Leaders we don't want.

The use of the word "savage" is extremely offensive. Perhaps English is not your first language so you don't understand that.

Click to expand...

That might be. If that is the case, I am sorry. But my opinion on Zulu stands, even if I expressed it in a wrong way.

Besides, the word Racists is extremely offensive too. At least I take it as extremely offensive. As well as the words "fool" and "dickhead". Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe I got those words wrong, is that possible? Probably they were nice arguments showing why my opinion on Zulu was incorrect?

Now, the opinion of missionaries truly doesn't matter to me. It's obvious that when a person has imaginary friends, so called "spirituality" matters to him way more than railroads and other real accomplishments. They always take everything backwards and more often than not they hate achievements of science and civilization unless said achievements serve the purpose of religion.

What I need is facts. Show me what Zulu achieved in philosophy, architecture, literature, politics, whatever. Just list their factual works, what would you think can qualify them. Then we can discuss. I'm truly not very much into the history of Zulu, there might be things I missed. But I need to see them, not a quote from some Bishop.

CornPlanter said:

That might be. If that is the case, I am sorry. But my opinion on Zulu stands, even if I expressed it in a wrong way.

Besides, the word Racists is extremely offensive too. At least I take it as extremely offensive. As well as the words "fool" and dickhead. Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe I got those words wrong, is that possible? Probably they were nice arguments showing why my opinion on Zulu was incorrect?

Click to expand...

I certainly understand if you wish that the Zulus not be included in CiV. That's certainly ok. Giving well measured arguments as to why they shouldn't be included is certainly not racist.

However, calling a group of people "savages" is not correct in my opinion. That's all.

Thormodr said:

The use of the word "savage" is extremely offensive. Perhaps English is not your first language so you don't understand that.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a none too subtle way of implying that the Zulus had no culture and basically just ran around killing each other. It just makes you look ignorant, frankly.

Duh I said I am sorry for choosing the wrong word. There's always subtle differences between the meanings of words from different languages. The counterpart of "savage" in my language is not that offensive, and my English is not so good yet so I don't know many subtleties. Now I will know better. All right?

Though I'm really curious to see how would you call Zulu. What's the appropriate word for their civilization and culture?

I like the word savage. Savage, savage, savage.

The last thing I want to see is the removal of an actual English monarch who defined her age (Elizabeth I) and replaced with a British prime minister of the last century (Sir Winston Churchill or David Lloyd-George). I despise recentism with a passion.

I think that modern/industrial leaders like Bismark/Churchill/Stalin/Roosewelt/Gandhi/Mao/De Gaulle spoil the game.
What is the good era limite for the leader's choice? industrial era because of germany? age of discovery because of USA?

Gedemo said:

I think that modern/industrial leaders like Bismark/Churchill/Stalin/Roosewelt/Gandhi/Mao/De Gaulle spoil the game.

Click to expand...

I actually like modern leaders.

Exclude anyone born after 1820, because then you can at least have Queen Victoria and Otto von Bismark if you really want them.

Arakhor said:

Exclude anyone born after 1820, because then you can at least have Queen Victoria and Otto von Bismark if you really want them.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? The one reason I can think of is that, due to them being recent, our memories of them are still relatively fresh, their actions are still widely discussed and therefore they are not as... um, exotic (for want of a better word) as leaders from earlier eras, as well as being more controversial politically (no one would really object to the inclusion of Alexander or Julius Caesar even though they led bloody campaigns of conquest, but it's a different matter with Stalin, etc). Personally, though, I like the inclusion of some recent leaders; not too many - history is not just the 20th century, after all, but if we don't include them that'd be neglecting modern history. Leaders to be included in a Civ game should be considered on merit, not the historical era they lived in.

^I'd' say they are not only just not exotic, but there can be biases against them, postive and negative, that really just don't work out for me. That's why I absolutely HATE history after 1918/1919, because in my opinion, as long as they're still people alive to remember it, there'll still be bias.

But that's just my preference.

taillesskangaru said:

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? .

Click to expand...

In my opinion, it is strange to have antique leaders besides modern leaders...
and because the game starts in ancient âge (and because I often stop to play before industrial age), I think Qinshi huangdi is more relevant than Mao, Asoka than Gandhi, ...

Maybe having a leader for each era would be the best

Skyre Noktis said:

Now who's the racist?

I'm fine with Abe Lincoln being in the game as long as he does the dance from the Electric Six "Gay Bar" video.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, now who's the racist?

taillesskangaru said:

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? The one reason I can think of is that, due to them being recent, our memories of them are still relatively fresh, their actions are still widely discussed and therefore they are not as... um, exotic (for want of a better word) as leaders from earlier eras, as well as being more controversial politically (no one would really object to the inclusion of Alexander or Julius Caesar even though they led bloody campaigns of conquest, but it's a different matter with Stalin, etc). Personally, though, I like the inclusion of some recent leaders; not too many - history is not just the 20th century, after all, but if we don't include them that'd be neglecting modern history. Leaders to be included in a Civ game should be considered on merit, not the historical era they lived in.

Click to expand...

Agree with you, and I also think that they shouldn't include "the presidents son's ex-girlfriend's fathers babysitter", like Douglas McArthur, who I don't want to play just cause I don't know of him. And, that the leaders in the game, was a sort of a leader for the nation they represent
Enough talk, now I'm going to play some Civilization!

EDIT: Sorry for the spam, thought I switched topic

I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.

But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.

Razorwing said:

I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.

But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.

Click to expand...

Anyway, who cares witch 3D figure is in the game and which isn't? It's just a picture, which certainly won't become a human leader and kill all those people again, they're just there for the game experience, and for representing the nation they led

i'd like to see gilgamesh replaced by sargon of akkad

Ataxerxes said:

I think the Iriquois nation certainly belong in if any native americans do. They had a quite sophisticated form of government and alliances. I'm not sure about the great attributes of others, although I'm sure someone will fill that void.

Click to expand...

the only problem with that is that we basically think of native americans in terms of the ones who lived in the great plains. name pretty much any stereotype other than casinos and it'll probably have more to do with a plains indian than anyone else.

cybrxkhan said:

^I'd' say they are not only just not exotic, but there can be biases against them, postive and negative, that really just don't work out for me. That's why I absolutely HATE history after 1918/1919, because in my opinion, as long as they're still people alive to remember it, there'll still be bias.

But that's just my preference.

Click to expand...

everything we know about the past was told to us by someone else. there was just as much bias back then as there is now.

everything we know about the past was told to us by someone else. there was just as much bias back then as there is now.

Click to expand...

True, but it is a lot harder for people to view things that just happened to them without bias - our perspective, I mean. Think of it this way. If your dad got murdered, you'd obviuosly be really pissed off. But if, say, your great-great-grandfather was murdered, chances are you may look at it more objectively and see what was really going on.

World War I i think is a nice example of this. Only until very recently did I get the sense that people were beginning to consider it less a "Germany was evil, evil, evil!" war, and more the brutal, terrible, pointless war that it really was. It's only until the very strong emotions die out can it be easier to look at history objectively.

My point is that for us, when the memory of a historical event is so fresh, it is really hard to separate bias from truth - of course more older historical events are still viewed with bias, but it is much easier to look at it from all angles.

Of course, whatever - I'm okay if there's modern leaders in the game, it's just that I have a distaste for modern history at times since there still can be really really really strong emotions about it. (Not that there isn't strong emotions about history from all eras, but it's most easily apparent when it comes to modern history)

Tusked said:

Hitler is different because he's basically become a byword for evil. No matter how many people Stalin killed, it was just his paranoia - he thought they'd be problems for the state. Hitler initiated actual racial cleansing, and racial cleansing makes people uncomfortable. Plus, there aren't Neo-Stalinists going around talking about how cool Stalin is and wearing large mustachios.

Click to expand...

Hitler is also different because Nazi symbology is illegal in Germany, and thus games that include Hitler or Nazi swastikas are illegal in Germany. It's easier to make one version with some other leader than a separate version for Germany so that the rest of the world can have a version with Hitler (if you assume that Firaxis would otherwise include Hitler - not something I see as very likely).

And thile Neo-Stalinists aren't as well-known, there are still a good number of Stalinists in Russia (not all of whom were alive when Stalin was). But it isn't anywhere near as taboo to be Stalinist in Russia as Nazi in Germany. Not everyone likes it, but there's not universal condemnation. In some ways communism even still has mainstream appeal in Russia - and it's no surprise, really, given how much of modern Russia was built in the communist era.

Now I don't know that many of these Stalinists are wearing large mustaches, but not many of the Neo-Nazis actually look like Hitler, either.

But I don't care a whole lot which leaders are in the game. For a historical scenario, it should be historical - in a WWII Europe scenario, Hitler should be included, and so should Stalin and Churchill. But for the epic game, it's not that important to me which leaders are chosen.

I dont know, i liked most of the people...some people in my family dont like any native americans or south americans, he says there, "annoying" but i like them personally...meanwhile, my favorite leader is Isabella, but i think she should be Castilian not spain