lutzj
The Last Thing You See
Besides, he would be the most annoying AI ever... think Isabella and Montezuma combined.
Civ4 too PC?
- Thread starter arcane assasin
- Start date
- Status
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Welcome to the Forums airmikee. 
Airefuego
King
I agree.
The reason Hitler isn't in the game is because he was no good as a leader.
I'm not talking about his popular following at the time, and let's put aside for a moment his ideology and what people today think of him.
Put it in Civ terms. I'm talking about results for Germany here.
He took an advanced (though temporarily rather wrecked) country and 12 years later he died and gave it back VASTLY worse off still! Sure, he had short term gains but he lost it all in 12 turns.
In every measure - industrial capacity, economy, land area, number of germans alive... Germany was massively worse off in all of these by the time his reign finished.
He also earned giant diplomatic negatives with nearly every other Civ on the planet and chased away a whole bunch of great people (Einstein?!?!). The only thing he did was discover a couple of techs (rocketry and whatever enables panzers).
So on that basis, he doesn't deserve to be in the game.
I hear you say: "But other leaders in the game were real-life failures too..." Well...
Spoiler :
reverend oats
King
I see the Montezuma in the game as the First, not the Second. After all, the Second was a wuss who spent all his time drinking coco. That's not the Monty we all know and love, is it?
Oh, and re- German economy. IIRC before Hitler took power there was high unemployment and rocketing inflation, but he (and his advisers) were able to temporarily fix it.
Oh, and re- German economy. IIRC before Hitler took power there was high unemployment and rocketing inflation, but he (and his advisers) were able to temporarily fix it.
Here's a little entry from Lemon's Dictionary:
Trolling: Trohl' ing, verb, etymology uncertain: The act of deliberately posting controversial or insulting comments in a newsgroup or public forum with the intent to provoke an argument or "flame-war".
You've been made, Jim. You're busted. You didn't get it when most people in the "Girly" thread were making fun at your expense, so I'm telling you flat out kindly: You're making yourself look stupid and you're wasting bandwidth. Go troll somewhere else.
What's got your panties in a knot?
Moderator Action: Warned, flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
soverkun
Chieftain
That they both did what they did because they thought they were right and their cause just, hardly matters. Most people do what they do because they think its "right and just".
"Political stability", empire consolidation and industrialization weren't bad excusses for mass murder. They were the goal, mass murder the mean. Hitlers goal was extermination of the jewish race. That is, his goal was mass murder. That's a difference, and an important one I think, although both of course are worthy of contempt
Pluvo241
Chieftain
I totally agree with your first statement. I am however totally floored by your second statement.
There are good excuses for mass murder? What?
Murdering for "political stability" is better than murdering with other motivations? Political expedience has undoubtedly motivated an endless chain of crimes from government officials from probably every government in our long and tawdry history and these crimes are, near as I can tell, aimed almost exclusively at the very people they are sworn to serve or protect.
Little nitpick here: the goal was to drive the 'Jewish race' from Europe - originally the favoured policy was to deport them to Madagascar... albeit under SS control, so this probably wouldn't have been a very friendly colony.
This changed to genocide after the changing fortunes of the war made this logistically unfeasible.
***
Still, some of Hitler's plans in the event of victory were even more terrifying than anything he actually did... the plans for the systematic enslavement of the Russian people made genocide seem kind in comparison.
So I think there's a reasonable case that Hitler was worse than anyone in the game, not only worse at it.
This changed to genocide after the changing fortunes of the war made this logistically unfeasible.
***
Still, some of Hitler's plans in the event of victory were even more terrifying than anything he actually did... the plans for the systematic enslavement of the Russian people made genocide seem kind in comparison.
So I think there's a reasonable case that Hitler was worse than anyone in the game, not only worse at it.
Hit the nail right on the head. He wasn't a great leader of the Germans. Ignoring all the politics and atrocities - we don't have to even have that debate - he messed up massively and was a bad leader. All the others in the game were great leaders of one type or another.
Stalin is the only leader in there that gives the Hitler argument any credence. And Stalin, for all the bad stuff he did, took the USSR from a backwards country into one of the two world superpowers and acquired a huge sphere of influence for his country. Similar with Mao - made huge steps for the country. Hitler - just a rubbish leader. Remember, this game is called Civilisation, it's not a pure wargame.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
So far in Civ all the leaders are famous for doing something good for the nation (even if the leader did alot of bad stuff to). Hitler just did really bad stuff, nothing good. Besides the loss of sells in the second biggest market would be horrible for Fireaxis.
r_rolo1
King of myself
^^Hannibal? 
Not counting with quasi ( or completely legendary ) caracthers like Brennus or Ragnar
Not counting with quasi ( or completely legendary ) caracthers like Brennus or Ragnar
hannibal is an interesting counter. possibly one could say that the romans as the absolute superpower at the time forced him into a war which he did the best he could with within his limits.
he made good alliances, was a military genius (cannae?? sp?), and gave roman mothers something to scare their children with forever (go to bed or hannibal will come and get you!)
arguably carthage would have gone down a lot quicker without him at the helm.
one of the great imponderables of world history is what would have happened if he'd sacked rome - we'd have a completely different world now, one with a very north african feel, and we wouldn't have the overriding greek influence to the western world that we have now.
good point.
he made good alliances, was a military genius (cannae?? sp?), and gave roman mothers something to scare their children with forever (go to bed or hannibal will come and get you!)
arguably carthage would have gone down a lot quicker without him at the helm.
one of the great imponderables of world history is what would have happened if he'd sacked rome - we'd have a completely different world now, one with a very north african feel, and we wouldn't have the overriding greek influence to the western world that we have now.
good point.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Hannibal forced the hand of the Carthage governement to a war that is not sure that they wanted at the time, and after a briliant opening, he ran out of steam and was forced to Guerrilla actions deep inside the enemy lines , mainly because the Romans were more confident against his brothers bringing reinforcements that facing him ... they didn't even tried to stop him to go to Africa when Scipius landed there . Then he lost the decisive battle....
Now think how the carthaginians would see him at the time: a stubborn bastard that forced a war that he had very slim chances to win in spite of the very good opening he made and ruined them all, not much unlike the common German thinks of the german leader of the period after the death of Hindenburg . But he's in civ...... so the sucess argument does not apply.
Now think how the carthaginians would see him at the time: a stubborn bastard that forced a war that he had very slim chances to win in spite of the very good opening he made and ruined them all, not much unlike the common German thinks of the german leader of the period after the death of Hindenburg . But he's in civ...... so the sucess argument does not apply.
ha! i can just imagine old women in carthage hanging out at the souk:
"have you heard about hannibal then?"
"what, is he still running around italy with those bloomin' elephants?"
"yep, 10 years he's been there now and has he written? has he called?"
r_rolo1
King of myself
After his defeat , I mean 
arcane assasin
Chieftain
Also keep in mind that Hitler's reign was so short by comparison because of the modern era in which he ruled. Modern warfare enabled his quick blitz of Europe, but also consequentially his quick defeat, as compared to some of the "failed" leaders in the game that ruled in earlier eras where it simply took longer to get anything done. I think fighter plains and tanks are a bit more expediant than elephants.
Also the modern age with its advanced technologies such as radio and film made it easier to document his atrocities than those of the earlier brutal leaders included in the game.
Also the modern age with its advanced technologies such as radio and film made it easier to document his atrocities than those of the earlier brutal leaders included in the game.
BakingTheArt
His Evening Coat
Hannibal didn't lose. Yes, the Punic wars were a loss for Carthage, of course, but Hannibal was only a general in wartime, never losing one battle until the battle of Zama. His actions alone were not enough to win, though, and Carthage lost in the end. Afterwards, he became one of the leaders, and instituted some reforms threat restored Carthage's prosperity.
Where do you see losing in that?
Where do you see losing in that?
I don't think it's only a question of winning or losing. Without the over-the-top atrocities, Germans probably have a mixed to wistful attitude towards him - 'our chance to greatness... shame he didn't know when to stop'.
He'd probably be regarded as Germany's equivalent to Napoleon, and definitely included in the game.
- Status
Similar threads
