Does Stalin really belong in the game?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
I think he is already on the list. That, or I added him really early on and forgot I did.
@Humanophage: At least the HRE, in one form or another, lasted for centuries. And even then, people disagree with its inclusion and instead think it should be absorbed into the major power that controlled the HRE for a long while (Austria), or think it should be replaced entirely with another country. I would avoid doing this because the Soviet Union has an even shorter lifespan of less than a century.
@averagejoe: Obviously, not everyone lives for 6,050 years. EU implements a similar system to what you have outlined, where each leader has a separate military, diplomatic, and administrative score, but I don't think this works well in Civ. The leaderhead you pick is animated, unless you want to take that out, and there is no way you could animate about 50 leaders per Civ.
I'd rather leave the EU system in the EU game, and keep the Civ4 system for the future incarnations of Civ.
Also, don't bet on Reagan showing up in any new incarnation of Civ. Simply too recent to judge overall histoical impact, and even then he would have to topple the impact of leaders like Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt (who I think may have been a slightly better choice over the WW2 FDR, but I may have other reasons for that pick as well).
Setting aside good and evil, as we must given the crimes (by modern standards) most or all Civ IV leaders had a hand in, simply put, Hitler failed terribly, while Stalin was a success. Hitler died a delusional suicide after leaving his country a smoldering ruin. Stalin was in some respects even more evil than Hitler - it was certainly safer to be one of Hitler's subordinates than one of Stalin's - but he won their war, and left Russia stronger than it had ever been.
I quite agree that there are too many WWII era leaders already. Churchill was a (charismatic) failure in important respects, and surely not one of England's greatest rulers, or at least not fortunate enough to preside over England in one of its great periods. I would suggest Edward III or Pitt the Younger. Similar things could be said of De Gaulle, but I'll leave that to someone with more knowledge of French history.
I quite agree that there are too many WWII era leaders already. Churchill was a (charismatic) failure in important respects, and surely not one of England's greatest rulers, or at least not fortunate enough to preside over England in one of its great periods. I would suggest Edward III or Pitt the Younger. Similar things could be said of De Gaulle, but I'll leave that to someone with more knowledge of French history.
MotezumaMan
Warlord
replace him With Alexander Ovechkin 
Actually just recently I noticed that all of the "winning countries" of WWII have their WWII leader in the game. You have FDR(America) Churchill(England) De Gaulle(France) Mao(China) and Stalin(Russia). Of course these are also the countries that are the permanent members of the Security Council at the UN too.
There has never been a "true" communist country. Well, at least that whats my dad says. He says that communism would be the perfect society except for one problem: humans. Oh and China`s not really communist right now.
Edit: Sorry, random post, just want to point that out.
Edit: Sorry, random post, just want to point that out.
Communism is a great idea, but your dad is right in that humans right now aren't mature enough to handle it. We are just, lets say greedy. Its natural for us to be that way.
China still is a full fledged communist state, its just now they are starting to slowly inch away from communism, adopting minor liberal ideas one at a time. But it will be a long time before you can say China isn't communist.
We've pretty much beat this one to death by now Oldschooler, but it certainly did spark some interesting discussions. I think scorning Stalin's place in the game would be like saying Mao Zhe Dong doesn't belong because of the brutality of the Cultural Revolution,
but he was unquestionably a great leader with huge impact. I rather agree with Cypselus on this one:
"Setting aside good and evil, as we must given the crimes (by modern standards) most or all Civ IV leaders had a hand in, simply put, Hitler failed terribly, while Stalin was a success. Hitler died a delusional suicide after leaving his country a smoldering ruin. Stalin was in some respects even more evil than Hitler - it was certainly safer to be one of Hitler's subordinates than one of Stalin's - but he won their war, and left Russia stronger than it had ever been."
Stalin took Russia from the chaos of their civil war and made it a strong centralized, industrial state, that had amazing powers of resilience when Hitler invaded. In a way Russia succeeded in spite of him, after he purged his army command and was caught unprepared when Germany invaded. The fact that he was also a paranoid dictator capable of the most extreme brutality, is irrelevant to his successes. He died only after seeing Russia occupy eastern Europe, acquire the atom bomb, and the intervention of Russian MiGs in Korea.
Quote from Wikipedia:
"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),[20] an accomplishment watered down by accusations of poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy. Under Stalin's leadership, after the war, the Soviet Union went on to achieve recognition as one of just two superpowers in the world. That status lasted for nearly four decades after his death until the dissolution of the Soviet Union."
but he was unquestionably a great leader with huge impact. I rather agree with Cypselus on this one:
"Setting aside good and evil, as we must given the crimes (by modern standards) most or all Civ IV leaders had a hand in, simply put, Hitler failed terribly, while Stalin was a success. Hitler died a delusional suicide after leaving his country a smoldering ruin. Stalin was in some respects even more evil than Hitler - it was certainly safer to be one of Hitler's subordinates than one of Stalin's - but he won their war, and left Russia stronger than it had ever been."
Stalin took Russia from the chaos of their civil war and made it a strong centralized, industrial state, that had amazing powers of resilience when Hitler invaded. In a way Russia succeeded in spite of him, after he purged his army command and was caught unprepared when Germany invaded. The fact that he was also a paranoid dictator capable of the most extreme brutality, is irrelevant to his successes. He died only after seeing Russia occupy eastern Europe, acquire the atom bomb, and the intervention of Russian MiGs in Korea.
Quote from Wikipedia:
"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),[20] an accomplishment watered down by accusations of poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy. Under Stalin's leadership, after the war, the Soviet Union went on to achieve recognition as one of just two superpowers in the world. That status lasted for nearly four decades after his death until the dissolution of the Soviet Union."
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Interesting take.
Welcome to the Forums vogtmurr.
Welcome to the Forums vogtmurr.
Wodan
Deity
To somewhat play devil's advocate (uhm, quite literally in this case), Hitler was a lot more successful as a leader than seems to be granted to him.
It's only natural to look at how he was and the position Germany was in at the end of his reign. But that does not negate all of the successes he had throughout his life. Here are just a couple of them:
-- was able to come back from a failed coup in 1923, and was actually imprisoned, but in less than 10 years was elected as Chancelor in 1933. Incredibly charismatic and impressed even the judges at his own trial.
-- led his country out of the Great Depression and built an incredible economy, not just in military production but in national infrastructure, architecture,
-- successfully suppressed political opposition and transformed his country to a dictatorship
-- in one of the biggest ironies in world history, the Axis powers were originally formed to combat the growing communist threat (see the Anti-Comintern Pact). Britain and others were invited to join.
-- successfully allied with Japan (quite a feat, given Japanese attitudes at the time)
-- successfully forced Austria to unify with Germany
Many, many others.
What were his failures? He could have taken any of several openings which would have prevented a 3-front war. For example, Britain actually initiated discussions with Germany in 1938 to declare Africa neutral territory with all international colonies and possessions to be ruled by an international consortium. Think of all the resources Germany sent to Africa that could have been used in Europe.
It's dubious whether Germany should have invaded both France and Russia. Strategic over-reach. One or the other would have been wiser. Especially since Britain entered the war with Poland. Which itself was a failure. Britain was very much inclined toward peace, especially since Britain needed substantial rearmament which was taking a long time. Hitler seemed to go out of his way to antagonize Britain and to diplomatically defeat or ignore British negotiations. Why? Seems he wanted a pretext to go to war with Czechoslovakia or whatever. If he had just given up on the pretext, gone ahead, and placated Britain, he could have avoided being at war with Britain for quite some time, if not indefinitely. Especially if he had gotten German sympathizers in British government to push for isolationism and to not get involved in the wars of the continent.
Anyway without a doubt Hitler was guilty of strategic overreach. No need to conquer the world all at once. Whether that is a diplomatic failure or simple arrogance (overconfidence of having his war machine ready to go while other nations were ill prepared), hard to say. Probably a bit of both. Still, even ill prepared nations, if allowed to combine or if attacked simultaneously, drew off the German power and spread it out until it was too thin and could be overwhelmed in detail.
It's only natural to look at how he was and the position Germany was in at the end of his reign. But that does not negate all of the successes he had throughout his life. Here are just a couple of them:
-- was able to come back from a failed coup in 1923, and was actually imprisoned, but in less than 10 years was elected as Chancelor in 1933. Incredibly charismatic and impressed even the judges at his own trial.
-- led his country out of the Great Depression and built an incredible economy, not just in military production but in national infrastructure, architecture,
-- successfully suppressed political opposition and transformed his country to a dictatorship
-- in one of the biggest ironies in world history, the Axis powers were originally formed to combat the growing communist threat (see the Anti-Comintern Pact). Britain and others were invited to join.
-- successfully allied with Japan (quite a feat, given Japanese attitudes at the time)
-- successfully forced Austria to unify with Germany
Many, many others.
What were his failures? He could have taken any of several openings which would have prevented a 3-front war. For example, Britain actually initiated discussions with Germany in 1938 to declare Africa neutral territory with all international colonies and possessions to be ruled by an international consortium. Think of all the resources Germany sent to Africa that could have been used in Europe.
It's dubious whether Germany should have invaded both France and Russia. Strategic over-reach. One or the other would have been wiser. Especially since Britain entered the war with Poland. Which itself was a failure. Britain was very much inclined toward peace, especially since Britain needed substantial rearmament which was taking a long time. Hitler seemed to go out of his way to antagonize Britain and to diplomatically defeat or ignore British negotiations. Why? Seems he wanted a pretext to go to war with Czechoslovakia or whatever. If he had just given up on the pretext, gone ahead, and placated Britain, he could have avoided being at war with Britain for quite some time, if not indefinitely. Especially if he had gotten German sympathizers in British government to push for isolationism and to not get involved in the wars of the continent.
Anyway without a doubt Hitler was guilty of strategic overreach. No need to conquer the world all at once. Whether that is a diplomatic failure or simple arrogance (overconfidence of having his war machine ready to go while other nations were ill prepared), hard to say. Probably a bit of both. Still, even ill prepared nations, if allowed to combine or if attacked simultaneously, drew off the German power and spread it out until it was too thin and could be overwhelmed in detail.
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Welcome to the Forums cypselus.
Good unbiased perspective on Hitler Wodan. There seems to be no end to the debate and what if speculations this thread can generate.
As others have pointed out, it probably has more to do with the notoriety of nazism and nature of Hitler's demise, especially in the context of a globally popular strategy game. But I think also, his deranged interference in the prosecution of the war, forever taints him as a 'great leader', even if this distinction is somehow above good and evil.
Just to lend some creedence to Oldschooler's comments that started this thread; some similar things could be said about Stalin. Added to the comment I made earlier about Russia winning in spite of him; he was prepared to leave Leningrad to its fate, and only grudgingly allowed any relief after the worst phase of its heroic resistance. The Warsaw resistance were not even this fortunate when the Red Army stood across the Vistula.
As others have pointed out, it probably has more to do with the notoriety of nazism and nature of Hitler's demise, especially in the context of a globally popular strategy game. But I think also, his deranged interference in the prosecution of the war, forever taints him as a 'great leader', even if this distinction is somehow above good and evil.
Just to lend some creedence to Oldschooler's comments that started this thread; some similar things could be said about Stalin. Added to the comment I made earlier about Russia winning in spite of him; he was prepared to leave Leningrad to its fate, and only grudgingly allowed any relief after the worst phase of its heroic resistance. The Warsaw resistance were not even this fortunate when the Red Army stood across the Vistula.
Leaderheads should be Civic linked, with Stalin the Police State leader for the Russians and Hitler as the Police State leader for the Germans. That way you solve the problem of out of date leaderhead art (reactionaries dress as such) in an elegant manner.
One challenge of that approach would be that a lot of countries have never had famous leader of some government types, or indeed some government types.
The Germans might have Charlemagne for Despotism, Frederick for Monarchy, Bismark for Representation and Democracy, though those are hardly fits.
The Greeks could have Alexander for Despotism and Police State (with the Pyramids), Pericles for Representation and Democracy, Justinian for Monarchy.
(Yeah, you can see I also think some of the civs need to be folded back into the country they actually were. This could be concomittant, with a leader change a cosmetic name change).
How about a Great Person that can change the nationality of a city? Great Revolutionary. Occurs rarely. Spy invisiblity, city must be in disorder. Then you can select nationality to change the city to.
One challenge of that approach would be that a lot of countries have never had famous leader of some government types, or indeed some government types.
The Germans might have Charlemagne for Despotism, Frederick for Monarchy, Bismark for Representation and Democracy, though those are hardly fits.
The Greeks could have Alexander for Despotism and Police State (with the Pyramids), Pericles for Representation and Democracy, Justinian for Monarchy.
(Yeah, you can see I also think some of the civs need to be folded back into the country they actually were. This could be concomittant, with a leader change a cosmetic name change).
How about a Great Person that can change the nationality of a city? Great Revolutionary. Occurs rarely. Spy invisiblity, city must be in disorder. Then you can select nationality to change the city to.
Wodan
Deity
Hmm, that's interesting.
But it would prevent the gameplay variety of having different Traits. They could probably work that out though.
AsymmetricSurge
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2
One can see why Firaxis chose not to include Hitler due to the consequences of 1). not having access to the German market and 2). the fallout from the Jewish community.
However, that being said, I agree with old schooler about how ridiculous to include Stalin. Since public opinion is a function of education & total resources devote to each leader (class time, media [films, books, etc. etc.]), it's not shocking to see public opinion (evil) is much more against Hitler than to Stalin, because (at least in US) there is much more focus on Hitler's exploits than Stalin's. How many movies and books are there for each leader (there is a movie out now for Christs sakes)? This is why, if you surveyed US & Western EU, I'm sure you'd find that more people know more details about Hitlers exploits compared to Stalin's. I think this is why the reaction here is more outspoken towards Hitler, because we know more details. As for other civ leaders, a bunch of them have committed mass crimes (murder, slavery, racism, religious persecution etc. etc.), but being in the 21st century, it's harder to identify to the other evil civ leaders in prior centuries compared to modern civ leader due to the sheer knowledge derived from our education & media exposure.
But to compare which one was more evil using 18-20 million murdered vs. anti-Semitism is ridiculous. They were both monsters. And to stay "I'd rather be enslaved than..." in the comfort of our own homes sitting in front of a machine is absurd.
Bottom line, even though Firaxis's decision was probably financially motivated, it is ludicrous to see Stalin up there in the absence of Hitler because Stalin is only included because there is less of a negative opinion (no outcry) here in Western world.
However, that being said, I agree with old schooler about how ridiculous to include Stalin. Since public opinion is a function of education & total resources devote to each leader (class time, media [films, books, etc. etc.]), it's not shocking to see public opinion (evil) is much more against Hitler than to Stalin, because (at least in US) there is much more focus on Hitler's exploits than Stalin's. How many movies and books are there for each leader (there is a movie out now for Christs sakes)? This is why, if you surveyed US & Western EU, I'm sure you'd find that more people know more details about Hitlers exploits compared to Stalin's. I think this is why the reaction here is more outspoken towards Hitler, because we know more details. As for other civ leaders, a bunch of them have committed mass crimes (murder, slavery, racism, religious persecution etc. etc.), but being in the 21st century, it's harder to identify to the other evil civ leaders in prior centuries compared to modern civ leader due to the sheer knowledge derived from our education & media exposure.
But to compare which one was more evil using 18-20 million murdered vs. anti-Semitism is ridiculous. They were both monsters. And to stay "I'd rather be enslaved than..." in the comfort of our own homes sitting in front of a machine is absurd.
Bottom line, even though Firaxis's decision was probably financially motivated, it is ludicrous to see Stalin up there in the absence of Hitler because Stalin is only included because there is less of a negative opinion (no outcry) here in Western world.
AsymmetricSurge
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2
One can see why Firaxis chose not to include Hitler due to the consequences of 1). not having access to the German market and 2). the fallout from some in the Jewish community.
However, that being said, I agree with old schooler about how ridiculous to include Stalin. Since public opinion is a function of education & total resources devote to each leader (class time, media [films, books, etc. etc.]), it's not shocking to see public opinion (evil) is much more against Hitler than to Stalin, because (at least in US) there is much more focus on Hitler's exploits than Stalin's. How many movies and books are there for each leader (there is a movie out now for Christs sakes)? This is why, if you surveyed US & Western EU, I'm sure you'd find that more people know more details about Hitlers exploits compared to Stalin's. I think this is why the reaction here is more outspoken towards Hitler, because we know more details. As for other civ leaders, a bunch of them have committed mass crimes (murder, slavery, racism, religious persecution etc. etc.), but being in the 21st century, it's harder to identify to the other evil civ leaders in prior centuries compared to modern civ leader due to the sheer knowledge derived from our education & media exposure.
But to compare which one was more evil using 18-20 million murdered vs. anti-Semitism is ridiculous. They were both monsters. And to stay "I'd rather be enslaved than..." in the comfort of our own homes sitting in front of a machine is absurd.
Bottom line, even though Firaxis's decision was probably financially motivated, it is ludicrous to see Stalin up there in the absence of Hitler because Stalin is only included because there is less of a negative opinion (no outcry) here in Western world. And if people justify Stalin's inclusion is because he was important to Russian civ/world history, I think Hitler was equally so even though his rule was short, because Hitler/Germans was so close to winning WWII it wasn't funny.
However, that being said, I agree with old schooler about how ridiculous to include Stalin. Since public opinion is a function of education & total resources devote to each leader (class time, media [films, books, etc. etc.]), it's not shocking to see public opinion (evil) is much more against Hitler than to Stalin, because (at least in US) there is much more focus on Hitler's exploits than Stalin's. How many movies and books are there for each leader (there is a movie out now for Christs sakes)? This is why, if you surveyed US & Western EU, I'm sure you'd find that more people know more details about Hitlers exploits compared to Stalin's. I think this is why the reaction here is more outspoken towards Hitler, because we know more details. As for other civ leaders, a bunch of them have committed mass crimes (murder, slavery, racism, religious persecution etc. etc.), but being in the 21st century, it's harder to identify to the other evil civ leaders in prior centuries compared to modern civ leader due to the sheer knowledge derived from our education & media exposure.
But to compare which one was more evil using 18-20 million murdered vs. anti-Semitism is ridiculous. They were both monsters. And to stay "I'd rather be enslaved than..." in the comfort of our own homes sitting in front of a machine is absurd.
Bottom line, even though Firaxis's decision was probably financially motivated, it is ludicrous to see Stalin up there in the absence of Hitler because Stalin is only included because there is less of a negative opinion (no outcry) here in Western world. And if people justify Stalin's inclusion is because he was important to Russian civ/world history, I think Hitler was equally so even though his rule was short, because Hitler/Germans was so close to winning WWII it wasn't funny.
Similar threads
