Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Roller123]

havuoksa

"Just about everyone attacks neighbors for land, especially small ones, noone cares about"
->I'm very sorry on being born to a small country no-one cares about. Quite a few did actually in 1939 though.

This is not an personal attack or an attack against Finland, its just the way it is. I didnt make up the rules. Countries which are not strong enough, are conquered. Simple as cake. Finland resisted thats why it is now still an independent country. Not because it enjoys an immunity as a "small democratic country". Should Sweden or Russia make a move on Finland again and succeed, well. bad luck. But it has nothing to do with any particular leader. Just business. Stalin didnt attack Finland becasue he wanted to murder all finns.(hint). He saw an opportunity, thats all. Just like in Civ4.

Or the countless ones Stalin sent to Siberia to die who were not as lucky as Nelson boy&his family?

What does it have to do with Stalin being a leader. And why do you think they were send to Siberia to die, and not to work. Because thats what they did. They worked. Just like other prisoners in other countries for whatever reasons. Either that or slaves.

He did EXACTLY what Hitler did, killing people exactly for the reason for being born to circumstances they did not choose.

Please elaborate here. Stalin killed whom exactly, what reason, which circumstances, and what did these people did not choose. Even the worst kind, germans living in Russia, were merely relocated during WW2. Americans did the same with japanese. Jews and other "inferior races" in Germany, and around it, were handeled slightly different. So you were saying?

"The Finnish famine of 1866–1868 killed 15 percent of the population - a deed by Stalin"
-> laughing & mocking on these kinds of this is nothing more than sad.

I feel the pain, but it wasnt me who brought famines as an argument for genocide. It sounds ridiculous i agree. But why addressing me. Shouldnt you blame those, who stop at nothing in putting some dirt(deserved, but it is still not an excuse) at someone, using even such examples and manipulating death numbers like there is no tomorrow. Like for example 35 mln starved to death, and another 35mln send to "die in Siberia". Oh the irony.

I understand the OP that the question RELATES to the game, but still, this forum should be about, the game.

Well, so far this specific thread is just about ontopic, which is "Stalin and Civ4". And i dare even to say we made quite an progress. I hope.

Yes I do feel offended on your comments that say f*off to everything my tiny sorry-ass country has ever stood for

I didnt say anything about Finland being small, unimportant or any other adjective. (or about any other particular country)

 

[BakingTheArt]

This is not an personal attack or an attack against Finland, its just the way it is. I didnt make up the rules. Countries which are not strong enough, are conquered. Simple as cake. Finland resisted thats why it is now still an independent country. Not because it enjoys an immunity as a "small democratic country". Should Sweden or Russia make a move on Finland again and succeed, well. bad luck. But it has nothing to do with any particular leader. Just business. Stalin didnt attack Finland becasue he wanted to murder all finns.(hint). He saw an opportunity, thats all. Just like in Civ4.

Wars of conquering are over, thanks to the UN, modern borders and WMDs. Rebellions might happen, "police actions", maybe. I beleive WWII was the last war that involved one nation taking territory from another, just because of the international backlash. Russia underestimated this when they invaded Georgia, and the war went nowhere. If anything, the only thing the war accomplished was Georgia backing off the breakaway provinces.

I believe the last war over territory was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and we all know how well that went.

Just nitpicking, an a little off-topic, but included Russia and the Soviets in there, right?

 

[Roller123]

At the moment it is cheaper to control the government than to control the country(and feed the population). Good example Georgia, its ruler is getting his paycheck directly from USA.

Wars of conquering are over, thanks to the UN, modern borders and WMDs. I beleive WWII was the last war that involved one nation taking territory from another

Right.

USA invasion in Cuba 1961
England vs Argentina 1982
USA vs Panama 1989
USA vs Iraq 1991
NATO attacking Serbia 1999
USA vs Iraq 2003
Vietnam War (USSR vs USA)
War in Korea (USSR vs USA)
Israel vs neighbors. (vs Syria, vs Egypt, vs Iraq) multiple times
1001+++ wars in Africa (look Somali etc)
1001+++ wars elsewhere (Iraq vs Iran, Armenia vs Azerbaijan, etc etc)

I believe the last war over territory was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and we all know how well that went.

Yes. Free at last. Oh wait, what are NATO soldiers doing there.

I didnt understand your last line, rephrase please.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Did something new happen? I know I haven't been following the news, but IIRC the last war over territory was the invasion of Georgia (I doubt most people would argue the US heading to Iraq for territory. If you're extremely optimistic, you could view it as for the good of the world. If you're extremely cynical, it's solely for oil. Neither of those things are territory per se'). Besides, the Georgia thing happened later.

Or did a new war break out elsewhere? Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between war and genocide in the rougher areas in Africa ------> real humanitarian efforts belong there, certainly some of those countries could use the most basic form of aid, like actually having control over what happens.

 

[Roller123]

The invasion of Georgia? When did it happen? I only know of an incident not long ago when georgian leader came to the bright idea of overcoming peacekeeper troops with his whole army during the Olympics, hoping noone notice, and russian troops had to call for reinforcements.

Added: Good point about Iraq. Though i still disagree a bit. Territory by itself is pretty useless. But it allows control over goodies, in this case natural resources. Oil in Iraq, or, gold in Alaska, jewels in South Africa or something else in just about every other colony.(=territory)

 

[BakingTheArt]

USA invasion in Cuba 1961
15,000 Cubans vs. 1,400 Cuban exiles in United States. And do you see us controlling even just the Bay of Pigs? Also, it wasn't a war of territory, it was an attempt to take down Castro
England vs Argentina 1982
Undeclared, and was not to capture, but the ownership was disputed.
USA vs Panama 1989
Once again, not territorial
USA vs Iraq 1991
Kuwait, maybe. The USA and NATO were just helping out their ally, trying to expel the Iraqis and keep the flow of oil going.
NATO attacking Serbia 1999
Bombing war? Bah. Don't waste my time.
USA vs Iraq 2003
...No. Just...no.
Vietnam War (North Vietnam, with aid from eastern bloc vs South Vietnam, with aid from USA)
You could even say this was more of a rebellion / civil war than a war, breaking it down to the simplest.
War in Korea (North Korea, aided by eastern blocvs South Korea, aided by USA)
Again, more of a rebellion/civil war
Israel vs neighbors. (vs Syria, vs Egypt, vs Iraq) multiple times
Only once (Six-day's war), and the territories they captured are all but separate countries that are blown up every 6 days and the government wants nothing to do with.
1001+++ wars in Africa (look Somali etc)
I can't find one war that wasn't a rebellion or civil war. Be more specific
1001+++ wars elsewhere (Iraq vs Iran, Armenia vs Azerbaijan, etc etc)
I'l give you Iran/Iraq war, even thought that was more of a border dispute/police action. About Armenia, do you mean the Nagorno-Karabakh War? Because from what I have, that was a rebellion, please be more specific.

I think that should be enough. Oh, and about Afghanistan, well, now it's an incredibly unstable country racked by civil war, and the Soviets are no more, partially because of the invasion.

You seem to be confused about a territorial war and political war. Political wars' goals are to unseat an official, or change the government. Territorial wars are when one country seeks to extend it's borders. This has not happened since Iran/Iraq, and borders have not been redrawn in a significant way since WW2. This war is all but dead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The invasion of Georgia? When did it happen? I only know of an incident not long ago when georgian leader came to the bright idea of overcoming peacekeeper troops with his whole army during the Olympics, hoping noone notice, and russian troops had to call for reinforcements.

Added: Good point about Iraq. Though i still disagree a bit. Territory by itself is pretty useless. But it allows control over goodies, in this case natural resources. Oil in Iraq, or, gold in Alaska, jewels in South Africa or something else in just about every other colony.(=territory)

More like capitulation . The intention, so far as I know, was never to actually turn that into American soil. At least, I hope not.

I have a feeling it was over something other than the extremes I suggested, or even a combination. Who knows? Is there ever a just war in history? Only if your side wins...

I'm not going to pretend I know the details of the Georgia fighting, but regardless of who was right/wrong or who started it, military action was taken and it was definitely over borders!

 

[6K Man]

Not that I really care, but India and Pakistan have fought numerous clashes over the Kashmiri border. IIRC China and India have had similar conflicts off and on.

 

[Roller123]

BakingTheArt
> it was an attempt to take down Castro
Hawaii doesnt fit into that. Annexed.

>England vs Argentina 1982- Undeclared, and was not to capture, but the ownership was disputed.
The islands they fought over certainly look like territory to me. And both wanted them to be theirs.

>USA vs Panama 1989 - Once again, not territorial
I am uncertain about the exact status of the panama canal, but there was definitely a time when it, and an area around it were american territory. And i believe it still was at the time of the conflict.

>Korea/Vietnam, You could even say this was more of a rebellion / civil war than a war, breaking it down to the simplest.
A civil war is something which is fought between a nation. In the mentioned wars both soviet and US military were directly involved fighting for the control of the land. Though maybe not in terms of assimilation, but both of the divided lands became pretty involved into activities of their "masters"

>Only once (Six-day's war), and the territories they captured are all but separate countries that are blown up every 6 days and the government wants nothing to do with.
Israel had pretty good possibilities to get much more, but were stopped by big brothers.

>USA vs Iraq 2003. ...No. Just...no.
So certain? Regardless. The UN did not approve that war. And noone cared. So much for the UN. Another reason to turn it off in the game.

>Africa, I can't find one war that wasn't a rebellion or civil war
Im slightly confused about the assumption that a rebellion or a civil war can not be a war over territory. Some certain civil war in the USA strongly conflicts with that opinion. Or just about in every other country which goes through the phase of consolidation, or a process of falling apart. Same for Armenia. A trivial example = conflicts in Yugoslavia. Oh wait, you said a war about who controls Kosovo is not a war about who controls Kosovo. So i just have to ask, what in your opinion that war was about.

and borders have not been redrawn in a significant way since WW2

True. This is however only an indication of a parity in strength. God bless nuclear weapons.. And doom of those who do not have them.

TheMeInTeam

military action was taken and it was definitely over borders!

The important thing is, it was legit. Anything above that, its every interpreter for himself.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Legit fighting, huh. I don't think that's possible. If nobody pulled anything, there'd be no conflict. That's not unlike saying the US civil war was "legit". What the heck does that even mean? Legit from whose standpoint? IMO, the concept of legit in war fails before it starts. Wars don't start for kind reasons exclusively .

 

[averagejoe]

averagejoe
I cannot disagree, Hitler is in important person in history. But i think thats not the decisive cause for selecting world leaders for Civ4, but what they have done for their country. And Hitler just did mostly nothing positive for Germany(with exceptions). And also he killed people. Heh. Its easy to blame the losing side in committing atrocities, just as easy as to forget atrocities of the winning side, like Dresden.

Technically there is no WW2 in Civ, or any other real world major event, so including their participants is not a necessity, what do you think.

No its not necesarry but i was just pointing out that noone has a problem with Hitler in WW2 games. Also there are other leaders in the game that you could say killed people. The Romans were exactly gentlemen when it came to
torture. Then theres the spanish invasion of the new world.

I do agree that Hitler may not have done anything postive for Germany from say 1942 but how many germans were complaining up till then? Didnt he basically build Germany back into a powerhouse up to WW2. Yeah i dont like the person he was nor do i like Stalin, but
Hitler did become one of the top leaders of the world at that time. I didnt say he was great or good leader but he was one of the most important leaders of that time.

Germany may not have entered WW2 without him. Yeah i know thats a good thing but arent we doing the same thing when we take a city in civ 4 because its near our borders? Again i dont think the holocaust should be in the game just like the KKK should not be in an American Civil War game but the issue of slavery should not be taken out nor pro slavery leaders.

Im sure there are other leaders that if they had died only years ago we might question whether we should add them. So yeah i agree we should look at what Hitler did for Germany but not just the end result. We would not have had to fought WW2 if Germany wasnt a military power. Im not sure but i think Hitler had something to do with it. History researchers would know more than i do.

 

[Roller123]

TheMeInTeam
Legit as in - they were supposed to be there, and their job was to prevent both sides from killing each other. Which they achieved. Russia didnt make any territorial gains, neither did anyone else. Dont know what the fuss is all about.

 

[globaooba]

Okay -

If you want to remove Stalin, the obvious problem/opportunity is to replace him with other Russian leaders. Who do you want? Peter and Catherine are already done. I assume not Ivan the Terrible, that would sort of defeat the purpose.

Secondly, given Stalin's already coded in, rather than remove him, how about making him the first AI-only leader, and also have Hitler, Musso, Franco, Tojo etc as AI-only and give bonus points for stamping out one of these evil dictators? After all, Churchill and Roosevelt are famous for taking down Hitler - it'd be a cool thing to have done. Wouldn't you enjoy vapourizing dear Adolf?

yes i would like to vapourize hitler.BTW im lestenin to baba yetu. its good!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TheMeInTeam
Legit as in - they were supposed to be there, and their job was to prevent both sides from killing each other. Which they achieved. Russia didnt make any territorial gains, neither did anyone else. Dont know what the fuss is all about.

No fuss...just pointing it out as the most recent battles over territory.

Someone obviously wasn't legit though. I don't care to point fingers, but SOMEONE pulled something that they shouldn't have, or there wouldn't have been a need to go firing weapons.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Off-Topic forum rules....

 

[Humanophage]

I'm actually more upset by the fact that yet another non-national leader had to be included into the game. At least Britain's Victoria and Holland's Willem belong to the same meta-ethnicity as the nations they represent, but it appears that two out of three leaders of Russia are foreigners.

I'd rather the part-Russian Ivan the Terrible is added as the third leader, perchance Alexander Nevsky or even Vladimir Putin (I'm not a fan of his at all, but at least he's Russian and famous). Vladimir I, the baptist of Russia, would make another interesting and representative leader (just look at the size of his Russian Wikipedia entry), an excellent reflection of the exceedingly popular Pan-Slav "Holy Russia". However, some people maintain that the Kievan Rus' cannot represent Russia. I'd say the worthiest Russian leader would be Dmitry Donskoy, who unified Russian principalities to give the Golden Horde a decisive battle which became the beginning of the end of the Tartar Yoke, though he is considerably more well-known within Russia than outside it.

One can use the list of the most popular historical figures of Russia, analogous to the list of the greatest Britons, as a reasonable guideline (http://www.nameofrussia.ru/rating.html). Non-political leaders are greyed out:
1. Peter the Great
2. Alexander Nevsky
3. Alexander Pushkin
4. Joseph Stalin
5. Petr Stolypin
6. Vladimir Lenin
7. Alexander Suvorov
8. Catherine the Great
9. Alexander II the Liberator
10. Fyodor Dostoevsky
11. Dmitry Mendeleyev
12. Ivan the Terrible


It would've been better if the Soviet Union was made into a separate empire, like the Holy Roman Empire. Considering the amount of leaders the US has, its arch-nemesis could have a couple of them or so. Joseph Stalin could represent the authoritarian approach, while Vladimir Lenin or Leon Trotsky would be more on the social progressive side. I'm certain that such a civilization would've been quite popular, there are so many socialist young people these days. Besides, the USSR was less than 50% Russian, and it would be fair to select non-Russians to represent it.

 

[Supr49er]

Welcome to the Forums Humanophage.

 

[Roller123]

Stalin to be replaced with Suvorov would be actually quite a good choice. Unique, aggressive, russian, popular, successful, similar to other civ4 picks. Though it then raises the question of Churchill and De Gaulle being in the game, considering Stalin played a bigger role in WW2(removing him would downplay the importance of ww2), and France and Gr. Britain played a bigger role in the overall history.(having C. and D.G. would make a statement as if these both countries have no better leaders to offer)

 

[averagejoe]

why not just put as leaders as they can and let the player deciede if they want to use them or not. Maybe a leader dies or is captured and now your faced with using a leader who may not be a military genius but is a good diplomat.
So you have to adapt to a leader's abilities over the course of your civilization.


Not saying every leader should be in the game but it might be a little more interesting than having one leader for 6000 years.
Plus a leader might not recall selling weapons to another country.
On second thought 6,000 years might be perfect for Ronald Reagan.

 

[echelon _4]

game makers shouldn't have to care about possibly offending some people
don't like it? don't play it!