Bangra 7
The Port Of Call
As far as modding goes, will the same engine system be used as in Civilization IV?
GamePro Preview
- Thread starter dc82
- Start date
Shiggs713
Immortal
they said something about a completely new system. but they did also say now they will be using XML for sure, and I'm assuming c++;
the whole article is linked in the IGN review thread.
Bangra 7
The Port Of Call
stethnorun
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 164
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (don't feel like reading through 6 pages of reaction), but the reason they chose the leaders they did is probably MOSTLY because of how unique they come off in the new diplomacy screen. I think people underestimate how cool this feature is going to be. It will be like you are actually interacting with real leaders, rather than just clicking through text screens. As such, they needed very unique leads in those screens. No offense to Frederick and the rest, but in the end, they are just a bunch of unremarkable white dudes. Each leader needs to bring something new and interesting to the "cinematic" table.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
maybe they can say a few swear words if you piss them off enough?
Bangra 7
The Port Of Call
Let us all hope that Civ V makes a great opening menu sequence as well. 
the Falcon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 76
…
Last edited:
Ariobarzan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2
Qoute:
- (Arabia) Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid (Xerxes and Saladin are out)
1.Xerxes isn't arab, he's Persian.
2. The article doesn't even talk about him being an arab leader so i don't know where you pulled that one out of. It says: He(Harun al Rashid) not as warlike as other leaders from the Middle East (such as Xerxes and Saladin). they may actually be in there
3. Sorry if this seems like i'm nit picking, but too me this is
4. , I have nothing against Arabs, but Persians are not arabs, not even close.
5. Technically Saladin isn't an Arab either, he's a kurd, but I won't argue because he's someone who fought for Arabs rather than Kurds
6. Thank you for reporting this, and having to put up with my nationalistic pride
- (Arabia) Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid (Xerxes and Saladin are out)
1.Xerxes isn't arab, he's Persian.
2. The article doesn't even talk about him being an arab leader so i don't know where you pulled that one out of. It says: He(Harun al Rashid) not as warlike as other leaders from the Middle East (such as Xerxes and Saladin). they may actually be in there
3. Sorry if this seems like i'm nit picking, but too me this is
4. , I have nothing against Arabs, but Persians are not arabs, not even close.
5. Technically Saladin isn't an Arab either, he's a kurd, but I won't argue because he's someone who fought for Arabs rather than Kurds
6. Thank you for reporting this, and having to put up with my nationalistic pride
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
I agree. Both the Stack of Doom and the technology trading should have been scrapped long ago.
Montezuma turns up and says: "Teach me Liberalism or I'll declare war on you!"
eoc
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 526
Mao was out, hmm... I will miss him so much. While it is a vista that Civ5 won't be censored too much by China government, and I can play it in time. It is a good news for me not waiting such a long time for the result of censorships, and I don't need to seek a pirate all around the world anymore. I have kept all the civ series from 2 to 4(with copyright disc of course) , and I will keep Civ5 too. Civ always deserve to be kept in my disc storage.
skdyer
Chieftain
Can someone post a scan of this article or tell me where I can grab a copy? Not a subscriber.
How about Qin Shi Huang? You know, the very first emporer of China? The one who united the land under a single ruler? The one who built the Great Wall? Ya, him. Great enough for ya?
Caused famine? To a lot of conquered lands, yep, did that. Check.
Destroyed heritage and antiquities? His famous "burning books and killing scholars." Yep, check.
Enslaved populations as labor? The Great Wall is built upon "graves of millions who died building it." Mmhm, check.
I think people in America get so naive about how a ruling entity in history had to behave because they were taught about their democracy and freedom and all those ideals as if their ancestors never had to go through mistakes that led to great conflict and bloodshed to get them. What's most ironic though, the majority of Americans agree that Lincoln was their greatest president, yet America had gone through their darkest times under him during the Civil War as well.
Those "little" mistakes caused millions of people to die.
While it was indeed tragic how many people had to die for Mao's mistakes, it was really a lot more attributed to the shear size of the country's population. It's a lot different than gunning down jews in a huge hole dug in the ground.
The issue with the perception of Mao is that people think he's evil because how many people he "killed." That's a very unfortunate misdirection by western powers' propaganda campaign against communism. Mao was thought perceived as evil because communism was perceived to be evil, the deaths were then used as a convenient shock factor to somehow support that notion.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Also a brutal tyrant. But I have no difficulty in judging people differently according to their times. The Englightenment, liberalism and modern political thought made people aware of different obligations of a leader. Mao wasn't some ignorant ancient Emperor who thought he was a god, he knew that leaders have an obligation to improve the welfare of their people.
But he destroyed the economy because of his incompetence, and purged the educated classes because of his paranoia.
I love how you assume I'm American (which I'm not), just because I live there....
Shall I assume you're Chinese, and have been raised on propaganda and censorship, and a Party Line view that tells you what to think about the little of your history that you are actually exposed to?
Also, *my* democracy didn't require the collectivization of farms or the conversion of farm tools into pig iron or the purging of the educated classes.
You put "killed" in quote marks? Does that make it ok?
"Oh, its fine that he killed lots of Chinese people, there were plenty more where they came from."
Seriously?
There is a difference between deaths from famine and gunning people down, true. But Mao and his regime were responsible for executing hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Mao himself acknowledged this.
A lot of us have a hatred of Mao that has nothing to do with a fear of communism, but because of his brutality and because his incompetence kept the Chinese people in serfdom and poverty for decades longer than needed to be the case. China's economy started growing like crazy immediately after Mao was out and Deng took over. Agricultural productivity skyrocketed, and China's has lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years (ie *post* Mao) than have ever happened at any other time in history. So, 3 decades of stagnation and poverty and misery and death, followed by 3 decades of the most spectacular growth the world has ever seen. I know which *I* think is more praiseworthy.
But anyway, you are of course entitled to your own opinion.
Well, it doesn't matter whether or not you think I am Chinese just as it doesn't matter whether or not I think you are American on these forums (unless you want to somehow upload a photo ID and you holding a today's newspaper or something, then the more props to you). But I do believe I have a much more objective view on Mao than most westerners because of the nature of my work. I never said Mao was competent, but incompetence =/= bloodthirst or "evil," the way you refer to him as you put him on the same level of Hitler's.
Like I said, it was tragic how many people died, but some would argue that it was a necessary step. Just as there was no other way (because there actually WAS no other way, hint: history is history) that China could have had its first unity aside from being conquered by a brutal tyrant, there likely was no other way that China could avoid going through a bad leadership under Mao. When he was "enslaving people as labor," it was mostly obeyed WILLINGLY simply because of his national hero status. He may not have thought himself as a god, but most of China did, and they followed pretty much his every command. I'm not sure what you meant by "brutality" when his policies weren't enforced by armed forces. Over 80% of the army Mao had after the civil war went back to being farmers. While it was a fact that he did put down opposition, it was no more brutal than what China is doing now against ethnic unrest in Xinjiang. It was certainly much, MUCH less brutal than what Ulysses Grant did to the American south after the assassination of Lincoln, and let's not even talk about the American Civil War again.
Deng was a great leader, but again, how would you know that without Mao's failures, Deng's rise to power was even possible? How would Deng even be alive without Mao's efforts in the Chinese civil war? The problem I have with people's popcorn judgment of history is that for some unconceivable reason, they seem to think they could personally have done it better. Quite laughable, wouldn't you say?
It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to have opinion based on whats and ifs. Tell me, what would you have done to seize power from Mao after the war and avoid his "killings?" (No, I'm not putting it in quotation mark to make it OK, I'm doing it to mock your skin-deep insight.)
Like I said, it was tragic how many people died, but some would argue that it was a necessary step. Just as there was no other way (because there actually WAS no other way, hint: history is history) that China could have had its first unity aside from being conquered by a brutal tyrant, there likely was no other way that China could avoid going through a bad leadership under Mao. When he was "enslaving people as labor," it was mostly obeyed WILLINGLY simply because of his national hero status. He may not have thought himself as a god, but most of China did, and they followed pretty much his every command. I'm not sure what you meant by "brutality" when his policies weren't enforced by armed forces. Over 80% of the army Mao had after the civil war went back to being farmers. While it was a fact that he did put down opposition, it was no more brutal than what China is doing now against ethnic unrest in Xinjiang. It was certainly much, MUCH less brutal than what Ulysses Grant did to the American south after the assassination of Lincoln, and let's not even talk about the American Civil War again.
Deng was a great leader, but again, how would you know that without Mao's failures, Deng's rise to power was even possible? How would Deng even be alive without Mao's efforts in the Chinese civil war? The problem I have with people's popcorn judgment of history is that for some unconceivable reason, they seem to think they could personally have done it better. Quite laughable, wouldn't you say?
It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to have opinion based on whats and ifs. Tell me, what would you have done to seize power from Mao after the war and avoid his "killings?" (No, I'm not putting it in quotation mark to make it OK, I'm doing it to mock your skin-deep insight.)
Ahriman
Tyrant
Work for the CCP, do you?
[That was a *joke*, for the humor-impaired]
He had hundreds of thousands of political opponents (ie anyone with wealth, or an education) executed, based purely on political ideology. How is that not evil? These weren't rebels or insurgents, they were just people who happened to have own some property, or run a business, or teach at a university.
I'll happily grant not *as* outright evil as Hitler (Mao set up labor camps, not actual extermination camps).
How was destroying the commercial and educated classes a necessary step for the development of China? How was collectivizing farms a necessary step for the development of China? (Deng de-collectivized, and agricultural production skyrocketed.)
People obeyed "WILLINGLY" because they knew that if they didn't, they would be rounded up and sent off to labor camps where they would likely to starve to death.
What is happening in Xinjiang is also somewhat oppressive, but it was mostly against rioters (some of whom who had also been killing people), and maybe a few dozen people were killed by the government. It is not at all the same as rounding up tens of thousands of political opponents and shooting them, just because they were "rightists" or "capitalists".
Ummm.. of course they were. Its difficult to shoot people or send them to labor camps without arms.
What are you talking about? Grant's southern campaign during the war caused a lot of damage. But Lincoln was assassinated in April 14 1865.
The War was basically over after Appomatox Courthouse on April 9 1865.
Grant was quoted as *wanting* to take revenge, but he didn't do anything.
Thats true, without Mao destroying the Chinese economy, the initial agricultural base output would have been higher when Deng game to power, and so the percentage increases under Deng would have been smaller. Clearly, an argument for Mao's greatness....
Well yeah, I wouldn't have slaughtered anyone out of hand, I think I would have done *much* better.
But since when was "well, could you have done better?" an argument for anyone over the age of 12?
* * *
Hardly the most objective source I realize (though would *anything* convince you?), but try reading through the Wikipedia page for a decent summary on Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
Do you dispute the facts, or the direct quotes from Mao? He was *proud* of having murdered thousands of people.
Anyway, if you want to discuss further we should take this to PM, we're waaay off topic and probably boring the hell out of everyone.
He was a horrible and despicable man.
But I would much rather been in 1976 China than mid-late 1940s China.
He unified China, ending the civil war and getting rid of any remaining warlords. And centralized the state.
China as a state had become a major military power, with nuclear weapons.
But I would much rather been in 1976 China than mid-late 1940s China.
He unified China, ending the civil war and getting rid of any remaining warlords. And centralized the state.
China as a state had become a major military power, with nuclear weapons.
Um, I know you wanted to stop this debate for the benefit of others in this thread, but I just have to point out one thing about your comment here. Mao did not outright round them up and shoot all the rightists and capitalists, he rounded them up and told them to give up their land to the peasant class and reform their "capitalistic ways." They were not "political opponents" because they did not, or did not dare to, oppose him having no political party or any kind of organization (those who did fled to Taiwan), they were just landlords. I'm pretty sure some refused to reform by working labor and got shot, but a lot of others accepted and lived on. The vast majority of China's population were indeed believers of his cause, evident by how much support Mao gained during his military campaign. I'm not saying that's OK, but that's what I'm trying to differentiate in terms of mistake in policy and political ideal versus inherent evil. It was the communist and Marxist ideology to have land owned by the community instead of by the individual, by which slogan Mao was able to rally the masses to his revolution. Unfortunately for the land owners, they were consisted of less than 5% of China's population prior to the civil war and invasion of Japan. So in a way, you can even say that it was a majority decision to commit to communism, and forcing the land owners to reform in hard labor was arguably no different than imprisoning marijuana farmers. A crude comparison, but there you have it. We have a fitting term for this even in democratic societies: the tyranny of the majority.
The only point I've been trying to make is this: Mao was a deeply flawed man and a tragedy as much as he was a triumph for China, but putting him in the same category with Hitler is just irresponsible spreading of a persistant western propaganda.
edit: oh, and it was a necessary step because Maoism was the political ideal that rallied China in order to finally stop 50 years of conflict and bloodshed between warlords driven by foreign influence, did you think all those people would just go "that was a cute idea that we believed in, but now that the war's done, let's just forget about it and try another idea called capitalism that we've been hating all these years"? That Deng guy you liked so much was also a supporter of Maoism and the Great Leap Forward, and was a firm believer in Marxism. The difference between him and Mao was that Deng was able to quickly recognize the unrealistic nature of such political ideals during the Great Leap Forward. Experiments, failures, and improvements. I don't know any kind of development process, be it social or scientific, that can skip the middle step.
Shardienyah
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1
Agree, agree 110% I'd even put Sun Yatsen and Deng Xiaoping above Wu Zetian, I could even think of half a dozen ministers who did more for Chinese history than Wu Zetian. Zhu Yuanzhang is who I would think would be the best of the Chinese leaders.
Im not a fan of Suleiman as Ottoman leader ether, but thats for another thread
I've read the thread and seen many comments about the single unit per tile in relation to cluttering.
What I have not seen mentioned is that in a couple of reviews they say that units are limited by strategic resources, so that 1 source of Iron is only going to allow you to build/have 1 Swordsman. (ok well one article said 1 and the other said 5 but in a guess sort of way).
This changes things alot if your 1 source of Oil can only support 5 tanks, things are totally different on the clutter front.
It also mentioned that losing your resource would allow you to keep the unit in the field but would have an increase to the support cost in gold and you wouldnt be able to build new units of that type until the resource is hooked back up or new resource aquired.
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p1.html
And I lost the other link but it was on the Civ V confirmed features thread.
What I have not seen mentioned is that in a couple of reviews they say that units are limited by strategic resources, so that 1 source of Iron is only going to allow you to build/have 1 Swordsman. (ok well one article said 1 and the other said 5 but in a guess sort of way).
This changes things alot if your 1 source of Oil can only support 5 tanks, things are totally different on the clutter front.
It also mentioned that losing your resource would allow you to keep the unit in the field but would have an increase to the support cost in gold and you wouldnt be able to build new units of that type until the resource is hooked back up or new resource aquired.
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p1.html
And I lost the other link but it was on the Civ V confirmed features thread.
Similar threads
