Winston Churchill Animated Leaderhead v 1.0


Made By: ccm01

Description:
This modification replaces Queen Elizabeth with Winston Churchill as the leader of England. Only the PCX and FLC files have been changed. If you desire to use this modification, you will have to edit the civ3mod.bic yourself to change the English leader's name to Winston Churchill. The facial expression changes are very subtle, but are accurate reflections of the leader's mood. I also opted to not make modifications to the images to represent the four different time periods in the game (this will come later if I become more motivated).

Installation:
Please back up your files before using this. If you blow up your machine after installing this, don't blame me (as you were advised to back up your files). To use, simply extract and copy the contents of the archived folders into the corresponding folders in the Civilization III\Art directory (i.e. Churchill\Advisors\LZ_all.pcx to ...\Civilization III\Art\Advisors) and say "Yes" to overwrite the existing files.

You can download it here (2.02 MB):

http://ccm01.sphosting.com

Hope you enjoy.

ccm01

looks nice to me, and i also liked the hitler and stalin additions.

but as there was once a fair number of women among all the civs' leaders, i think with kicking out catherine (russia) and now even the english queen we're RAPIDLY running out of female leaders... couldn't you do a couple of new ones next time? :D

never mind, just kidding.

although, some more women actually WOULD be nice. :D

The women to men ratio of national leaders is just another fine example of Sid Meier's political correctness.

Though 50% of the Earth's population may indeed be female, certainly there has NOT been a 50% ratio of female national leaders over the years.

Like including Communism but not Fascism, giving as many women national roles (even when they never were, such as Joan of Arc), one must wonder just how much adherance Firaxis has to the "Political Correctness" crowd!

well, i do agree with you in your point that firaxis' motives for putting that many female leaders in there were most obviously their need for political correctness (what else, i might ask).

then again, i also agree on the point (actually mine :D ) that more female leaders provide some additional game atmosphere. well, of whatever nature, but i like it in some way.

speaking of the leaders... generally, i don't like most of the default ones. joan of arc fofr france instead of napoleon is ridiculous IMO, and catherine for russia is even a tad worse.

queen elizabeth/victoria (i don't remember which one actually is ion the game, right now...) - well, ok. if they really like her, they can have it like this. thinking of significant english great leaders there's nobody coming into my mind anyways... but i'm no historian after all. ;)

err...what was this thread originally about? :D

Elizabeth is certainly a worthy leader for this game. I am basically trying to make alternative leaders for era specific mods. My primary goal is the World War II leaders (if you haven't figured that out yet)...

Again, thanks for the interest in my work...

ccm01

yea ... elizabeth would be an excellent leader! ... and when she was a young queen she was soooo beautiful!!

and i dont think that the addition of women as leaders was any kind of "political correctness" but mebey making none of them striking beautiful was? or u could say the fact that u couldnt choose to be male or female to be a bit of lazyness on firaxis? ... but keep these head mods comming in!! they are GREAT!

Joan d' Ark WAS NEVER A RULER! We must make Louis the Great or Good Old Charlie the Gaullian the French ruler!

...and i don't see any point why prefer joan of arc instead of napoleon, either.

that is: joan of arc as the french leader is as ridiculous as catherine for russia.

no, i don't hate women.

Isn't it true if i put in Stalin's head files that I'm eliminating the file that has Churchill in it? I think it would be great if you could put together one mod file with Stalin, Churchill, Napoleon, Washington, Hitler, etc... It would be like an alternate Civ universe!

Stalin and Churchill are two completely seperate mods... each NATION gets one ruler, so England can have Churchill OR Elizabeth... France can have Napoleon OR Joan, Russia can have Stalin OR Catherine... those are the only choices to make.

You can have every nation with a WWII leader if you so desire.

Originally posted by Wolfshanze
The women to men ratio of national leaders is just another fine example of Sid Meier's political correctness.

Though 50% of the Earth's population may indeed be female, certainly there has NOT been a 50% ratio of female national leaders over the years.

Like including Communism but not Fascism, giving as many women national roles (even when they never were, such as Joan of Arc), one must wonder just how much adherance Firaxis has to the "Political Correctness" crowd!

The game is not now, and has never been strictly about historical realism. If it were, perhaps we'd have a game laden with brutality, slavery, terrorism, and other horrors of humankind's past. And while some of you may think that including these things into the game would be a good thing, there are myriad reasons we don't.

Dan

Thanks
I think what is a bit confusing is the Churchill mod file pack seems to have more in it than just the files for him, although now that I've looked at the Hitler mod it was a matter of one file having folders and the other just files in one group. The Hitler mod appears to be just for Germany tho so I can see now how it works.

Walt

Wow... someone from Firaxis is reading up over here!

So why is it that the Call to Power games had Slavery and Fascism built-into their "Civ" games, but the "real" Civ line never has?

Obviously the CTP games still managed to gain a following, even with slavery and fascism in the game(s)?!?!?!

Certainly my own Fascist Patches have always been popular with the Civ line of games.

The history of man has had plenty of dark spots on it's record... I don't see that whitewashing of history does anybody any good.

Certainly warfare for 6,000 years isn't healthy, but that's included in Civilization! I guess it's just "selective" picking that gets my goat. The ability to drop a 10-megaton nuclear weapon on a neighboring Civ is okay, or representing the brutality of communism is okay, but the ability to have a fascist state is not.

Just seems like faulty logic that I've never understood Microprose or Firaxis to be so selective.

" The game is not now, and has never been strictly about historical realism. If it were, perhaps we'd have a game laden with brutality, slavery, terrorism, and other horrors of humankind's past. And while some of you may think that including these things into the game would be a good thing, there are myriad reasons we don't. "

So why is nuclear warfare and communism okay in the game, but fascism was verboten?

i don't think that firaxis' reasons for leaving out some things and some others not have that much to do with pretent political correctness.

it rather seems that these were design decisions that had to be made, e.g. for they didn't want to have too many government types at once. so they had to pick some of them, and they picked those that they thought were the ones more important/significant/whatever. and they probably had a look on what was in the original civ I and what not.

such design decisions simply *have* to be made, and there has never been any computer game that made all of its players completely happy.

however, if a game offers that great ability to easily getting modified to meet each player's personal preferences, i think that it is not necessary at all to gripe at those players actually doing it.

and when they want to have a new government that is called fascism, then let them goddamn have it.

this is no flame at firaxis, of course, but rather at those guys saying stuff like 'when firaxis left it out, they had sensible reasons for it - so at any rate it's wrong of you adding it'.

Originally posted by Wolfshanze
Wow... someone from Firaxis is reading up over here!

So why is it that the Call to Power games had Slavery and Fascism built-into their "Civ" games, but the "real" Civ line never has?

Obviously the CTP games still managed to gain a following, even with slavery and fascism in the game(s)?!?!?!

Certainly my own Fascist Patches have always been popular with the Civ line of games.

The history of man has had plenty of dark spots on it's record... I don't see that whitewashing of history does anybody any good.

Certainly warfare for 6,000 years isn't healthy, but that's included in Civilization! I guess it's just "selective" picking that gets my goat. The ability to drop a 10-megaton nuclear weapon on a neighboring Civ is okay, or representing the brutality of communism is okay, but the ability to have a fascist state is not.

Just seems like faulty logic that I've never understood Microprose or Firaxis to be so selective.

" The game is not now, and has never been strictly about historical realism. If it were, perhaps we'd have a game laden with brutality, slavery, terrorism, and other horrors of humankind's past. And while some of you may think that including these things into the game would be a good thing, there are myriad reasons we don't. "

So why is nuclear warfare and communism okay in the game, but fascism was verboten?

Well, for one thing, in Civ III, nukes are significantly less a factor than in previous Civ games (and this is something a lot of people disagree with). For a lot of people, nukes were a goal in Civ II, they were almost glorified. I don't think this is the case with Civ III, but let me know if you feel differently.

Secondly, and this is not meant to knock CTP or CTP2, but the potential Civ III audience is significantly larger than with either of the CTP titles. CTP2 sold less than 30,000 units to be precise. I don't chalk that up to the inclusion of slavery or fascism at all, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare the CTP series to the Civ series in this regard.

It's not a coincidence or a mistake that Civ III is the kind of game parents feel comfortable buying for their kids.

The tone of Civ III was intentionally humorous, harkening back to the original Civilization. I personally saw it as an opportunity to highlight the more upbeat stuff and to have some fun, and I don't think any rational person would classify slavery or Adolf Hitler as "fun".

Dan

Dan,

" The tone of Civ III was intentionally humorous, harkening back to the original Civilization. I personally saw it as an opportunity to highlight the more upbeat stuff and to have some fun, and I don't think any rational person would classify slavery or Adolf Hitler as "fun". "

Well, I have to agree with you there, but I come from the old "grognard" wargamers camp, not from the casual family gamers camp, so I've always looked at Civ more as "wargame lite" than as a fun family game... I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I can see no Adolf Hitler (obviously controversial), but I guess I'll never understand why Communism, which surely was "an Evil Empire" as Reagan put it, was included while Fascism (with or without Hitler) never has been included.

Still, I don't mean to complain, I have always prefered the Civ series to CTP, but the inclusion of Communism with the exclusion of Fascism has always seemed odd to me. Civ3 is a ton of fun, and I'm glad you at least left in editors for us to do with it as we like, so have a beer on me!
:beer:

Wolf,

We're seriously threadjacking here :) but it's an interesting discussion. I'll summarize by saying we wanted to try to satisfy hardcore fans and still keep the game family-friendly and accessible at the same time. Hopefully we succeeded.

As for the editor, it's also not a coincidence that the government page is one of the few pages with functioning add and delete buttons in the shipping version of the editor ;)

Enjoy, and thanks for a constructive and thoughtful discussion!


Dan

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


The game is not now, and has never been strictly about historical realism. If it were, perhaps we'd have a game laden with brutality, slavery, terrorism, and other horrors of humankind's past. And while some of you may think that including these things into the game would be a good thing, there are myriad reasons we don't.

Dan

Thank you! :beer: I agree completely! These mod packs (all of them) alow us to adjust the game to our respective tastes, and while civ3 may not be all things to all folks it is a supurb effort, AND with these packs we can do what we want. I for example dont want to think of the Germans and Russians as being singularly identified w/ Adolf and Joe S. BUT do see the place for them as an option. As it has been stated @ length throughout these sites... This is not a dedicated "war Game", or some sort of world history sim, though lets remember... IT IS A GAME!! If ya dont like it Mod-it! Or play somthing else! Damn it! And... oh yeh... great job on da Winnie image! :slay: ;)

Thanks for the compliments on my work...

This place is much better for feedback than Apolyton, which has become somewhat of a black hole as far as I'm concerned...

Yea, nothing happens at apolyton anymore. I've stopped going there entirely; I don't like wasting my time. They're not even sending out their newsletter anymore, which was the only thing they had over this place.

Just my two cents: from a strictly gameplay point of view, I think it would be rather difficult to differentiate between communism and fascism. Certainly they are two different forms of government, but in our history they've had pretty much the same result. Now of course, you could also make the same argument for the republic and democracy...

This is always such a joke to hear when people can't fathom the HUGE differances between Fascism and Communism... there's a reason why one is extreme right wing and one is extreme left wing.

These types of government are far more differant than the rather similar Republic and Democracy.

So they both have dictators... that's about where the similarities end.

Everything else about the structure of governments is very differant.

The most important of which is how the economies are run under these governments, and Stalinist Russia had a VASTLY differant economy that Fascist Germany. (State owned/controlled vs Privately owned/capitalist).

There's a lot more that goes into it, but frankly, Communism and Fascism are far more differant than Republic and Democracy, but nobody says they should be the same.

Well, I was thinking more in terms of game mechanics that anything else. I don't think the addition of "fascism" as a government would add all that much to the game. I do understand the differences between fascism and communism, of course. However, if you look at the histories of Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany (or modern China and Fascist Italy, ad naseum) the effects of these two forms of government are not all that readily apparent. Both subsume the individual into the state, both have totalitarian power structures, etc. Now of course, there's nothing in the theory of Communism that presumes a totalitarian government (in fact, I would argue that a Communist state has never truly existed; neither has a pure capitalist state).
The biggest difference is in the economics.

Ok, regarding the historical realism aspect of this dispute, I have to say that I have always percieved the Civ series' relation to history as aesthetic and ambient. It's the FEEL of the game, not the facts? The idea is to MAKE the history of mankind, not imitate it.

On the fascism issue, I simply have to complain the Firaxis dropped the ball on government types altogether. Monarchy is worthless since Republic can be obtained sooner. Communism is only periodically useful at all and only because the game's concept of corruption is unbalanced. Almost any wise playstyle involves a quick dash for Republic and evolution to Democracy fairly quickly. The inclusion of new government types including variations (religious dictatorship, cult of personality, free-market plutocracy, socialist parliamentary, military police state, oligopolistic intelligencia, even benign dictator.) This would have added a great deal of depth to government as a game concept, especially if they were tied to the tribe's special attributes. England, being commercial and industrious) would make an excellent free-market plutocracy for example.

P.S. This is the number one thing I would want in an expansion pack. :crazyeyes

The work you have done on it is amazing!:nuke:

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
Wolf,

We're seriously threadjacking here :)
Ban him! Ban him! Ban the guy who helped make the game this board is made for! Hah ha, :p
:D
I'm kidding. :D

Nice job with the leader heads ccm. :goodjob:

I have posted on another thread of yours, also. Same problem here, your link takes me to a baseball graphics site with no link to your leaderheads. I would really like to use some of your leaderheads, but cannot get to them. Any solution would be appreciated. I think your work looks really great.

Thanks

You can get the leaderheads HERE (http://civ3.gidustin.net/) I tested this so you should be able to get them.

On the subject of governments, I think they work just fine as they are, and I do think there is room for others.
I always choose monachy over republic, most of the civs have monarchy era UUs, so you may as well go to war, cos once you get the Golden age you can get techs realy quick, plus you can take advantage of the extra production to build cultural achivements. You can capture wonders, expand your borders without reaching optimal city number make peace and get more techs and more money. Even after the golden age, you may as well stay with monarchy cos you should never stop a war untill you have won, I.e reduced your neighbor to a vassal state if they have less culture than you, or assimilate them if they have more.
Ancient and middle age eras are the only time to make war!

The comunism of Civ III is a kind of improved despotism, i.e. totalitarian leadership based on a socialist economy. Facism was totalitarian leadership based on a capitalist economy, or the despotism included in Civ III (see they didn't leave facism out, its just not as good agovernment as some people would like. And historicly facism wasn't a very effective government, remember, they lost the war!)

I personaly use a "Utopian Socialist Republic" which has a "democratic" trade bonus and war wearyness with improved worker speed, comunal corruption, free mainatnece of buildings but expensive army (two coins per unit, for every unit) and no rushing of improvements. This is how I would govern a civilisation in the modern world, falling back on an emergency war government, in case of national emergency.

Quote:
"see they didn't leave facism out, its just not as good agovernment as some people would like. And historicly facism wasn't a very effective government, remember, they lost the war!"

So let me get this straight... if you lose a war, your government type is innefective? Let's see... I've known some Monarchies to lose wars, I've seen some Democracies lose wars, I've seen some Communist nations lose wars, and I've seen some Republics lose wars... does this mean they are all innefectual too?

Please don't make blanket statements that don't make any sense.

Nazi Germany also came much closer to winning than I think you give them credit for, and had a few decisions been made differantly, may very well have won the war.

Fascism is NOT an end-all-be-all government, but it deserves it's own place in the game, and for the umpteenth millionth time, there IS a differance between Fascism and Despotism... it's the economy, not the leadership that makes the differance... look into some socialogy books, they'll explain the differance in greater detail.

I agree that despotism and facism are diferent governments and I'm not saying that nazi germany lost the war only because of their government.
The advantages germany had in WWII was a scientific and engineering edge at the start of the war and good soldiers. Towards the end of the war many of the other countries managed to catch up in several areas and with good espionage the allies efectivly leveled the playing field. The russians initialy suffered from bad military organisation and general problems within the red army but once this was overcome the eventual outcome of the war rested almost entirely on production.
Although the nazis utilized slave labour the advantage was canceled out by their drive towards extermination, plus they didn't allow women workers untill it was too late, the russians had women fighters, and workers even before the war started.

Although I will admit that nazism is a form of fascism it is not the only form. General Franco ruled facist spain until the 60s.
There are plenty of divisions of government and In the post war scenario That I am working on (see creation and customisation) I plan to have several alternative governments that explore all the options.

I love the Churchill head!

I am going to ignore the fact that Joan D'Arc was choosen instead of Napoleon and the whole Fascist arguement and simply ask, Why was Churchill left out? Look at England - okay Queen Elizabeth was a great ruler, but Churchill lead them through WWII. Plus Churchill didn't even make the leader list for England. He wasn't even mentioned in the histroy of England in the Civilopedia.

I'm having trouble downloading it. I get taken to a baseball stadium site. Where's Winny?

Same here. I just dont feel right talking to a stadium in diplomacy. . .

I really wanted the leaderheads too

GIDustin

Here it is. I downloaded it when the site was showing civ3 leaderheads. Enjoy:

Churchill Animated Leaderhead (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/Churchill_Leaderhead.zip)

btw - I also have Degaulle, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and Hirohito. All made by ccm01. Should I start new thread for all of them?

Yes do it already zulu!

Yes, they are too Politically Correct. I would've loved having Facsicm (sp?), not that I'm a Facist, but that it would be a nice addition. And, I think Churchill should have been the English leader, Hitler as German (yes, he's evil, but he's the most famous German leader), Stalin for Russia...

Civ III does have slavery.
It is in the form of captured workers. They don't require any upkeep. :) But the downside is they work half as fast :(

Ok,is there a way to use Churchhill as the leader of another country other than britain:confused: I am really out to warp history and make it inaccurate.:nuke:
:sniper: :sniper::sniper: [plasma]

Hey! I love political correctness! S'pose that's only cause I'm a lefty freak though...

Fascism/Communism - I would argue that these are functionally the same thing. The socialist/capitalist divide is irrelevant at these levels of centralizaton of power because all resources are at the disposal of a select few individuals (whether you refer to those resources as state property or personal property).

(In my mods, I usually rename Communism "dictatorship" or "totaltarianism" and give it all units free. I also usually change democracy to liberal (i.e. capitalist) democracy and add democratic socialism - like democracy but with free facility maintianance and quadruple unit upkeep. Then get rid of Republic's trade bonus and add a few extras for flavor - Corporate Ogliarchy, Theocracy, ect.)

Leaderheads - well, if you're going to care about historical plausibility, leaderheads should be the most offensive thing in the game. I mean, really - an immortal ruler that stays in power thoughout thousands of years. I'm afraid this has always been the biggest assasin of my suspension of disbelief during the game, especially the old messages that were like "The Americans have had a revolution, deposing thier ruler, King Abraham Lincoln! They welcome thier new leader, COMRADE Abraham Lincoln!"

As for the women issue, I think it'd be perfectly fine to have as many women as men, if the female choices weren't so rediculous. I would definitely agree that Joan, Cathy, Cleopatra et al. need to be booted. That doesn't mean that some fine female leaders couldn't be drafted up. Although Napoleon and Stalin, monsters though they may be are the obvious reps of France and Russia, you could change Cleopatra to Hapetshut (hope I spelled that right) without even the need to change the animations. In addition, the Iriquios Confederacy had patriarchal tribal leadership and matriarchal supertribal leadership (think if all the US Senators were women and all the governors were men), so a female could probably replace Hiawatha, even though he's one of my fav. leaderheads. And of course liz is the obvious Brit leader. Ghandi's daughter Indira is probably a better choice than him - he always seemed like one of the more silly aspects of the game - and if Isreal is ever a civ (I know its a popular pic for mods), Golda Mier would be up there with David Ben-Gurion - although all the mods I've seen use King David or Ariel Sharon, both of whom were (are) terrible leaders.

Also remember that the industrial ages were really only time in which female leaders did not really appear, because the ancient and middle ages were dominated by hereditary rulers, and modern peoples are generally more enlightened about such issues.

Of course, what I've always really wanted is a slew of different leaderheads for each civ based on government type - like for America you could have Jefferson for liberal democracy, Hamilton for dictatorship or maybe monarchy, Roosevelt or Debs for democratic socialism, Reagan for corporate ogliarchy, Jefferson Davis for republic, ect.




SNOBOCK - all you have to do is change the name of the flc, pcx, ect files - ie instead of Art\Flics\LZ_A02, Art\Flics\CH_A02. And make sure you do it before you move them from the unzipped folder to your Art folders, that way they won't replace your old Lizzy heads. Look forward to seeing your work.

I personally would prefer Queen Victoria to Elizabeth, if only because I'm a Victorian-history-phile.

I think I'll rename "Communism" to "Totalitarianism."
Much more apt, don't you think?