Adolf Hitler

[Trajan13]

i take back the sensitive little sissies comment, with respect to history and the moderators and viewers of this forum.

In the near future, i will be playing civ 4, and i will spawn a prophet, and i swear if any
meager nation destroys him or her, i will seek vengence apon that religion or nation or whatever it is, as a whole.

And I choose to do so, because it is only a GAME. and it made me angry.

Having hitler in or not will not change how I play it, the tactics that i choose, nor the emotions involved. In reality, Im just gonna hit ten times harder, with a different name and flag.

What happens when U abandon a city of 5,000,000 people and only get 40 - 50 thousand workers?
What happens when u take workers of another foreign county and hit the "join city" button, then hurry production?
What happens when u disband workers or settlers?

Tell me Tragan 13 what happens?

Well, I thank you for the retraction. Sorry on my part if I was a bit acrid.

I know that playing cIV requires some acts that if we were actual national leaders would be considred atrocities, plain and simple.
When you abandon a city to workers, yes the numbers don't add up but I don't think it's meant to represent anything sinister.
As for slaving and rushing with enemy workers, yes that's a normal part of the game. In RL it would be an unspeakable atrocity.
I like to think that when you disband a unit, it simply retires from service, the people go home, as in RL.

Look, I'm not asking that cIV not have things like that. Civ is not real life. In Civ, you can and will roll over a nation, burning every city to the ground and enslaving then sacrificing the civilians, that's part of the game. It exists for fun and balance, and you can get away with it because it is indeed a game. However, the issue with Hitler is different. Believe it or not, being put as a leader of a nation in civ is presigious. The developers are saying "Hey everyone! In our game, based on human history(it's thier slogan not mine), Leader X adequetely represents the values/history/culture/perception/etc. of the nation he is in charge of." That's why we get Washington and FDR, not Taft for the USA. To put Hitler as the German leader, even if he is one of two, is to say that that man was 1. a good leader(he wasn't.) and 2. An adequate representation of Germany(Just try passing that by a german guy. I don't think you'll find a receptive audience.). It is an endorsement in a way that sacrificing a nameless worker to speed production will never be. I cannot support that affront to the holocaust victims, that affront to the German people and nation, and that affront to history itself. There are many many german leaders, from Odoacer to Charlemagne to Otto the Great to Barbarossa to Bismark. They would all work much better than Hitler.

all i asked were for some improvements and units, to make what is already there, more effective.

The truth is that u cannot deny the truth of Human Civilization, Its ruthless, unjustified, barbaric, and always will be primitive. u can only expose it and let it be as it is, for any good or understanding to come from it.
Hitler wasnt the first and I hope that im wrong but wont be the last.

Yes show compassion for those victims, I do not disagree. But to become as historicaly accurate and uncensored I do agree.

I'm not sure about the units/improvements thing. I just scan this thread from time to time, and picked up on your previous comment.

I don't deny that man has a very dark side, though I like to believe that it will not always be that way. I don't advocate hiding the deeds of man however, as no one learns from that. I'm actually very anti-censorship myself (and I have absolutely no objection to having the Nazis and Hitler and thier deeds mentioned candidly in the Civiolopedia entry on Germany). But it is the endorsement of that darkness which will come from including Hitler, the disservice his inclusion does to many people and to the field of History itself, that is what I oppose.

 

[wooga]

I think a good compromise is that Hitler should be included in the standard game, but not as a leader you can play. He should be part of a group of "evil leaders" who appear only as the result of a Civ2 type civil war. Thus an American civil war would give rise to Robert E. Lee leading the Confederacy, a Persian civil war would give rise to the Ayatollah Khomeini leading Iran, a German civil war would give rise to Hitler leading the Third Reich, and so on. This would absolutely avoid putting Hitler in any sort of a "good guy" position, prevent people from playing as him (unless they modded him over), and acknowledge his role as one of history's biggest villains.

Everybody talks about Stalin or Mao justifying Hitler. I look at Genghis Khan, who slaughtered lots of people to create a large empire which collapsed relatively quickly. Did he provide any benefits to the world besides some military tactics? No. But he did create a gigantic empire, leaving an important and brief mark on history. Hitler did the same, and Firaxis should not close their eyes and pretend Hitler never existed in some misguided effort to be politically correct.

 

[DAv2003]

Well you could argue that the rise of Adolf Hitler also allowed for the birth of the U.N. which isn't an entirely bad thing. Also, Ghengis Kahn allowed complete religous toleration throughout his Empire which at the time of his life was a very unique act.

 

[Belcarius]

Hitler did the same, and Firaxis should not close their eyes and pretend Hitler never existed in some misguided effort to be politically correct.

If you think attempting to sell copies of the game in Germany is 'misguided', you wouldn't make a very good businessman.

 

[wooga]

Well, as I suggested making Hitler a non-playable leader, and in a group of rebellion villain leaders, I don't see how that would hurt sales in Germany. A game where Hitler is the bad guy?! Oh no, the Germans would never stand for that!

 

[DrMadd]

I think a good compromise is that Hitler should be included in the standard game, but not as a leader you can play. He should be part of a group of "evil leaders" who appear only as the result of a Civ2 type civil war. Thus an American civil war would give rise to Robert E. Lee leading the Confederacy, a Persian civil war would give rise to the Ayatollah Khomeini leading Iran, a German civil war would give rise to Hitler leading the Third Reich, and so on. This would absolutely avoid putting Hitler in any sort of a "good guy" position, prevent people from playing as him (unless they modded him over), and acknowledge his role as one of history's biggest villains.

Everybody talks about Stalin or Mao justifying Hitler. I look at Genghis Khan, who slaughtered lots of people to create a large empire which collapsed relatively quickly. Did he provide any benefits to the world besides some military tactics? No. But he did create a gigantic empire, leaving an important and brief mark on history. Hitler did the same, and Firaxis should not close their eyes and pretend Hitler never existed in some misguided effort to be politically correct.

I believe that to place Hitler and Lee in the same category is unfair to Lee. Lee was against the Secession, and only went along because Virginia did. That said, I also believe you cannot force people to good or evil. If you don't include him, don't do it because he was evil; Do it because his legacy wasn't as great as say, Frederick Barbarossa.

 

[SmartJock2112]

I believe that to place Hitler and Lee in the same category is unfair to Lee. Lee was against the Secession, and only went along because Virginia did. That said, I also believe you cannot force people to good or evil. If you don't include him, don't do it because he was evil; Do it because his legacy wasn't as great as say, Frederick Barbarossa.

Agreed, Lee was by no means evil, and neither was the CSA, for that matter. Lee was loyal to his state more than he was to the union, and that was really the major issue of the American Civil War was the power and independence of the states within the Union. People can scream it was slavery all they want, but that was not the primary issue by any means. But, I digress, Lee was an honorable General and should never be compared to Hitlar, ever.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

If Alexander the Great (who slaughtered the citizens of most people he sacked), the Spanish (who slaughtered the native populations of Latin America), the English, the French, the Portuguese (and all other colonial empires who traded in slaves and exploited the native populations they occupied), Stalin (who starved his people to death), and others can be included in the game, so should Hitler. Quite frankly, there are no many world leaders in history who have not committed something evil! Every country has a part of its history that it would rather forget!!! Civ IV should not try to rewrite history as we would like it to be.

 

[onomastikon]

I cannot believe this thread is not deleted.

 

[Atrebates]

Everybody talks about Stalin or Mao justifying Hitler. I look at Genghis Khan, who slaughtered lots of people to create a large empire which collapsed relatively quickly. Did he provide any benefits to the world besides some military tactics? No. But he did create a gigantic empire, leaving an important and brief mark on history. Hitler did the same, and Firaxis should not close their eyes and pretend Hitler never existed in some misguided effort to be politically correct.

Stalin and Mao were not exactly nice people, true. Their inclusion in Civ was probably a mistake but they are slightly less 'graphic' than Hitler so Fireaxis can get away with it ( by graphic I mean Stalin and Mao have reported atrocities, they still only feel like like figures for the majority of people (and they are not ethnic cleansing unless you count doctors as an ethnic group) even if the Russians and Chinese might disagree).

Ghengis was brutal and ruthless but not evil, he did not commit acts of cruelty for their own sake. Secondly people tend to be judged in the context of their own time, so the widespread rape by his troops is not so harshly judged.

What fireaxis will always go on is public perception as to whether such people are accurate leaders for a civ therefore Hitler fails in a massive way compared to almost any other potential leader, even when compared with Stalin and Mao.

The way to decide whether a leader is a good choice or not is
1)Do they accurately represent the character of the nation?
2)Would people of that nation be (generally) happy with that leader?

 

[Superkrest]

lee is not any where near hittler....i cant even belive it there for i will not comment.


but even to have hittler appear as a leader caused by civil war...wouldnt it still be somewhat of a problem if he managed to sweep the rest of germany??? and you still would not be able to sell the game in germany...its just not a good idea..i understand that there were stalins and maos...and there in the game..but the point is that there are laws in a massive sales market that dont permit it to be in the game...russia and china have no such laws..

 

[onomastikon]

Moderator Action: Thanks for reporting it, but as you might imagine this is not the only thread in the forums we have to watch. There was no need to comment about it at all.

 

[Civrules]

what the gaming community should do is give hitler a new name without telling anyone, like huffer or hurtgen, somthing other then hitler. that way, the game can have a darkside that only the undergrounder would know, and sensitive little sissies wont get hurt.

Moderator Action: This post is 100% flaming. I suppose you do understand that many will get offended. I suggest in the future you more carefully watch what you say. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: There is nothing else to discuss. Closed.