Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[Lance of Llanwy]

It's not our fault if your countries are run by dictators lol

You want to cherry pick some great leader you had out of 1,000. You should of immigrated to the U.S.

Fact is that China is run by a bunch of dictators and it suppresses it's people, your leaders fit perfectly.

I always hear about how the inner city is prospering so much for the middle class teens and yatta yatta what about the 800,000,000 peasants that are left with nothing in the country side so a 100,00,000 can feed propaganda to the rest of the world.

Gold medalist that are discarded after there prime to become servers in restraunts

China has a long history and it has made a huge impact culturally but the fact is it's still a dictatorship as far I'm concerned and your leaders fit the current political system perfectly.

Dictators can be great leaders all the same. Some one doesn't need to be democratically-elected to be any good. It is true that China isn't in that great shape nowadays when it comes to the freedom of its people, but they also have the ability to utterly annihilate the worth of the dollar. Why we've allowed the PRC to come to such a position of power over our currency is beyond my comprehension, but I suppose that is nothing new, given the past....7 years. I've come to expect the nonsensical and stupid...

As for China's past....it has had countless leaders of great merit, and it has a lot of pride in the traditions that allowed it to consistently be one of the most advanced nations in the world, despite frequent and bloody civil wars, until....very recently, on the scale of its long history.

But, really...I don't see how your post pertains to anything. The same could be said about....Russia, for example. Or the Arabs...

 

[Roxlimn]

Technically, Chinese also have lots of freedom. It's just not something Americans would appreciate.

As far as I can tell, China from antiquity to the recent present has always implemented something of a hands-off approach to its rulership. Any Westerner who scratches his head when he reads that Tang dynasty "vassals" were pretty much left to themselves is encountering this phenomenon.

In a way, it's a little like US Federalism, with each Mandarin being the equivalent of a Governor. These guys frequently had the power to pretty much run things however they pleased in their bailiwick, with the Emperor being expected to oversee their activities.

This, in turn, was applied down the line. A basic first expectation for any village was self-sufficiency - the ability to sustain itself in ordinary circumstances without outside help or interaction. This allowed villages to transfer from power to power without losing much productivity and also allowed it to ride the travails of war and disaster more easily. If 5 villages are wiped out, only those 5 villages will be gone.

Some villages in central Chinese regions are still like this.

This means that outside of concentrations of political power, the people more or less said as they pleased and wrote as they pleased, subject to the proclivities of the local ruler. Some people believe that this is one reason why China's history is so fraught with rebellion and civil unrest.

Of course, this was allowed only insofar as it didn't actually do anything. Mao's Cultural Revolution was, in some part, so unique and destructive because it reached down deep across this barrier between people and state and bound them Western-style so tightly to each other.

A similar sense of hands-off approach was mirrored in a sense during the Tiannenmen Square incident. Those students weren't being especially silent, you know. The whole world knew what they were about and what they stood for. It would be ridiculous to think that Beijing wouldn't know. As long as they didn't precipitate anything stupid, the Chinese rulership is tacitly okay with what they're saying.

But if you're going after real political power. Well, that's when the hammer goes down.

Note that Beijing has been using this classically Chinese approach to Taiwan and Hong Kong. Hong Kong works. It pays its dues. As long as it gives Beijing the proper respect, everything will go on much the same as it usually does. Taiwan, as well, will never get militarily attacked as long as it keeps its mouth firmly shut. It's too valuable a regional trade center to jeopardize through war.

So who's free now?

America would never tolerate such shenanigans from, say, Hawaii. If Hawaii were insane enough to secede, you can bet your bottom that the Carriers will come down there right quick.

It's not that the Chinese have lots of American-style freedom. They have a different way of thinking and a different kind of freedom.

 

[Evil Twin]

If the Ptolemies are an Egyptian dynasty, the Seleucids are a Persian dynasty. Which they, y'know, aren't. Also, they're Ancient Macedonian, not Greek.

Arab Egypt =/= Macedonian Egypt =/= Ancient Egypt

The culture of Ancient Egypt was preserved when it was conquered by Greece.
It was only truly destroyed by the onset of Christianity and Islam, turning Egypt from a center of rich culture to the delapidated Islamo-fascist third world country it is today.
Thus, Cleopatra does count as far as heritage goes.

 

[Evil Twin]

Technically, Chinese also have lots of freedom. It's just not something Americans would appreciate.

Correction: China *had* freedom.
And in the ancient past, was the most advanced nation on the planet. They were one step away from colonising the world if not for selfish Emperors who foresaw that progress would leave them out of a job.
But now? Well, thanks to Mao China has regressed so much it isn't funny. Sure, it's not as bad as it once was but China is still firmly ruled by totalitarian commies who act like thought police.

Note that Beijing has been using this classically Chinese approach to Taiwan and Hong Kong. Hong Kong works. It pays its dues. As long as it gives Beijing the proper respect, everything will go on much the same as it usually does. Taiwan, as well, will never get militarily attacked as long as it keeps its mouth firmly shut. It's too valuable a regional trade center to jeopardize through war.

What a load of crap. The Chinese government only acts this way because they have to. They crack down on Taiwan or Hong Kong and America will be on their ass faster than you can say "international incident".
Why do you think the U.S. so often has "naval practice" near Taiwan? For fun?

It's not that the Chinese have lots of American-style freedom. They have a different way of thinking and a different kind of freedom.

Lies. The Chinese people I've met can be just as free minded and wacky as any American and they resent the thought control the commie government imposes on them. China is NOT free.

 

[Roxlimn]

Evil Twin:

And in the ancient past, was the most advanced nation on the planet. They were one step away from colonising the world if not for selfish Emperors who foresaw that progress would leave them out of a job.

That's an... ...interesting point of view. I'm sure you have some kind of background to actually support this perspective. Please tell.

But now? Well, thanks to Mao China has regressed so much it isn't funny. Sure, it's not as bad as it once was but China is still firmly ruled by totalitarian commies who act like thought police.

Yeah. Hong Kong is definitely a backward city. And Shanghai? Ugh. What a backwater!

What a load of crap. The Chinese government only acts this way because they have to. They crack down on Taiwan or Hong Kong and America will be on their ass faster than you can say "international incident".
Why do you think the U.S. so often has "naval practice" near Taiwan? For fun?

With the situation on Iraq going on as it has, Iran on the sidelines going nuclear, and China as a major trading partner important for playing off of India, do you really think that the US is going to do anything to respond to a military takeover by China of an island the US doesn't even officially acknowledge as separate from China?

I would expect some kind of response from Japan, but the US? That doesn't seem especially likely. Right now, the Taiwanese aren't on the verge of takeover not mainly because of US influence but because it's not profitable to do it. In fact, it'd be majorly unprofitable. The regional effect of Taiwan's vibrant economy cannot be underestimated. You wreck that, AND flex muscles, you could very well sink Shanghai's economic gains into a pithole so deep you won't see the end of it.

The US has "naval practice" near Taiwan because it needs to bluster. And of course, it needs the practice, too. If it were as serious about defending Taiwan as it is about defending South Korea, all this posturing wouldn't be happening.

Lies. The Chinese people I've met can be just as free minded and wacky as any American and they resent the thought control the commie government imposes on them. China is NOT free.

That's a ridiculous oxymoron. If the Chinese thought police were at all as effective as America's governmental controls, the Chinese would love everything there is about their government. You think an American would be half as openly critical as the Chinese are about their respective governments?

The fact that the Chinese people CAN think these thoughts and write to each other and to foreigners about these thoughts is only further proof that their government is very lenient about these things, relatively speaking. The next time you see an assembly of students in front of the White House seriously calling for the overthrow of the American government and its political system, you let me know.

 

[vicawoo]

Wow, I certainly didn't get this impression of China being hands off. China's the least hands off country I've ever visited, having not visited westernly unaccepted dictatorships.

First off, in the news a few month ago, China criticized the US for openly warning China not to invade Taiwan. This is different than the non-explicit declarations in the past. If you talk to people who've learned about Taiwan from mainland China, it's an insult to their national pride that other countries stop them from taking control of Taiwan. It's not independent due to convenience. Whoever has that idea, I have to say I had a very different impression.

China's a police state. If you visit, you have to stay at a government registered place or in some cases report your housing to the local PSB. There is an enormous amount of censorship, particularly to views that do not match with the politicized views presented by the government. You can't get rid of leaders you don't like, because you'll be persecuted. To gamers, they banned CC Generals because they thought it portrayed China poorly. They shut down a Chinese AIDS orphanage because it made the local government look bad, they denied the existence of the SARS outbreak to prevent panic.

Thinking that China's normal and comparable to western states is like saying life in eastern europe during the cold war was normal. I think Iranians are more open minded than people from mainland China. And I don't think how China is is a remnant of Mao, the alternative to communists in China was a capitalist dictatorship, same in Vietnam, same in Korea.

 

[Evil Twin]

That's an... ...interesting point of view. I'm sure you have some kind of background to actually support this perspective. Please tell.

Do some freaking research. You'll be asking me to prove that the Chinese built the Great Wall next.

Yeah. Hong Kong is definitely a backward city.

Oh you mean the same Hong Kong that was British territory until the 1990s?

And Shanghai? Ugh. What a backwater!

The same Shanghai that's thrived on trade disapproved by the Chinese commie overlords?
Not to mention that both thrived in spite of Mao's rank stupidity, not because of it.

With the situation on Iraq going on as it has, Iran on the sidelines going nuclear, and China as a major trading partner important for playing off of India, do you really think that the US is going to do anything to respond to a military takeover by China of an island the US doesn't even officially acknowledge as separate from China?

Yes they would. And China knows it. If they didn't, they'd already have invaded Taiwan. The US doesn't officially acknowledge Taiwan for the same reason China doesn't invade it - nobody wants to rock the boat.
Iraq is a quagmire administered by a fool. But China and the US both know that a full on war will kill them both, and neither is stupid enough to provoke the other.

I would expect some kind of response from Japan, but the US? That doesn't seem especially likely. Right now, the Taiwanese aren't on the verge of takeover not mainly because of US influence but because it's not profitable to do it.

And you somehow think Japan would get embroiled in a war without bringing in the US?

In fact, it'd be majorly unprofitable. The regional effect of Taiwan's vibrant economy cannot be underestimated. You wreck that, AND flex muscles, you could very well sink Shanghai's economic gains into a pithole so deep you won't see the end of it.

And so China depends on an external economy created by Mao the Idiot's antithesis, Chiang Kai-Shek. Concession accepted.

The US has "naval practice" near Taiwan because it needs to bluster. And of course, it needs the practice, too. If it were as serious about defending Taiwan as it is about defending South Korea, all this posturing wouldn't be happening.

The posturing is to show that it is serious without provoking a conflict. I'd think this was obvious.

That's a ridiculous oxymoron. If the Chinese thought police were at all as effective as America's governmental controls, the Chinese would love everything there is about their government. You think an American would be half as openly critical as the Chinese are about their respective governments?

And somehow you think every American is perfectly content with their goverment?
You've somehow missed the massive nationwide criticisms against the Bush junta?

The fact that the Chinese people CAN think these thoughts and write to each other and to foreigners about these thoughts is only further proof that their government is very lenient about these things, relatively speaking.

Except, no. Their internet and mail is monitored, public criticism of government is banned, true histories involving Mao and the fact that he was a stupid bastard are erased.

The next time you see an assembly of students in front of the White House seriously calling for the overthrow of the American government and its political system, you let me know.

Would that be with or without the following brutal military crackdown?

 

[Roxlimn]

vicawoo:

First off, in the news a few month ago, China criticized the US for openly warning China not to invade Taiwan. This is different than the non-explicit declarations in the past. If you talk to people who've learned about Taiwan from mainland China, it's an insult to their national pride that other countries stop them from taking control of Taiwan. It's not independent due to convenience. Whoever has that idea, I have to say I had a very different impression.

To put this in perspective, the US would probably have asked China to mind its own business as well, if it had warned the US to stay out of Iraq, and Iraq isn't even part of the US.

While some Chinese do talk about Taiwan as an insult to "national pride," I rather think that Taiwan and China are really more alike than different - that Taiwan really is just a secessionist state.

The fact that Beijing isn't acting on this secession would probably be more militarily based in the past, but these days I'm not so sure. To be sure, they did their darnedest best to stay out of Hong Kong's business while still maintaining the least amount of face they had to to avoid being an international joke. Given this posture, I'm not sure they WANT to invade Taiwan in the first place, as long as it doesn't give Beijing some kind of mortal insult.

China's a police state. If you visit, you have to stay at a government registered place or in some cases report your housing to the local PSB. There is an enormous amount of censorship, particularly to views that do not match with the politicized views presented by the government. You can't get rid of leaders you don't like, because you'll be persecuted. To gamers, they banned CC Generals because they thought it portrayed China poorly. They shut down a Chinese AIDS orphanage because it made the local government look bad, they denied the existence of the SARS outbreak to prevent panic.

It would be insane for any country not to monitor its foreigners rather closely. In London, you get watched by video cams on every street. If that were the case in Beijing, I'm sure you'd see it in a rather different light.

All countries practice censorship. Views that don't match the political views of the government get no media and it would be dangerous to publish them as well. Then again, what country doesn't do the same against anything it feels is a security threat?

Bannings of games and other such material in China appears to be outwardly tyrannical, but the control the government actually exercises over black market activity is rather limited. The US isn't the main market for all those shoddy pirated stuff you know. Much of that market is homegrown.

Thinking that China's normal and comparable to western states is like saying life in eastern europe during the cold war was normal. I think Iranians are more open minded than people from mainland China. And I don't think how China is is a remnant of Mao, the alternative to communists in China was a capitalist dictatorship, same in Vietnam, same in Korea.

I didn't SAY that China's normal and the same as Western states. I'm saying that Western states have their own hangups and also have limited freedoms in some senses.

Some people from mainland China are rather fool-headed blind patriots to be sure, but there's no shortage of that in most Western states as well. More Chinese are willing to openly question the political basis of their government and its very right to rule them than most citizens in most countries in the West.

Evil Twin:

Do some freaking research. You'll be asking me to prove that the Chinese built the Great Wall next.

Sure. Please point to some material that would support your position and I'll look it up.

Oh you mean the same Hong Kong that was British territory until the 1990s?

Yes, the same one that's been in Chinese territory since then.

The same Shanghai that's thrived on trade disapproved by the Chinese commie overlords?
Not to mention that both thrived in spite of Mao's rank stupidity, not because of it.

I don't call multibillion dollar investments into Shanghai and its trading prospects "disapproval."

Yes they would. And China knows it. If they didn't, they'd already have invaded Taiwan. The US doesn't officially acknowledge Taiwan for the same reason China doesn't invade it - nobody wants to rock the boat.
Iraq is a quagmire administered by a fool. But China and the US both know that a full on war will kill them both, and neither is stupid enough to provoke the other.

Seriously? You seriously think that the US will go to war with China over Taiwan? South Korea maybe, but Taiwan?!?!? Neither of them want this, so they're both rather studiously avoiding it, but if push comes to shove, and Taiwan ignores both US and Chinese warnings to shut the hell up, I'm openly doubtful that the US will be responding with force.

And you somehow think Japan would get embroiled in a war without bringing in the US?

Yup. Prevailing political thought in the region is that the US's nuclear umbrella over its allies has gotten significantly weaker. Open signs of this are Japan's move to change its bureaucracy to allow for an actual Department of Defense with a real budget, as well as rather blatant show of upgrading its military arsenal.

If Japan wants to go to war with China over Taiwan, my impression is that the US would prefer to act as a peace negotiator rather than a Chinese antagonist.

NOBODY in the region particularly likes what Japan is doing right now. Memories of WW2 haven't gone away. If the US backs Japan in antagonizing China, there's no telling where the other nations would stand.

Except for South Korea, of course.

And somehow you think every American is perfectly content with their goverment?
You've somehow missed the massive nationwide criticisms against the Bush junta?

Yes, I've actually missed any major moves to topple the government and replace its political structure. Is there such a move?

Except, no. Their internet and mail is monitored, public criticism of government is banned, true histories involving Mao and the fact that he was a stupid bastard are erased.

Maybe in the mainland. The Chinese in Taiwan don't seem particularly taken with Mao. Neither the Chinese in Hong Kong, actually. Or a substantial and potentially vocal fraction in mainland China itself.

China's internet and mail are monitored, of course, but does anyone think that the US's isn't? Heck, telephone calls are screened in the US, and you could get your phone bugged without your knowing it. At least the Chinese KNOW that they're being watched.

US history taught in its schools are no different from that of any other country's - it's modified to make the US look really, really great.

Would that be with or without the following brutal military crackdown?

I'd actually be surprised if Americans were radical enough to want a change in government and political system and audacious enough to try it with government overthrow.

Personally, I'd think that the White House would ship all such persons over to Guantanamo Bay long before they posed any kind of real threat.

 

[snipafist]

As a fellow Chinese-history scholar (picking up my MA in a matter of days, to be precise) Roxlimn makes the most sense here. I've been to China. These ideas of some monolithic evil state are just plain off. The CCP does not care a lick about you unless you directly confront it. They know there are tons of US missionaries masquerading as English tutors evangelizing in the underground. They don't mind. It's only when these people stand on street corners and openly evangelize (which is illegal - this is a holdover from when China was actually communist as well as a response to Catholic missionary activities decades ago), that they will try to stop you. Nobody I met in China was afraid to voice their opinion to me. Many in the countryside especially were openly critical of the government.

The mistake a lot of alarmists make about China is thinking that it's some kind of tightly-controlled monolithic communist system like Russia's was. It's not. The closest it got to that was in the Cultural Revolution, and Deng Xiaoping and his successors have backpedaled from that with great haste. Currently, the mantra is to meet basic government standards and become financially successful. Some local officials use coercion rather than other methods to achieve these ends (the infamous "forced-abortion bus" tours being the most horrifying example), but they are not following central policy. There are means for local persons to drive out bad officials and alert the central party organization to such misuses of power, and such officials are often chastised, thrown out, and in some rare cases, executed.

In fact, I can usually trace all major confusion over the People's Republic of China down to one source - Taiwan. The Taiwanese are (rightfully) afraid of being invaded, and so it's in their best interests to make the PRC seem as terrifying as possible, and preferably to frame them as successors to the Soviet throne. The truth is that China hasn't been honestly communist since the early 80s, and it's slowly but surely liberalizing. Of course, Taiwan also likes to cast the current era of communist "repression" against the "enlightened" rule of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Guomindang, but that's nothing but hot air. Chiang's government was incompetent and corrupt to the core, and ruled even more harshly than the CCP. At least under the CCP, China is completely unified, respected on a global scale, powerful, and relatively prosperous and happy. So all this nonsense about China "no longer being free" is just that - nonsense.

The CCP ever since Mao realized that it was lacking the sort of charismatic leader that could maintain power through social movements like Mao did (not to mention the country was worn to the bone after Mao's later years), so it has re-oriented itself to largely focus on providing financial prosperity for the country and keeping people from considering a new revolution against them. To this end, it is legitimately concerned with keeping its citizenry happy and well-paid. While some governors find ways around this, they are given increasingly less slack.

 

[snipafist]

On the original subject: I think Firaxis chose the leaders most familiar to Westerners. This is somewhat annoying, but understandable - Westerners are their primary audience. I would have preferred some more variety and better choices (Taizong or the Kangxi Emperor would've both been excellent inclusions), but I'll live with what we've got. I don't mind Qin or Mao for China, though. They are both extremely important Chinese historical figures - Qin was the first emperor and uniter of China who set up many standards (coins, axle lengths, written language, etc.) that were maintained throughout the years, and also built the Great Wall and the Terra Cotta Warrior Tomb (both through brutal slave labor, admitedly). Mao, on the other hand, brought China into the modern age, once again unified China, and began serious Westernizing reforms in the countryside (where most Chinese people lived and continue to live). They're good Chinese history "bookends" but I do wish for somebody "inbetween."

One other minor annoyance is how the Eastern civs all got "protective" which is not a terribly good trait. Qin was an aggressive state-builder, as was Mao. While Chinese history is a great succession of wall-building, fighting off barbarians, and great missile weapons, neither of these men really exemplify the defensive persuasion well at all. Wang Kon is a tosser, as has been discussed already and we'd like somebody better. The totality of Japanese history is pretty poorly represented by Tokugawa, who lives only for war. Why not somebody like the Meiji Emperor, who began the modernization process? He was more focused on state-building: infrastructure, finances, industrializing, streamlining bureaucracy, etc.

 

[Maurya Militia]

I agree Silver, he sold out Hindus. I respect a man for marching 100+ miles, but he made India pay half its total resources to Pakistan when Pak is >15% the size of Hindustan. And then he goes on in his autobio about celibacy and how he was 'filled with shame' to be with the bedroom with his wife, while his father died... And says that blames lust and equates it with shame, dirt, guilt, give me a @#$% break. He sold out Hindus and made India even poorer, he should've told Jinnah to shove it too.

No, I am not Indian but have read about it and Hinduism extensively, and I studied abroad in Bengal and Delhi.

He would have a better place as a great prohpet than a leader of an actual civllization. He never lead the country, lead a movement nothing more and when the government actually came to power he resigned. Leaders in civ should be leaders that actually LEAD their nation.

Also Akbar wasn't just a conqueror though he was greatly distinguished on the battlefield he was also an incrediable adminastrator and it was under him the Mansabh System developed and he was tolerant going so far to have a Hindu wife, and he had his own religon known as Din-Il-Ilhai which sought to blend diffrent aspects of Hinduisim, Islam and other religons into one. He also made contributions to architecture with places liek Fatephur Sikri the capital he built.

He is a far more fitting leader then Ghandi.

Furthermore his foolish idealistic beliefs only served to weaken India.



Yeah some Indian leader he is. And not only that he was a complete hypocrite he opposed partition on one hand and then supported it on the other. And he furthermore only protested against things when it suited him. Not a word of support did he give to the Indian sailors that mutinied against the British, or freedom fighters liek Baghat Sing, did he do anything to prevent them from being hanged? He could have but no, he didn;t. He was nothing more than a bloody hypocrite and India would be better off without him.


And not only that he wanted to implement direct democracy in INDIA! Bloody hell. Do you have any idea what a disaster that would have been for the country if that actually happened? We're fourtnate we didn't adopt more of his retarted ideals. Hell we were stuck with his swadeshi ideal of "be Indian, buy Indian" till 1990 which stunted India's potential economic growth.



His international impact doesn;t matter, the impact on India is what matter since he is the one who is supposed to be the leader for India, not for some international confederacy or something. As it stands Akbar had a far greater impact on India than Gandhi ever could.



I have bad spelling.



He wan't evil, just hoplessly idealistic. Nehuru was also idealistic because he was influenced by Gandhi but fourtnatley not to such an extent, though still badly enough that he ended up losing Aski Chin and the Thang La Bulge and Azad Kashmir.

 

[DrewTate]

who cares western > eastern

 

[truhijo]

 

[snipafist]

who cares western > eastern

Wow, what an incredibly informed opinion you've got there. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

 

[Roxlimn]

I've got this strange feeling that we've just witnessed the reason for why Civ is exactly as grossly skewed as it is.

 

[UERD]

At least under the CCP, China is completely unified, respected on a global scale, powerful, and relatively prosperous and happy. So all this nonsense about China "no longer being free" is just that - nonsense.

He's pretty much got it. A lot of people in the West take what they see on the news and their knee-jerk reaction to the word 'Communist' and paint this picture of an Orwellian dystopia filled with faceless labor slaves working away under nonstop government propaganda, a picture which deviates significantly from the truth.

Unified, respected, and relatively prosperous are the key words here. The last two centuries of Chinese history have been, with few exceptions, pretty horrific. You have the Opium Wars (in which the Qing were humiliated by the Europeans), the Taiping Rebellion, warlords and concessions, the first Sino-Japanese War, the devastation wrought upon China before and during WWII (c.f. Nanking Massacre), Mao's Cultural Revolution, et cetera. Things are far from perfect today (and there are still lots of problems, like corruption), but China is at peace, relatively stable politically, a sovereign state, and is growing economically. There have been precious few times during the past 200 years where all of that was true.

Today's Chinese leaders really don't give a rat's bottom about ideology. They adopted capitalist reforms and tightened political control for the exact same reason: because they don't want to see the country fall apart, and they want to stay in power. Neither do the people: a lot of them are more interested in making money now than expressing their political views. Even a lot of people in the US with Chinese ancestry who would otherwise regard the government pretty coldly are going to China and setting up businesses or whatnot there. Chinese people are a lot like other people in this regard: they like having money and living comfortably. A lot of Chinese people will tell you that they would rather see China growing economically and slowly becoming a democracy in the future than becoming a democracy right now and risking the nation's fragmentation or economic disruption (political change is a pretty tricky business, just look at Russia).

One other minor annoyance is how the Eastern civs all got "protective" which is not a terribly good trait. Qin was an aggressive state-builder, as was Mao. While Chinese history is a great succession of wall-building, fighting off barbarians, and great missile weapons, neither of these men really exemplify the defensive persuasion well at all.

This is a good point. China under Mao was actively involved in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and one of the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split was because Mao thought the Soviet leaders were being too accommodating towards the West. Hardly 'protective' or defensive traits.

Why not somebody like the Meiji Emperor, who began the modernization process? He was more focused on state-building: infrastructure, finances, industrializing, streamlining bureaucracy, etc.

He would probably be one of the best leader choices right now. Currently, the Civ 4 incarnation of Japan is pigeonholed into this psychotic, isolationist, backwards nation. It would be nice to see a leader more focused on trade and national construction.

 

[DrewTate]

Wow, what an incredibly informed opinion you've got there. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

No, I don't currently have a newsletter. However, it is in the cards for the near future. I will keep you informed.

 

[Evil Twin]

No, I don't currently have a newsletter. However, it is in the cards for the near future. I will keep you informed.

When China finally gets out of it's ******** pseudo-commie rut (yes, apologists, they are commies like it or not) they'll own the world. Therefore your views are meaningless.

 

[SealJuice]

Mister Barca,

Wow looks like you got some backlash fom folks who don't appreciate you asking them to think. How dare you ask a bunch of us geeky gamers to learn about true history? WE will tell YOU what we want Asian history to be so shut up. And thanks. I enjoyed learning about the Korean dynasties.

I do think that Tibet has always been underrepresented in Civ. Americans tend to think Tibet is a stone-age country full of peace-loving monks who got conquered by China becasue they were too pacifist. Truth is that Tibet was once the dominant military power in central Asia and deserves more attention. Thailand and Tahiti should get more attention too.

I am hoping for more expansions myself as I love new leaders and civs. Hopefully, Firaxis will figure out how easy it would be to make them for us as mini-packs to be downloaded for a few bucks.

 

[snipafist]

When China finally gets out of it's ******** pseudo-commie rut (yes, apologists, they are commies like it or not) they'll own the world. Therefore your views are meaningless.

Considering how well you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding China as anything other than a blown-out-of-proportion boogeyman, I doubt your views will be all that useful, either.