Civ Leaders
- Thread starter ApocalypseKurtz
- Start date
cephyn
Kubo
Well, the whole point of a "suitable" leader is to find someone that represents the civ as a whole. Granted, this is impossible for most civs, but thats the idea.
Hitler is the leader that probably least represents the Germans. If you want to go on a killing spree, go on a killing spree. Having Hitler as your leader isn't necessary for that.
Hitler is the leader that probably least represents the Germans. If you want to go on a killing spree, go on a killing spree. Having Hitler as your leader isn't necessary for that.
If I were German I wouldn't want Hitler representing the characteristics of my culture. I personally think Bismarck and especially Joan d'Arc are good choices if you look at it that way. As far as Greece goes, Alexander is just the most recognized figure. The trouble is, which do you choose...respresentation or famousness?
I could go on a killing spree with another civ but having hitler would make it more funner... and to the post above.. if we were going for famous leaders then Hitler is more famous than Bismark.. to tell u the truth I didn;t even know who he was until I played CivIII (I'm actually learning something here 
) I could see why the game designers didn't put him in it cause it would offend some people but after all this is just a game.
) I could see why the game designers didn't put him in it cause it would offend some people but after all this is just a game.cephyn
Kubo
Personally, i go for representation over famousness. Id rather have someone learn something figuring out who their leader is.
and as i said earlier, i dont like Joan d'Arc as a leader. i think its a silly choice. She is a minor character in the French pantheon -- she just gets a lot of hype for 1 battle and being burned and then canonized. great story. but id rather see some other French as the leader. IMO
and as i said earlier, i dont like Joan d'Arc as a leader. i think its a silly choice. She is a minor character in the French pantheon -- she just gets a lot of hype for 1 battle and being burned and then canonized. great story. but id rather see some other French as the leader. IMO
cephyn
Kubo
Originally posted by Sman
I could go on a killing spree with another civ but having hitler would make it more funner... and to the post above.. if we were going for famous leaders then Hitler is more famous than Bismark.. to tell u the truth I didn;t even know who he was until I played CivIII (I'm actually learning something here
it is just a game, but some things just aren't funny. You wanna make your own Hitler, go for it -- but IMO, it shouldnt be a default for Germany or even a choice -- Firaxis shouldnt sanction the choice of Hitler as a leader.
I mean, why would you want to choose a leader that destroyed his country within a decade or so of coming to power?
cephyn
Kubo
Originally posted by Toasty
But she represents the French character (at least nowadays) more than anyone I think. So if you're complaining about her being minor, are't you technically being a hypocrite?
how am i being a hypocrite? who that was minor did i say i wanted as a leader? it think that, for france, she doesnt represent them today. I think DeGaulle or Mitterand or even Chirac represents them more today. of those, probably DeGaulle the most -- but those are of course all contemporary folk. Among the other civs, the only person from close to that era is Mao.
I stick by what i said, for france id rather see Louis XIV or Richielieu. But there's no easy answers. I just am astonished at the choice of Joan of Arc -- as are all my history buff friends as well as my french friends.
which is cool, cuz its the first time theyve agreed on much.
i think it´s not only a question of being famous. it´s also of being popular. a player from the this nation should identify with the leader. so hitler, mussolini and stalin can´t be leader in civ. 
i also think u guyz in USA wouldn´t be such happy i your leader is Nixon instead of Abe.
u had to know (whatever u have expected) here in germany are not many people indentifiing with Adolf Hitler
i also think u guyz in USA wouldn´t be such happy i your leader is Nixon instead of Abe.u had to know (whatever u have expected) here in germany are not many people indentifiing with Adolf Hitler
Shaitan
der Besucher
The main reason they couldn't put in a choice for leaders is that the leader picture in the foreign advisor screen is hard coded. You can change all of the other pictures except for that one. Until they fix that, you can't really add a civ (going to the foreign advisor screen would crash the game) and even changing the leader would still have the original picture in the foreign advisor screen.
civman2000
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 11
No one seems to be mentioning Greece or Persia. For Persia, Cyrus would be a much more representative and less Greco-centric leader. For Greece, Alexander wasn't even completely Greek (he was Macedonian). I think a better leader would be Pericles.
But the macedonians are Greeks they lived and live in north greece they talked greek their sceletons where greek type there is no macedonian tribe they are ansesters of the Doriis who where also greeks and they came to the region of macedonia at 1100 b.c
Also before this again the macedonia region has greeks the Aecheans who went to macedonia at 2000 b.c.
The todays state of macedonia or fyrim who is in the north of greece is nothing more than a mixture of Albanians and Serbian slavs. the Albanians are the ancient illirians and the slavs went to the region of balcanic at the 7 century a.d in the years of the east greek orthodoxian empire working as seppers.
The Alexander the great had for teacher the great phylosopher Aristotle and trhe only city of the greece who didint say them greeks was the Athenians because they where primitive than south greece. But the athenians themselves calls the macedonians greeks in the persian wars who the macedonian king went to athena and give them informations about the invation of persia.
They spoke greek and believed to the greek gods also the anthropologist institutes of all the west eyropean countries have the opinion that the people wjho lived in macedonia had the same analogy in blood types and sceleton types.
When the rome conquer the region of macedonia they say:we conquer their bighest power we will smash all the others small greek powers.
Also before this again the macedonia region has greeks the Aecheans who went to macedonia at 2000 b.c.
The todays state of macedonia or fyrim who is in the north of greece is nothing more than a mixture of Albanians and Serbian slavs. the Albanians are the ancient illirians and the slavs went to the region of balcanic at the 7 century a.d in the years of the east greek orthodoxian empire working as seppers.
The Alexander the great had for teacher the great phylosopher Aristotle and trhe only city of the greece who didint say them greeks was the Athenians because they where primitive than south greece. But the athenians themselves calls the macedonians greeks in the persian wars who the macedonian king went to athena and give them informations about the invation of persia.
They spoke greek and believed to the greek gods also the anthropologist institutes of all the west eyropean countries have the opinion that the people wjho lived in macedonia had the same analogy in blood types and sceleton types.
When the rome conquer the region of macedonia they say:we conquer their bighest power we will smash all the others small greek powers.
A few points:
Firstly the leaders have clearly been choosen with Fame (ie how well known they are to a white anglo-saxon mostly american audience they are) in mind and just a touch of political correctness.
Cleopatra (mentioned at the top) did rule Eygpt - yes Caeser put her in place but she ruled as pharoh for a while.
No Joan was never French leader - she is essentially a folk tale based on historical events - Like William Wallace. (in other words - some truth but exaggerated).
Napoleon, Louis XIV or Charlemange would be great French leaders.
Napoleon WAS NOTHING like Hitler. Don't even confuse them please.
Firstly the leaders have clearly been choosen with Fame (ie how well known they are to a white anglo-saxon mostly american audience they are) in mind and just a touch of political correctness.
Cleopatra (mentioned at the top) did rule Eygpt - yes Caeser put her in place but she ruled as pharoh for a while.
No Joan was never French leader - she is essentially a folk tale based on historical events - Like William Wallace. (in other words - some truth but exaggerated).
Napoleon, Louis XIV or Charlemange would be great French leaders.
Napoleon WAS NOTHING like Hitler. Don't even confuse them please.
jon78
Chieftain
there is a huge misunderstanding concerning hitler and WW2. if you look at germany's options after the defeat of WW1/great war (in which germany hardly could fit as the aggressor, even though they fired the first shots) there wasn't much else to do than to pay the debt by war.
germany hadn't (and still hasn't) much natural resources, they depended pretty much on their industies. after WW1, when nobody in the world wanted to to business with the germans, they experienced one of the worst depressions in world history (probably the worst). a bill of 10 millon mark was not even worth the paper it was stamped on.
also, germany was in brink of communistic revolution, war with russia (russian kossaks were attacking throughout the eastern front long before the nazi-party had gained any significant power).
in fact, hitlers main promise in the start of his political carrier was to fight communism, which is pretty ironic when the nazi politics very closely resembled the communist system. both used planned economy and a regulated market (nazi is short for national-SOCIALIST). this, really, makes the nazi party to more of a ultra-left movement than ultra-right, unlike what most ppl say.
the reason I write this is not to clear Hitler's name or justify his actions, rather to fight ignorance. I don't think it's healthy for anyone to have absolute power, and I don't think there is any leader who doesn't abuse their power. what the respected american presidents did to the indians doesn't correspond to the history books either. and that's a shame.
germany hadn't (and still hasn't) much natural resources, they depended pretty much on their industies. after WW1, when nobody in the world wanted to to business with the germans, they experienced one of the worst depressions in world history (probably the worst). a bill of 10 millon mark was not even worth the paper it was stamped on.
also, germany was in brink of communistic revolution, war with russia (russian kossaks were attacking throughout the eastern front long before the nazi-party had gained any significant power).
in fact, hitlers main promise in the start of his political carrier was to fight communism, which is pretty ironic when the nazi politics very closely resembled the communist system. both used planned economy and a regulated market (nazi is short for national-SOCIALIST). this, really, makes the nazi party to more of a ultra-left movement than ultra-right, unlike what most ppl say.
the reason I write this is not to clear Hitler's name or justify his actions, rather to fight ignorance. I don't think it's healthy for anyone to have absolute power, and I don't think there is any leader who doesn't abuse their power. what the respected american presidents did to the indians doesn't correspond to the history books either. and that's a shame.
saying that Germany wasn't entirely responsible for the outbreak of WW1 isn't entirley true as they gave their word to Austria-Hungary to back them over action to invade Serbia in full knowledge that this would bring the Russians into the conflict.
jon78
Chieftain
yes, but that would be bringing a story out of it's context. french, england and russia formed an alliance AGAINST germany long before the sarajevo incident. the stuff on the balkans was merely an excuse for the axis powers to perform their onslaught against germany. by definition, the axis is composed of the initial alliance members, and the allies just the defending members. hence the aggressor in WW1 was the AXIS party: france, england and russia.
Greadius
:yeah:
Totalitarian systems are independant of left and right. I think the reason Nazi's are painted as far right individuals is because most of the far lefties were communists; and the Nazi's had a strong social conservative agenda. The 'planned economy' was the result of astronomical military spending, which is certainly not the hallmark of a socialist (compared to communist) system. Names can be misleading... remember the People's Republic of China.
Nice revisionism. Wasn't that alliance formed in part to defend those nations in case Germany launched an aggressive war like they had in 1871?
For American leaders, I'd liked to have seen George Washington. His presidency was certainly not worthy of praise, and his military capabilites were limited. However, his decision to strongly support democracy when the rest of his generals wanted to take over the Continental Congress was monumental decision; history is full of military leaders who make a power grab. Additionally, his overseeing of the Constiution and giving it legitemacy probably saved us from seeing a splintering of the union long before Lincoln was born.
And I'm glad they left Hitler and Stalin out... I already feel dirty making any positive deals with Mao; I can't imagine conducting negotiations with Hitler.
jon78
Chieftain
the nazi's believed in a strong state, as opposed to individualism. just like any leftist ideology. they also believed in a regulated market where the state could interfere with corporate decisions. this is very different from any right-wing ideologies.
nope? last time I checked the axis party during WW1 was formed of russia, france and england. of course, european politics was very messy during 1700-1914 and I don't think even specialized historians are 100% certain of all the factors involved. germany's war during 1871 may have been a result of any of the previous wars. not to mention the swedes ramparts in europe during the same time.
however: as it is with all history it is the winning side who writes the history books. according to my history book in school the americans made the all the difference in the allied victory over germany during WW2 (D day, arnheim etc). when you look at it germany had just a tiny piece of their warmachine at the western front, all the rest was focusing on the raging russian bear. THAT's revisionism.
history is always fake, more or less. the only thing you can do is to find out how much is true underneath all the propaganda.
Greadius
:yeah:
You're misrepresenting American liberalism anyway. I was speaking about state interference in their personal lives; such wonderful ideas as sodomy laws which are certainly not hallmarks of liberal ideology.
In our political spectrum, the Nazi's don't fit in anyway since it was a totalitarian state. They are the antithesis of libertarian types. Liberals are on the strong state side in economic matters, but not in personal freedoms. The liberal SS?
I managed to find my WW1 map from when I learned it; Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy are referred to as the Central Powers.
The reasons for why the war formed are pretty long, but the most unmentioned one is the secret treaties and glorification of warfare.
