CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[JeszKar]

Apart form PR there's also another good reason for not including Hitler: He wasn't that great a leader actually.
Hitler essentially completely ruined his country, left it divided, occupied and resulted in Germans being driven from lands which they had been living in for the past centuries. Sure he created a short period of economic revitalisation (which was not sustainable though) and conquered a large area which he held for about three years. But in the end he completely ruined the country he took over.
There are simply dozens of better leader choices for the German civilization.

Well he make a weak, economically crushed Germany strong again. Without WW2 and the holocaust probably he would be considered the greatest german leader of 20th century.
Stalin is the same story. He killed millions but made Russia superpower.
But I don't think Mao should be in the game. While he was a great milliary leader he was also a terrible political leader with the idea of Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping was the modern leader who made the China the country we know today.

 

[TranquilSilence]

I could go on. Really, history is full of horrible atrocities. If you can't play a game because Stalin is in it, well, that's your problem. As someone stated earlier the only exception the developers make is Hitler. Personally I see no need for this exception. I play games like Axis and Allies, for example. We can already raze cities (genocide), so just because you're not playing as Hitler doesn't mean you aren't simulating being a genocidal maniac.

Well, the definition of Genocide is a sticky one - for instance I'm not really sure that the example you provided of Caesar conquering the Gauls constitutes as Genocide. I guess you have to compare it against what was seen as acceptable conduct of war at the time, as is the case with Cromwell - there are certainly those that argue he was Genocidal, whilst others argue that what he did was well within the terms of armed conflict at that time.

That said, I agree with your post primarily - I was pretty much trying to question why either Stalin/Lenin being in the game would be such a big deal for the poster I responded to, not myself. The only thing I really give a toss about when it comes to leader selection is how fitting and representative of the state they are

 

[Captain Fargle]

Even if you don't make Zimbabwe/Mutapa a Civ in the game Firaxis then please, for the love of god, give Great Zimbabwe it's rightful spot as a Wonder at last!

 

[Navelgazer]

Really? REALLY? Maybe putting Adolf Hitler in the game would be fun as well.

I was disgusted when Stalin was put in CIV IV. Stalin murdered millions of people based on nothing more than ideology and Lenin was the instigator of it all.

I will never buy another CIV game if Lenin is included in it. Stalin, that mass murdering psychopathic bastard was enough.

Right on, I'd take back Lenin, then. The way I've always understood Lenin is as more ideological revolutionary than genocidal, but evoking this level of negative gut reaction is reason enough to steer away from that. I really think IV misstepped with including Stalin and Mao, for instance. In my eyes, Stalin is objectively worse than Lenin (or almost anyone else you can name) but I respect your opinion here.

 

[JFD]

Well, the definition of Genocide is a sticky one - for instance I'm not really sure that the example you provided of Caesar conquering the Gauls constitutes as Genocide. I guess you have to compare it against what was seen as acceptable conduct of war at the time, as is the case with Cromwell - there are certainly those that argue he was Genocidal, whilst others argue that what he did was well within the terms of armed conflict at that time.

Genocide is, strictly speaking, the systematic killing of a specific ethnic, religious, national, or racial group. It is not synonymous with mass killings; it is highly ideologically motivated. Hitler (holocaust), Stalin (holodomor), and possibly Lenin (decossackization - not sure how responsible you could call Lenin) each committed, or were at least complicit, in genocide.

Don't know about Caesar, but what would set Caesar significantly apart is that both Hitler and Stalin ruled during a time in which genocide was much less acceptable. All rulers have their controversies, but the more modern, the less justifiable they become (from a relativist perspective anyway). To put it simply, their actions were reprehensive to the times, and they (should've) known it (especially Stalin after the Nuremburg Trials).

Though I'm not convinced Caesar set out to wipe out the Gauls because they were Gauls (or at all), though.


Somewhat related, I'd love to see a different Caesar - Augustus to Julius to Augustus is becoming a bit tired. Marcus Aurelius or Constantine please

 

[Cerilis]

Genocide is, strictly speaking, the systematic killing of a specific ethnic, religious, national, or racial group. It is not synonymous with mass killings; it is highly ideologically motivated. Hitler (holocaust), Stalin (holodomor), and possibly Lenin (decossackization - not sure how responsible you could call Lenin) each committed, or were at least complicit, in genocide.

Don't know about Caesar, but what would set Caesar significantly apart is that both Hitler and Stalin ruled during a time in which genocide was much less acceptable. All rulers have their controversies, but the more modern, the less justifiable they become (from a relativist perspective anyway). To put it simply, their actions were reprehensive to the times, and they (should've) known it (especially Stalin after the Nuremburg Trials).

Though I'm not convinced Caesar set out to wipe out the Gauls because they were Gauls (or at all), though.


Somewhat related, I'd love to see a different Caesar - Augustus to Julius to Augustus is becoming a bit tired. Marcus Aurelius or Constantine please

How about a Republic leader? Like Cicero, with other senate members in the background?

 

[JFD]

How about a Republic leader? Like Cicero, with other senate members in the background?

That would be very unique to see. Cicero could have the UA: Filibusting - may wear down enemy civilizations with extra dialogue options

 

[PhilBowles]

The only reason why we even had Assyria was due to luck of having one of

Which is a bit of a shame, as Assyria was absolutely fully deserving of a place. Similar situation with Indonesia - included as a sop to fans, but a worthy addition in its own right (for all that Majapahit is strictly the civ that should have been included).

 

[RohirrimElf]

JeszKar,

Many people think Germany lost ww1. You could not be more wrong. Germany came out strongest of all major nations. Look what happened to Russia: civil war for years. Britain and USA retreated on their island. France was never much of a match to germany. Just look what happened during the France/pruisische war 1870.

Hitler was both the most succesfull and the worst leader in the 20th century. If he retired and let the other clowns take over at the right moment. Hitler would have had no equal.

 

[Dragonflow]

Somewhat related, I'd love to see a different Caesar - Augustus to Julius to Augustus is becoming a bit tired. Marcus Aurelius or Constantine please

Agreed on this one. While I love Augustus it'd be nice if some of the other emperors could get a chance to shine.
My personal favourites would be Hadrian, Diocletian or Constantine. Sadly Nero still falsely has the popular imagine of a madman who set Rome on fire.

If they decide to go with a Republican leader then I support Cerilis' proposal of Cicero.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: It's time to stop advocating for Hitler to be a playable leader in the game. Those discussions never turn out well, and I'm not interesting in having to fling around a bunch of infractions for that tired topic.

 

[IgorS]

I actually don't really understand why so many of you think they will go for different leaders this time. I still see Bismarck leading Germany, Napoleon leading France, Elizabeth leading England, Montezuma leading the Aztecs, Catherine leading Russia, Alexander leading Greece, Gandhi leading India, et cetera... And even though Teddy Roosevelt is in the video, I still doubt they would choose him to lead the USA, unless they are going back to having multiple leaders per civ.

Now, as to the civs in the base game. I think there will be 16 civs.
The ones that will be in 100 percent are:
1. USA
2. Russia
3. England
4. Rome
5. Greece
6. Germany
7. France
8. India
9. Aztecs
10. China
11. Egypt - confirmed by the screencaps
12. Japan - confirmed by the screencaps
These 11 are both must-haves, and also have been in every vanilla Civ game to date.
Other civs that could complete the line-up are:
13. Persia - seems to be always preferred ahead of Babylon by Firaxis
14. Arabia - I think they would start with them again
15. Inca - it would be a mistake not to include any South American civ in the vanilla
16. Poland - Eastern Europe was always ignored by Civ, but I don't think they will make this mistake again. They have to start with Poland this time.

Other civs that could be in the vanilla are:
Spain
Mongolia
Songhai/Mali
Zulu
Iroquois
Babylonia
Turkey/Ottoman Empire

 

[Captain Fargle]

Agreed on this one. While I love Augustus it'd be nice if some of the other emperors could get a chance to shine.
My personal favourites would be Hadrian, Diocletian or Constantine. Sadly Nero still falsely has the popular imagine of a madman who set Rome on fire.

If they decide to go with a Republican leader then I support Cerilis' proposal of Cicero.

Even though didn't burn down Rome or throw Christians to the lions like in popular myth he was still a massively incompetent little twit. In no way deserving to be the Roman Leader in CiVI.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

If we have Brazil again, I hope we stay away from the royal family. In fact, I'd love to see something more recent, like Getúlio Vargas.

Isn't Getulio Vargas... pretty controversial? What with the two separate reigns and the suicide and everything? I mean, no one else in Brasilian history really makes the cut, given how terrible the Old Republic was. I guess you could go for Kubitschek...

Maybe they could go colonial and have Mem de Sa? That'd be a really interesting choice. Or one of the major bandeirantes, speaking Nheengatu rather than Portuguese for the lulz?

 

[noto2]

That would be very unique to see. Cicero could have the UA: Filibusting - may wear down enemy civilizations with extra dialogue options

This gave me a good chuckle

 

[IkM]

I want Seljuqs. Maybe even instead Ottomans. But would be perfect if we can have both Playing as Great Seljuq Empire would be fantastic.

And at least one of these;
Il-khanate
Aq Qoyunlu
Qara Qoyunlu
Safavids

 

[j51]

Somewhat related, I'd love to see a different Caesar - Augustus to Julius to Augustus is becoming a bit tired. Marcus Aurelius or Constantine please

I kinda want Julius Caesar back. I think he has good potential as an opponent: a warmonger who's quick to forgive. But I'd equally love to see any of the five good emperors, especially Trajan. As for Constantine and Diocletan, nuts to that! If either were the Roman leader, I'd DoW as soon as I met them and wipe them out as quickly as possible.

Addendum: After wiping them out, I'd make sure my poor eternal city wasn't being too neglected.

 

[cairnsy44]

On another note, why were the devs reading up on Teddy Roosevelt. Could we be seeing a new American leader. I hope so he is by far my favorite person in American history

Would be very intrigued to have Teddy Roosevelt as the American leader. It would complete Mount Rushmore, would it not? Washington has been in a lot, Lincoln was in in Civ IV...was Jefferson in an earlier rendition? He would be a good one too, I think.

 

[awesome]

A bit off topic, but I have to respond to this nonsense statement you make. Islam didn't come from Judaism or Christianity. I don't know how you made it up. Or do you suggest that Christianity comes from Judaism too? And from which religion did Judaism come from?

Moderator Action: Be civil when disagreeing with other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Well, Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism before it became its own separate religion. And Islam didn't exactly "come from" either of those, but it is also an Abrahamic religion.

 

[SMcM]

Poland - Eastern Europe was always ignored by Civ, but I don't think they will make this mistake again. They have to start with Poland this time.

I don't agree. I think that Poland is unlikely in the base game (though not impossible). Saying that eastern Europe isn't represented is incorrect; western Russia, where most of Russia's population live, is in eastern Europe. I think that Mongolia, who have been in every game at vanilla, even civlization revolution, which only had very few civs, is far more likely. Arabia too (It has also been in every civ came starting from civ 3). Ottomans have also been in most civ games.

My list would be:
1. USA
2. Russia
3. England
4. Rome
5. Greece
6. Germany
7. France
8. India
9. Aztecs
10. China
11. Egypt
12. Japan
13. Mongolia
14. Arabia
15. Ottomans

There will also be at least few more native american, east asian and sub-saharan African civilizations. Brazil and Indonesia are both huge nations, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were represented in the game as well.