Civ4 too PC?

[Airefuego]

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.

Hmmm... so as a test case, what is the German attitude towards Kaiser Wilhelm?

 

[Iranon]

Assuming you are referring to Wilhelm II (last emperor of Germany)... he is generally seen as a less than competent ruler and especially held responsible for needlessly alienating other powers through his impatience and lack of self-control. He is also credited with giving rise to an unwholesome brand of German nationalism/militarism.

Still, there used to be a lot of nostalgia for the pre-WW1 part of his rule... and at least in Germany the current attitude to that is that WW1 didn't really have a single person to blame for it.

 

[Airefuego]

Sounds reasonable -thanks for analysis

 

[djvandrake]

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.

Maybe. Maybe not. Keep in mind that Rome was sacked and the population largely slaughted by the celts two centuries before Hannibal and his elephants, and they came back stronger than ever. Indeed it was argued that the first fall of Rome is what gave them such zeal on the battlefield and the appetitie to conquor the lands to their north in Gaul and Germania.

A bigger imponderable (in my opinion) is what would have been had Octavian set a strong precendent for emperor succession. This seems like a small detail in the grand scheme of things, but it would have eliminated many bloody and destructive civil wars and prevented the rise of the child and incompetent emperors that ended up bankrupting the empire in the third century A.D. Had they fought the outside world more and themselves less, they might have conquored Germania completely, and the Goths would have never risen to power.

Think of a world where Rome had never fallen a second time! (or third, fourth,...etc)

 

[Roller123]

There are good excuses for mass murder? What?

Murdering for "political stability" is better than murdering with other motivations?

Ofc there cant be any good excuses for murder. Its just that murdering for political stability is "accepted". A hypocrisy at its best. But somewhere there has to be a line drawn. And since people like to solve their problems by killing, it cant be set to zero tolerance. Who is the judge anyway.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Iranon

Is interesting that you point napoleon. In my opinion Hitler is Germany's Napoleon and probably will be seen like that in the end of this century. You only need to see the satirical cartoons of the time of the napoleonic wars to see how napoleon was seen in England, for a example.....

@BakingtheArt

Hannibal forced Carthage into the war: Mago's party didn't wanted it, but given the disporportionate reaction of Rome to Saguntum siege ( that, to say the truth , was in the area that Rome had recognized as of rightful carthaginian expansion ) made the carthaginian governement to declare war ( that they never sustained with vigour until Scipio landed in Africa: in military aspects, the 2nd punic war was a war between Rome and the carthaginian Spain, or better said , the Barca family ). In that aspect he's responsible for the war , far more than the carthaginian governement of the time.

And about him being only a general... given his role in all the war, that is almost like saying that Churchill was only a prime minister ( implying that they he was not directly responsible for what happened during the time he was in the 10 of the Downing Str ) or that Bismarck was only a Chanceler......

@arcane assasin

It is not the lack of records that make the persons to be more forgiving with the more ancient leaders than with the German leader of WW II. Caesar really exterminated a handful of peoples ( the Helveti come to mind, but they were not the only ones to suffer that fate ) and we know that by the hand of Julius himself. But it looks that he's considered a very civilized person, in spite of those confessed genocidal acts.....

 

[Davor]

Are there really people who can't understand why people would be offended by Adolf Hitler?

It's not because of the PC buzz word people like to throw around when it comes to issues like sexism and racism, have we forgotten why Hitler was propelled into infamy?

Should ethnic cleansing and concentration camps be added as well? Perhaps as a way to remove foreign culture from your cities?

Yes we should have something like this. You know, it's quite a shame really. I am from Canada, and at least when I went to school, Canada tried to be really Political Correct, and pretend nothing bad really happened. It's a shame that people want to "forget or pretend" bad things never happened.

Things like this have to be in the game so we never forget. Geez we raze cities and improvements. That is basically killing citizens and pirating and raping. Funny some people have no problem with razing and pillaging but have problems with Hitler.

I just don't understand it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's a game. The inclusion or exclusion of features/leaders is never claimed to accurately depict history.

I find it surprising there are always a few people who seem to get hung up on Hitler being left out. If I had never read these forums, never for one second would the thought of Hitler being in the game or not haved crossed my mind.

I suspect a lot of people like to put their history knowledge to use somehow since they don't have any other real outlets, and frankly WW2 is probably a fairly common war to study in high school etc.

As I said earlier, why include Hitler if it would offend some of your player base? Seeing a few vocal players wanting to bash Hitler in the game is hardly a sensible motivation to put him in the game.

/rant

 

[MasterofLlamas]

Are there really people who can't understand why people would be offended by Adolf Hitler?

It's not because of the PC buzz word people like to throw around when it comes to issues like sexism and racism, have we forgotten why Hitler was propelled into infamy?

Should ethnic cleansing and concentration camps be added as well? Perhaps as a way to remove foreign culture from your cities?

Actually, those are really good ideas for new buildings. Anyone who is offended by game content based on civil history in a game called Civilization is obviously not mature enough to be playing this game.You don't like Hitler? Neither do I. But if I were in charge of game development, I would put historical accuracy and gameplay above everything else.

 

[airmikee]

Funny some people have no problem with razing and pillaging but have problems with Hitler.

I just don't understand it.

I have absolutely no problem with razing and pillaging digitally created imaginary people.. and I see no conflict with having a dislike for Hitler while not having a problem with said imaginary deaths. They're two unrelated, unconnected topics.. apples and oranges.

Video game genocide =/= real life genocide

 

[Lemon Merchant]

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".

People do things for the wrong reasons all the time, and whether they think that they are right or not, does matter.

"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

I'm sorry. There is no excuse that anyone can make that will justify mass murder. It doesn't matter what the reason or motive is. It's a reprehensible crime against humanity.

 

[bestbrian]

People do things for the wrong reasons all the time, and whether they think that they are right or not, does matter.

I'm sorry. There is no excuse that anyone can make that will justify mass murder. It doesn't matter what the reason or motive is. It's a reprehensible crime against humanity.

Am I missing something? It "does matter" and "It doesn't matter"? Which is it? Not the easiest of topics is it? Personally, I hate it. I deal with actual EVIL, the kind people pretend does not exist, every doggone day, and here's my two cents for what it's worth.

There is always a certian confusion when it comes to these questions, and the only answer is the one that follows this question: "Would I believe in, and take part in this?". In which case, defend it. If not, accuse it. But there really isn't any room for academic ecquivocation.

Hitler sent train loads of people I really would have loved to have had the opportunity to have had a drink with "up the chimney"; I think their kids and grandkids would've been nice to have known, also. Is he any worse than Stalin? I dunno; I don't care. All I know is that he wins the prize as "Most Evil Human Being Ever" (take a worldwide poll and see how many say Genghis, Ceasar, or any of the other Civ leaders). Debate it, argue it, pseudo-intellectual regurgitate over it for all I care, but this is a game I play for fun, and I don't want to see / hear from / have anything even remotely glorify the existence of this bastard; it cuts too close to home and ruins the fun.

You can "devil's advocate" all you want, but at the end of the day it comes down to What do you stand for? Frankly, I stand against everything this douche represented and that people propagate in his name.

 

[Chiyochan]

While I disagree with our level of censorship, I don't want Hitler in the main game. The other controversial leaders in Civ4 were either a lot more successful in the long run or they remain cultural icons, with an ambiguous image in their home countries at worst.

hitler is about the only icon for most of us dumb americans that we can recognize, If it wherent for civ I wouldn't know about fredrick or bismark, cant say the same for Louise or Elisabeth.

Civ 4 has always been rather fail with leaders and PC things, but thats probably not because it tries to, Civ 4 is almost never about flavor, about personality, it plays like a bored game with spiffy graphics, the art styles exist to bring some measure of artistic value but it all gets drowned in the massive amounts of wonders you stick everywhere in your cities like you do in sim city.

 

[Roller123]

I'm sorry. There is no excuse that anyone can make that will justify mass murder. It doesn't matter what the reason or motive is. It's a reprehensible crime against humanity.

Again, who is the judge. You do realize you sound like Hitler right? Declaring certain parts of population as not worthy of existence w/o weighting their reason or motive. Tsss. Quite ironic. Jews next on that list? They dont eat pork, thats a crime against humanity.

 

[soverkun]

"Political stability", empire consolidation and industrialization weren't bad excusses for mass murder. They were the goal (...)

Oops, that came out wrong. The denial in "weren't" refers to "excuses", not "bad". Perhaps I should have said "For Stalin ´political stability, empire consolidation and industrialization´ weren't mere excuses for mass murder".
My quote was a direct respond to:

He simply implemented mass murder in the guise of political stability and empire consolidation

I understand "implement mass murder in the guise of political stability and empire consolidation" almost as if Stalin wanted mass murder first and then came up with some "excuses" second. My point was to clarify that I think it was the other way around.

But anyways, I do think that "Political stability, empire consolidation and industrialization" are better* reasons for murder than eradictaing "parasites".


*"better", not good. A little better than the worst is still very bad.

 

[Roller123]

I dont understand why go so far anyway. Any simple military operation is a gain vs human losses thing. Zero tolerance people set the value of losses to infinity. Resulting in anything having a connection with military a "crime against humanity", every soldier a mass murderer and any general twice as much, as he not only is accepting death of enemy citizens, but is also accepting death of his own people. (Welcome to the Ghandi-only Civ4) I do not share this view, it is naive. But it has a certain degree of truth in it. Ofc it makes me wonder why do the same people state that killing for political stability is a massmurder, but killing for oil fields is not. And why massmurdering massmurderers is not a massmurder. And whats the difference between a massmurderer and his "rightful" executioner. And why it is them who decide who is who in that equation.

 

[lampshade]

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?

Well his defeat in the war against Rome led to punitive reparations from the Romans, who hoped the Carthaginians couldn't pay and they'd have an excuse to beat them up again. When they managed to pay it off, the Romans said "we'll have Hannibal please, send him over, trussed up like a chicken." So he went on the run and ended up committing suicide somewhere obscure, while Carthage ended up destroyed, so that not one stone lay upon another and the ground sowed with salt so nothing would grow on it. Or something, I forget. I'm desperately resisting the urge to lean on wikipedia at this point.*

Sounds like an epic fail to me, although I can't see how anyone else could have done any better.

Naturally, later, the Romans being such arch pragmatists went back and rebuilt the place because it was a good place to channel crops out of a fertile North Africa.

The Roman ruins all around Tunis are amazing, particularly the colisseum (sp?) at el djem (sp?). Can't wait for the Libyans sort out their tourist industry so I can go see Leptis Magna.

* All of the above might be completely inaccurate by the way.

 

[hexem3117]

Assuming you are referring to Wilhelm II (last emperor of Germany)... he is generally seen as a less than competent ruler and especially held responsible for needlessly alienating other powers through his impatience and lack of self-control. He is also credited with giving rise to an unwholesome brand of German nationalism/militarism.

Still, there used to be a lot of nostalgia for the pre-WW1 part of his rule... and at least in Germany the current attitude to that is that WW1 didn't really have a single person to blame for it.

This is a bit Off-Topic, but I think that Wilhelm II was a tragic case. I read a great book by a man named Robert K. Massie called "Dreadnought" that basically tells about the foreign relations and naval history/build-up of power between Germany and England from maybe the 1820's to WWI (I highly recommend this book). It seems to me, from an American point of view, that Wilhelm II was a sad child with a gimpy arm who tried to make up for it by an overzealous militarism. He seemed to enjoy the advantages of being the Son of the the Emperor/Emperor, yet he also didn't have the patience to be a prudent leader, always trying to overstep Germany's boundaries as a Continental/World power.

I think the jockeying for favor of Bismarck for Wilhelm II over his father Frederick (is that right?) is quite interesting, and the later backstabbing by Wilhelm II even more interesting. Certainly one of the more interesting stories in recent history.

That being said, yeah Hitler is lame.

 

[djvandrake]

Again, who is the judge. You do realize you sound like Hitler right? Declaring certain parts of population as not worthy of existence w/o weighting their reason or motive. Tsss. Quite ironic. Jews next on that list? They dont eat pork, thats a crime against humanity.

That is quite possibly the most heinously offensive thing I’ve ever read on this forum. To tell another member of this forum they “Sound like Hitler” for doing nothing more than stating their opinion with conviction is so outrageously infuriating and over the line it utterly amazes me the comment has stood this long.

Then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that the truly reprehensible crimes orchestrated by the Nazi regime are somehow open to interpretation (“Who is the judge”) as to whether or not they were such? The entire rest of the world was the judge against the Axis powers and their fascism, and the rest of the world rose to the occasion at a price of great sacrifice to put an end to those crimes. That was NOT mass murder against innocent civilians; a horrific attempted genocide. The Allied powers fought for their very survival. My grandfather fought in that war, and carried the scars of those battles with him to his grave. He and those like him who answered the call to put an end to that tyranny sacrificed everything so people like you and I would have the right to freedom of speech and expression exercised here.

So I’ll state with utmost conviction that Hitler and what he created was pure evil, who orchestrated pure evil upon the world. There is no justification or interpretation possible for his horrific crimes against all humanity. The stain of his likeness has NO place in this game, at all, ever.

 

[bestbrian]