy designed to eliminate the kulak class as part of the collectivization process. In short, I don't think you have any real ground to stand on to say that most of the deaths in Stalin's Soviet Union were "accidents" caused by a weak central government. The Soviet state was not monolithic, it is true, but come on. It's wasn't an accident that millions were starving or being worked to death in the Gulags. Go read your Solzhenitsyn again. ;)

If you want to continue this argument, a better place for it woud be in the History forum here at CivFanatics Center. :)

I think it should be chosen by the Russian players only. They are the ones who have strongest emotional connection and can say who the 'best' leader is, they are also the ones who have to deal with the stigma of the selected leader.

Either way, I'll be modding my installation to the KGB babe posted on former page :D

I'm not saying that Catherine was not a good leader in history, nor am I saying she shouldn't be selected just for her lack of Russian blood.

I'm saying that we should pick leaderheads that players can most connect to. Mongols: Ghengis Khan, China: Chairman Mao, America: Lincoln, Egypt: Cleopatra.

Very few players know who Catherine was, unless they're history buffs. Almost every player can tell me who Stalin, Lenin, Peter the Great, or Kruschev is.

(I'm Russian here, actually, anyone else? I'm glad to see so many of you that are actually Russian, or atleast know something about our history.)

Well I'm British and what I know about Russia would not fill one sheet of A4 paper, but I am playing the Natalia Podolskaya "Unstoppable" MP3: a rare example of anglo-russian collaboration :rolleyes:

But what is wrong with Ivan Vasilyevich, wealthiest monarch of Europe who; modernised Russia, introduced law, built a professional army, established parliament, boosted trade with England (yay!), expanded Russian territory, &c.

Such achievements are nothing to be sniffed at. It doesn't matter that he went a bit wacky in his old age: all Russians do! ;)

Or, for that matter, Alexander I, who beat Napoleon?

Cathrine is bad so it comes down to Peter, Stalin, and Lenin- Peter is first, then Stalin, Lenin I would say but read below if two leaders

The idea isnt wether they did bad things but rather would it be accurate to have them in the game. Plus if Russia gets to leaders, you need two leaders at either side of the political\economic scale. Peter the Great was a good reformer and was moving Russia more into Europe and Western ideas, he even to some extent allowed private ownership. However you look at Stalin, totaltarian state, political and economic power was centralized, in effect the government controlled every aspect of Russian\Soviet life. So if Russia had two leader these two would be ideal in that they are both on either side of the scale.

I'm an American who minored in Russian in college and going to head to Moscow to study this fall. Not an expert by any means, but familiar with Russian history in a broad sense.
In deciding what leaders Russia should have, I think we need to look at it from a gameplay perspective.
I think there's definitely a consensus that Peter the Great should be in. We know (or think we do) that in CivIV, civ traits will be replaced by leader traits. So, what would Peter be? Using Civ3 terms, I think Scientific must be one of his traits, due to his mission of moderizing (and Westernizing) Russia. What his secondary trait would be is more questionable. I think good arguments could be made for Militarist or Expansionist though.

But here's the problem: what traits would another Russian leader have? Ivan Vasilyevich (Ivan III, right?), mentioned by stormblind, is fairly obscure to outsiders, but perhaps Economic/Expansionist would work for him.

But the argument that he was more of a ruler of Moscow would apply to him more than Ivan the Terrible, who is considered the first Tsar of all Russia. Ivan the Terrible would probably just be Militarist/Expansionist, since that's mostly what he's known for.

Catherine, who I agree that most people just dislike b/c Firaxis made her leaderhead ugly (though I never made the connection to the stereotypical babushka), I think is pretty well known outside of history-nerds like us. Probably about as well as Peter, anyway. I don't know all that much about her, but it seems that the focus during her rule were basically the same thing as Peter, but probably less notable since they weren't much of a break with the past at this point.

Alexander I I don't think is very notable. He was Tsar during the victory over Napoleon, but I've never heard it attributed to him. Alexander II is more well known.

Lenin (leader from CivII) wasn't around very long. Stalin on the other hand was. And I can appreciate the desire for a Tsarist leader and a Communist one. There is the problem of his brutality though. Disregarding that (only for the sake of discussion!), Stalin would probably be Industrial/Militarist.

I realize I didn't include Agricultural in any of the leaders even though I probably could and should. But I don't think anyone's noted for having a very "agricultural" rule (for Stalin, quite the opposite). I just thought I'd do this as an exercise for myself and others to see what sort of balance certain leaders would bring. My personal choice for a second leader would still probably be Catherine or Stalin. Both leaders obviously have problems, both in game balance and moral terms, but they are the best known too.

Crazy Eskimo, I'm not saying that "ugly people can't be good leaders". I'm saying: if Firaxis wants to put Catherine in Civ4, at least put her when she was younger. She was known for her beauty, but Firaxis put her with an old face. Joan looks attractive and has a younger face, obviously because she died young. But she never ruled France, so she should be in the game as a ruler. Maybe she could be in the great hero list.

Regarding Aztecs, Montezuma (which real name is Motecuhzoma II, Montezuma was what spanish people understood when arrive there) can't be responsible for sacrifices. This was a cultural factor, very common in that region. Aztecs, Mayans and several minor tribes there practiced sacrifices. In their religion, there were 5 ways of death:
- Death by natural causes (except drowning), considered common, the "common" deads were cremated and then went to hell;
- Death by sacrifice was considered salvation, sacrificed people were cremated and then went to sun, returned as hummingbirds;
- Death in battlefield was considered glorious, these "heroes" had same destine as sacrificed people (it was said for people didn't deny to fight until death);
- Death related to water (drowning, lightning and other types) were considered chosen by Tlaloc (god of water, very worshiped due dry soil), these people were buried and worshiped for being chosen by Tlaloc;
- Small children who died were considered pures and went to a garden, being birds for all eternity.

I could place more info about meso-american civs, but it's off-topic :). I already put a lot of non-related text :rolleyes:.

Well, I'll admit Stalin was definitely evil :D. Just how evil is very debatable, but I do not think he was too evil that he should not be considered as a leader. I suppose that's enough going off topic with history :).

I think he should be included as one of the leader figures. It seems most appropriate to have one communist era and one Czarist era leader as jamesjkirk if they are going to pick two, as those are two very different periods in Russian history.

Stalin was a mass murderer, I don't think he would make a good leader. Peter the Great maybe, but not Stalin.

Mass murderer???? It is only your, opinion. For instance , the insurgents in Iraq see the US and Bush as mass murderers. Its all the matter of opinion.

Back on topis though- Boot catherine, Welcome Peter the Great

Lenin, Stalin, or Peter The Great...

Anytime!!!!
Seriously, putting Stalin for Russia is worst than hitler for germany. He is knid of a underground Hitler. Man, I think he killed as much poeple as Hitler, just lots of poeple don't know it. Peter is good, Ivan too.
…worse than Hitler. Huh?

Stalin was a monster, all right. But, there is validity in the argument that Stalin foresaw another European war, and that his rapid industrialization (at the expense of the agricultural sector) in a mere twenty years gave the USSR the edge it needed to win WW2.
The immense human suffering needed to achieve victory, may (most regrettably, for the purpose of this post) be balanced against the immense human suffering that would have ensued had the outcome of the war been different.
Hitler planned to kill a third of the Russians outright, to enslave a third until they died, and to reduce the rest to mere agricultural serfs.
I said it before, Stalin may have been a monster, but he was a monster the saved the world.

Ultra-maroons and collaborators need not reply.

q

stalin is evil cause we know (sort of) what happened. Who knows what more ancient leaders did?

What? Eh? Your post sorta makes more sense if you read it backwards. :confused:

was stalin in civ2? anyway what about kruscheve (i cant spell) it was russias most powerfull era, a golden age if you will

I agree that Catherine has to go. They wanted another female leader so that's why we were stuck with her in civ 3.

Kruschev would be a nice pick. They just need to work his shoe in there somewhere so he can bang it down at the U.N. ^^

[male chauvinist]Is there a point to having a female leaderhead that is not somewhat attractive?[/male chauvinist]

I agree that Catherine has to go.
Why? Name a reason why she isn't a good choice.

Ok, the pic.
But aside from that?
Don't you think 'because I know that Stalin and Lenin better' is incredibly silly?

stalin is evil cause we know (sort of) what happened. Who knows what more ancient leaders did?
I don't put Stalin in a list of evil leaders. People are evil!

Stalin was paranoid, he had political objectors executed or imprissoned - Stalin authorised gulags. This is not a nice policy, but by itself the policy is no worse than President Bush's prison camps!

It was the soviet police who sent people to the gulags, not Stalin. People were sent to gulags for all kinds of reasons like, for example, beating the local policeman in a game of poker. Kind of like Bush's camps, really.

How about a young Catherine? :)

Kruschev, Gorbachov,

these are too modern day, and they werent russian leaders, they were soviet union leaders.

…worse than Hitler. Huh?

Stalin was a monster, all right. But, there is validity in the argument that Stalin foresaw another European war, and that his rapid industrialization (at the expense of the agricultural sector) in a mere twenty years gave the USSR the edge it needed to win WW2.
The immense human suffering needed to achieve victory, may (most regrettably, for the purpose of this post) be balanced against the immense human suffering that would have ensued had the outcome of the war been different.
Hitler planned to kill a third of the Russians outright, to enslave a third until they died, and to reduce the rest to mere agricultural serfs.
I said it before, Stalin may have been a monster, but he was a monster the saved the world.

Ultra-maroons and collaborators need not reply.

q


First of all, Stalin didn't force the industrialization due to the German threat to Soviet Russia.
He came to power in 1922 and was an almost absolute ruler after 1927. At that time, most people abroad never had heard anything about a guy named Adolf Hitler, who came to power just in 1933. He didn't refrain from the Hitler-Stalin-pact which marked another (temporarily) end to the Polish state, either.
Second, he was responsible for the death of assumed 10 million people in total - besides the casualties caused by WW2. Those 10 million are direct assassinations (Trotzki), death penalties, famine, labour camps, purges and dissipation.
Third, he didn't win the war. If at all, the Soviet Union did - with massive support by the US, btw. At the end of the war, more trucks used by the Red Army had been produced in the USA than in the Soviet Union. For shells, the ratio was almost the same. After the German assault, he was literally aphasic for more than 2 weeks, while others tried desperately to keep the morale up.

So much to the "credits" of Stalin.

After all: Realizing that most "great people" have made their way into the history books just walking over the dead corpses of their people, nevertheless some are just not worth to be mentioned as a 'leader'.
This - IMHO - stands true for such crazyminded criminals as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. None of them I would like to see in Civ4. Period.

1) If there are to be two leaders we can have both?

2) Gotta keep Catherine if the rumors of the, ah, manner of her death are true...

Third, he didn't win the war. If at all, the Soviet Union did - with massive support by the US, btw. At the end of the war, more trucks used by the Red Army had been produced in the USA than in the Soviet Union. For shells, the ratio was almost the same. After the German assault, he was literally aphasic for more than 2 weeks, while others tried desperately to keep the morale up.

So much to the "credits" of Stalin.


First of all, credits DO go to Stalin!

WWII wasn't some silly gag race. It was the greatest, deadliest, largest, scariest war we've ever had. The Russians lost 20 million people in the war. That's more than the Americans, Brits, Jewish, and German casualties combined.

You need to realize, Hitler wasn't fighting with Russia because they were an obstacle in his path. He hated them with a passion. He hated them with the same passion he hated Jews. He would've slaughtered or enslaved every single Russian if he had the chance.

Now, in terms of supplies... I don't know about trucks, but I do know that at the end of the war, the Soviet Union had produced the most amount of it's own tanks, guns, airplanes, machineguns, pillboxes, and bombs.

The Americans were shaking in their boots during the Cold War because if nobody launched nuclear weapons, Russia still had it's enormous tank army.

Crazy Eskimo, I'm not saying that "ugly people can't be good leaders".

I know, I was just funning you. ;) I didn't know that Catherine was known for her beauty (most of my knowledge of Russia is confined to the pre-Revolutionary tsars to present day), so a younger portrait of her would make sense in that case.

Regarding Aztecs, Montezuma (which real name is Motecuhzoma II, Montezuma was what spanish people understood when arrive there) can't be responsible for sacrifices. This was a cultural factor, very common in that region.

Granted that Montezuma wasn't totally responsible for the human sacrifices. My point was that folks in history did a number of things that we would shy away from nowadays. Whether Montezuma personally ordered every sacrifice or simply went along with a common cultural occurence, it remains that human sacrifice happened during his reign, something that I would imagine a modern person would regard with revulsion. However, he still definitely deserves to be in the game. The same applies to other leaders in the game.

I don't put Stalin in a list of evil leaders. People are evil!

Stalin was paranoid, he had political objectors executed or imprissoned - Stalin authorised gulags. This is not a nice policy, but by itself the policy is no worse than President Bush's prison camps!

It was the soviet police who sent people to the gulags, not Stalin. People were sent to gulags for all kinds of reasons like, for example, beating the local policeman in a game of poker. Kind of like Bush's camps, really.

That is a horribly inaccurate, hate-filled, partisan statement, and I will thank you if you make no more of them in this thread. I'm no Bush-fan either, but please confine this and any sort of modern political discussion to the OT threads. It gets in the way of and distracts from Civ.

2) Gotta keep Catherine if the rumors of the, ah, manner of her death are true...

Please help this ignorant Westerner. What rumors are these?

The USA was not quaking in it's boots, because the USA did not know what USSR had and deluded itself into thinking it was technologically superior. Don't forget the UK was a big player in the Cold War aswell.

There was a lot of industrial saboutage going on. For example..

Concorde engineers knew that Soviet spies were stealing blueprints to build the Tu-144 so the British planted fake blueprints. This is why the Tu-144 ended up with those ear-like wings above the cockpit :lol:

UK and USSR both developed their own VTOL but USA failed abysmally :rolleyes:

Russian bear aircraft would fly over Pacific & North Sea. There are pictures of the Bear with RAF Ligtnings (1950s) and pictures of the Bear with USAF F-15s (1980s). I think the Soviets were taking pictures of the interceptors to check for modifications or deliver pictures of it's bomber to the west - maybe both.

There are lots and lots of other interesting examples of spying and industrial saboutage, most of it was between London and Moscow, although the CIA appears to have been paranoid about the number of Soviet sleepers in America. I guess we will never know the true scale of deception...

Re the death of Catherine the Great. Cant really say on a family board, but involving a horse. Probably apocryphal anyway...

Re was Starlin a great leader. The German invasion of Russia remains the largest military operation in history, the numbers involved dwarfing the D-Day landings. Clearly this was the decisive moment of WW2. The siege of leningrad and the massive tank battle (cant remember the name but largest tank battle in history) were the moment where Germany stopped endless victories and started endless defeats.

To try to draw a distinction between Starlin and the Soviet people because you dont like him is very dangerous ground. Of course it was the Soiet people who won those victories but does Churchill take credit for the battle of Britan?

On more subjective ground as the US and USSR raced for control of Japan and strategic Japanese posessions in manchuria it is at the very least arguable that the dropping of the atomic bomb on a inhabited urban environment (as opposed to a more limited military or symbolic one) was a demonstration to Starlin of having the WILL to use it.

Whatever the truth of the last statement, clearly Starlin did as much towards winning the war as any other man. Clearly his influence over the worlld justifies his being a leader in civ.

Personally i think he was an evil %$#&, but that is hardly the point.

good point about Stalin, ginand, and i think that if catherine goes, the other leader shoudl be peter the great

a lot of civs could have had better leaders
egypt is a big one, I don't think cleopatra did much else but sleep around with roman emperors. I think they are putting hatshepsut in civ 4 (read somewhere on here) But there's better ones than her too.
Namer was a big one, he united egypt
Ramses would be a great choice

was Joan of arc ever even the official ruler of france? Napolean or Louis would be much better

Even Rome could have been done differently (better is debatable). Julius Caesar wasn't even an official emperor. His adopted son Augustus was the first official emperor and brought Rome to it's Golden age.

Ah, so we could have the young KGB babe! :D

Peter the Great is the most famous, most effective and the most known Russian leader.... we need noone else. Also he was ACTUALLY Russian unlike Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Catherine and whoever not...

More Leader Ideas:

Ancient/Middle Ages
Dmitry Donskoy - Moskovite Prince who tried to beat the Mongols in 1380.
Alexander Nevsky - Lake Ladoga battle Hero. Very powerful symbol in Russia
Ivan the IV- in Russia he is known as "Ivan Grozny", means "Ivan the menacing" I guess.

Industrial/Renaissance Age:
Michail Romanov - Originator of Romanov Dynasty.
Peter the Ist - a lot said about him
Ekaterina II - under her reign Russia was at the height of her power
Alexander I - Tsar under chich Russia beat Napoleon
Nikolai II - 2nd most known Russian Emperor

All Soviet leaders are Soviet leaders with very few of them actually being Russians. Considering their policies it would be wrong to put any of them as a Russian Leader.

Emreatriza is the Russian word for "Empress" or Tsarina...

Russia will have two leaders, Catheine II, and Stalin.

Why?

Both demonstrate wildly different styles of gameplay, much like the current Fench leaders (Louis XIV and Napoleon).

Both have been Civ leaders for Russia in the past.
Civ 1: Stalin
Civ 2: Catherine II/Vladimir Lenin
Civ 3: Catherine II

Communism has always been a form of government in Civ, and -- in Civ 3 -- is Russia's PREFERRED government. Peter I, Catherine II, or any other tsar for that matter is assuredly NOT Communist in thinking.

So I don't think it's too wild a stretch to have a highly industrial/militaristic communist leader for Russia, and a more seasoned, diplomatic, and cultural autocrat.

The best leaders to represent these traits are Catherine II and Josef Stalin.
Peter I was a far more forceful autocrat than Catherine II, which would already be demonstrated by the gameplay style of a Soviet leader. Catherine was responsible for further democratizing Russian society, expanded its territory, culturally developed St Petersburg, and is recorded (along with Alexander I) as one of Russia's (few) "Enlightened Despot."

If I had it my way, I would make the leaders Peter I and Catherine II, but since the Soviet period is most likely to be included, I would put my money on Catherine and Stalin.

... but yeah. Please. New leaderhead for my dear Yeketerina. If Catherine Zeta Jones can play her in that (mediocre) film, I think she can look less like a beet-picking peasant in Civ IV.

-B

First of all, Stalin didn't force the industrialization due to the German threat to Soviet Russia.
Stalin in an early twenties speech said that the Soviet Union was backward and had to catch up.
The lessons of the First World War were lost only in the west. Stalin knew there was going to be another European war and did his utmost to get ready for it, regardless of cost.
The forced collectivization of agriculture is a case in point: The peasants were there to feed the industrial cities.


Third, he didn't win the war. If at all, the Soviet Union did - with massive support by the US, btw. At the end of the war, more trucks used by the Red Army had been produced in the USA than in the Soviet Union. For shells, the ratio was almost the same.
Russian soldiers rode to Berlin in US made trucks all right, but, the T-34 tank, for one, whose quality and quantity came as rude shock the Germans, was all theirs. I could cite many other such examples.
USSR destroyed 75% of the German armed forces. If this weren’t so, the western allies would have reached an “understanding” with Hitler.
Let’s look at the three five-year plans that preceded the war. (Source www)

The First Five Year Plan (1928-1932)
Massive investment in the development of heavy industry. Unrealistic targets - a 250 percent increase in overall industrial development and a 330 percent expansion in heavy industry alone. But though targets were not met, huge expansion achieved.

The Second Five Year Plan (1933-1937)
Slightly more realistic targets than the first FYP but again the emphasis was entirely on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods and living standards.
Steel output trebled. Engineering industry grew rapidly as did electricity generation. Oil production was the main disappointment, falling below expectation.

The Third Five Year Plan (1938-1941)
Cut short by the German invasion but set against a background of international tension, this Plan again placed emphasis on heavy industry. Living standards deteriorated as by 1940 defence expenditure took up 32.6% of the total budget.
The resulting upturn in manufacturing output and national income was something unprecedented in the history of industrialization. Russian manufacturing boomed during the great depression. If one examines the period of the two five year plans of 1928 to 1937 Russian national income rose from 24.4 to 96.3 billion rubles, coal output increased from 35.4 to 128 million tons, steel production from 4 to 17.7 million tons, electricity output rose 700%, machine-tool production 20,000% and tractor production (factories that could be easily converted in tank production) rose 40,000%.
By the late 1930’s, Russia had become the 2nd largest economy in the world.

OK?

q

Concorde engineers knew that Soviet spies were stealing blueprints to build the Tu-144 so the British planted fake blueprints. This is why the Tu-144 ended up with those ear-like wings above the cockpit :lol:


Wrong. Totally Completely Wrong.

The "ears", as you call them, are actually called canards. Small movable wings used to increase stability in flight. The other plane that uses canards is the state of the art Eurofighter.

To be precise, it was the Russian engineers who added the canards, because the crap blueprints they recieved couldn't be completely reverse-engineered, so the Russians had to compensate by adding canards to counter the instability some parts of the blueprints caused.

(I just don't like bull**** being thrown around. ;) )

was Joan of arc ever even the official ruler of france? Napolean or Louis would be much better


This is just stupid, joan'd'arc got lead of all the french in to great victory against english and after was burned to the stake, and napolien wasn't ever quite in "control" of france.


Oh and i must say this, civ is to CHANGE history and so your civ is different to reality!

It's not that I find most of the discussion here uninteresting...but it belongs into the history forum. And, there are already several instances of the "Did the USSR win WW2 because or despite Stalin" debatte.

But, as CIV leader, I consider him as disgusting as Hitler or Pol Pot. Mao...slightly better. Would put him in a category with Lenin. Or Mussolini.

Wrong. Totally Completely Wrong.

The "ears", as you call them, are actually called canards. Small movable wings used to increase stability in flight. The other plane that uses canards is the state of the art Eurofighter.

To be precise, it was the Russian engineers who added the canards, because the crap blueprints they recieved couldn't be completely reverse-engineered, so the Russians had to compensate by adding canards to counter the instability some parts of the blueprints caused.

(I just don't like bull**** being thrown around. ;) )
You only said almost the same thing and I most certainly did not post any bull :cool:

You see, the fake blueprints would not work. They tipped the centre of gravity too far forward. They were not "crap" blueprints, they were planted as fakes to be stolen by the spies which the British knew about. They had two choices: expose the spies, or feed them false information.

The Russians solved that by adding the forward wings.

However, you are wrong about them adding stability in flight. The Tu-144 has the open during take-off and closes them after take off. They are for increasing the lift at low speeds.

This is known because the Tu-144 demonstrated their use at the Paris Airshow (where the French did something very stupid - again)

I'm not saying that Catherine was not a good leader in history, nor am I saying she shouldn't be selected just for her lack of Russian blood.

I'm saying that we should pick leaderheads that players can most connect to. Mongols: Ghengis Khan, China: Chairman Mao, America: Lincoln, Egypt: Cleopatra.

Very few players know who Catherine was, unless they're history buffs. Almost every player can tell me who Stalin, Lenin, Peter the Great, or Kruschev is.

(I'm Russian here, actually, anyone else? I'm glad to see so many of you that are actually Russian, or atleast know something about our history.)

I guess I was misreading your posts. You'r right, the leaderhead should be a person that most players can associate with. but, I would guess that most of the serious civ players have some basic historical knowledge and would know who Catherine was. But I could be wrong.

@ Colonel and Justy: Why is Catherine a bad choice? And why does she have to go?

these are too modern day, and they werent russian leaders, they were soviet union leaders.

For all intents and purposes, at least in Civ Terms, the Soviet Union and Russia should be considered the same nation. Afterall, the same people, same territory, same language and culture: just a different name and from of Government.

oh, and by the way, who cares if Joan lead the French Armies, she never lead the country itself. That is like saying that General MacArthur should be the leader of the US. And if Napolean was not in "control" of France, how was he able to conquer most of Europe?

and napolien wasn't ever quite in "control" of france.



Somebody here needs to go look at a text book. :mischief:

Oh, and Stormblind, by crap blueprints I meant the fake blueprints.
Yeah, you got it right, just the way you originally wrote it made it look like you said the fake blueprints included canards to ruin it. Yeah, you were right, I was just confused by what you said. :crazyeye:

Bah. I think the general player -- if they have a BARE MINIMUM of Russian History knowledge -- are more inclined to know of Catherine II than Peter I.

And it's because Catherine is female. Most Americans have little knowledge of Russian czardom anyway, due to Cold War stereotyping and the systematic marginalizing of Russian history and culture.

Anyway, back to Catherine...

http://www.celebrity-fansites.com/images/stars/catherine_zeta_jones/catherine_the_great/catherine_zeta_jones_catherine_the_great_0026.jpg

I can dig it.

-B

Bah. I think the general player -- if they have a BARE MINIMUM of Russian History knowledge -- are more inclined to know of Catherine II than Peter I.

I disagree. Most players with bare minimum knowledge can name only two Russian czars, Peter the Great, and Ivan the Terrible, and just maybe Nicholas II if they read up on Soviet history.