Leaders we don't want.

What about Queen Elizabeth II of the Australians? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons. :)
Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians. :crazyeye:
 
Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently? What if Alexander of Mycenea didn't die at age 30 whatever? Perhaps he would have conquered Rome. What if the Mongols didn't fight with each other before invading Europe? What if the Byzantines had held off the Ottomans at Constantinople? What if the Persians had conquered the Greeks? What if Hitler had attacked Russia before France? Etc, etc, etc. Each civ in the game has the chance to become a power, just like in real life. You might play a game where Hammurabi gets wiped out early because he started near Darius who immortal rushed him. Just like in real life. Shaka might be very backwards and get invaded by England and beat. Just like in real life. But these things are only possibilities. That's why I don't mind having civs like the Aztecs and the Zulu in the game.

This must be the best post in this thread. There are more issues that should be considered other than "historical greatness" of the civilizations in question. I consider, for instance, representing different cultures of the world important. Mostly for the diversity of the game, but also for the fact that everyone gets to have some civilization they can in some way relate to.

Just to add, a leader doesn't have to be elected or otherwise officially selected by their people. It is a person that leads or guides, using influence or power. It is a person a people look to in order to give orders (or even advice). It is someone who points out a course for the nation to take. In this manner, both Gandhi and Hannibal were obviously leaders. And of course, in our alternate history in Civilization, they could be the official rulers of their civilization. I think it is a lot more important that the leader is an influential person (for that civilization) who'll provide them with a face outward than that he was a head of state.

(I still would like to have Asoka over Gandhi, though)
 
And of course, in our alternate history in Civilization, they could be the official rulers of their civilization.
It doesn't enter the realm of alternate history unless you're playing on an Earth map.
Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?
Where do you think Sharwood went? :evil:
 
sigh at this thread. Some of you guys take this stuff way too personally. And don't seem to understand the point of Civ games. The point of civ games that the developers like to say is it is alternate history. Thusly, whether a civilization such as the Shakas never really developed into anything is not relevant. The point is what if they were able to materialize and form a long lasting and cultural civilization?

I suppose this is what happens when you include specific leaders. People will have prejudices. This game isn't about what these leaders did in real life, they are just figureheads. It allows for more immersive gameplay when you can see a face to talk to during diplomacy.

So by my argument, every leader is fine by me. I have no qualms with any of them. Diversity is a good thing. Who the hell wants a bunch of european civs with China thrown in for good measure? Maybe Japan and India, but the rest of the world hasn't done squat. Many were little more than loosely joined tribes or in some cases little more than barbarian hordes. As I said, I don't want to see the same faces every damn game.

So I welcome the Zulu. Although they do attack me far too often, but last game they never attacked, and they were right next to me.

I just wanted to make one more argument for modern leaders. Most aren't worth mentioning. They came in did their job, and then left. But there were a few that really revolutionized the system. FDR is one case of this. While you may disagree with his policies (I do), you can't deny how much change he has done to the economic system of the U.S. Then there is Hitler. He lasted about the same time as FDR, but his changes weren't long lasting. As his govermental system was disbanded after 45. But you could argue without them, those changes would have never occurred. But for practicality reasons (game needed mods for german play etc) he shouldn't be in the game.
 
KEEP SHAKA! He established a amazing governing system. The Zulus weren't just some tribe, they were a great civilization.

WU!!! Grrrrrrrr! Quin Shi Huang was better! I can think of a thousand Chinese leaders who would be better. Pleas Firaxis, choose leaders because of their achievements, not because of their gender.
 
He kill anyone who he thought might stand in his way.

Of course, but he also killed many that he knew would never pose a threat to his rule. That's what I am saying.

Although we should probably end this argument, it can too slowly degenerate into defending Stalin's being in the game or excluded unconditionally, which is not my point.

I understand the political consequences of including Hitler, I was engaging in this thread more on the basis of semantics than practicality.
 
sigh at this thread. Some of you guys take this stuff way too personally. And don't seem to understand the point of Civ games. The point of civ games that the developers like to say is it is alternate history. Thusly, whether a civilization such as the Shakas never really developed into anything is not relevant. The point is what if they were able to materialize and form a long lasting and cultural civilization?

I suppose this is what happens when you include specific leaders. People will have prejudices. This game isn't about what these leaders did in real life, they are just figureheads. It allows for more immersive gameplay when you can see a face to talk to during diplomacy.

So by my argument, every leader is fine by me. I have no qualms with any of them. Diversity is a good thing. Who the hell wants a bunch of european civs with China thrown in for good measure? Maybe Japan and India, but the rest of the world hasn't done squat. Many were little more than loosely joined tribes or in some cases little more than barbarian hordes. As I said, I don't want to see the same faces every damn game.

So I welcome the Zulu. Although they do attack me far too often, but last game they never attacked, and they were right next to me.

I just wanted to make one more argument for modern leaders. Most aren't worth mentioning. They came in did their job, and then left. But there were a few that really revolutionized the system. FDR is one case of this. While you may disagree with his policies (I do), you can't deny how much change he has done to the economic system of the U.S. Then there is Hitler. He lasted about the same time as FDR, but his changes weren't long lasting. As his govermental system was disbanded after 45. But you could argue without them, those changes would have never occurred. But for practicality reasons (game needed mods for german play etc) he shouldn't be in the game.

nah Hitler is ommitted for political correctness. Morality is a strange thing. What did Hitler do wrong? He wanted to execute a group of people he didn't like - the jews, and sought to increase Germany's power through violence - we started wars. Well...what about Julius Ceasar? He wiped out the Gauls and turned Rome into a military dictatorship from a republic. Gengis Khan, just as bad as Hitler. Stalin, ditto. The only difference is if Hitler were in the game that might cause Civ to get some bad press coverage - and it would, and it wouldn't be able to sell legally in Germany.
 
Caesar defeated the Gauls; he didn't have them all lined up and crucified all the way to Rome. Claiming that an ancient general's acts of conquest make him comparable to Hitler's atrocities is laughable.
 
Either way Bismark did more for Germany than Hitler could ever dream of. So the argument is probably moot.

The only place Hitler belongs is in a ww2 specific scenario.
 
I don't get why Hitler is even considered...HE LOST end of discussion. If he "won" I'd understand, but heres the thing...HE LOST. Same goes for Cleopatra and Montezuma and (I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head, except maybe Boudecia, but she of all of those guys had the worst odds...)

He could be included in an expansion about people who "lost" (Xerxes comes to mind too). I don't know why you'd want to play an expansion pack "loosers of civilisation" but that's the only way I see it happenning (although, I'm sure that there's someone who "lost" worse then Hitler in German history...)
 
Top Bottom