1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Gandhi already confirmed as India's leader? (AGAIN?!)

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Civciv5, May 12, 2016.

  1. Civciv5

    Civciv5 Grand Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,103
    Location:
    Nergenshuizen, Belgium
    For the love of science and all that is logical please say this is not confirmed.
    Nothing against the man (he was an admirable man), but I'm really tired of having him again and again and again. India should not have Gandhi as its leader since he never controlled the country, it should be someone who was an actual ruler like Ashoka or Chandragupta II.
     
  2. Ryuu Falconwing

    Ryuu Falconwing Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    Washington
    I think it's tradition now. They all but said he was in.
     
  3. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    15,862
    I'm also bored of seeing Gandhi, but at this point he is kind of a Civ tradition.
     
  4. EulerMcE

    EulerMcE Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    Ireland
    Gandhi is the main character of Civilization.
     
  5. Hannibal XIII

    Hannibal XIII Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    120
    Screw Gandhi (and Shaka), Monty is a much better Civ gag.

    India should be 2-3 civs itself anyway.
     
  6. benjamin28

    benjamin28 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    This would be solved if we could have two leaders per civ (the other one being Akbar, Ashoka or Chandragupta).

    Also, I really, REALLY hope they drop the "Gandhi will nuke you" joke already. It's not funny anymore.
     
  7. Edgehopper

    Edgehopper Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    42
    Especially with the new leader AI, it would be cool if they took a page from Civ4 Colonization and had multiple leaders per Civ. It would be fun and add replayability to have to deal differently with, for example, George Washington (military focused, not inclined towards alliances, agriculture focus) and FDR (industrial focused, internationalist diplomat). Or Suleiman vs. Ataturk. Or Peter the Great vs. Stalin.
     
  8. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Ghandi, Nuclear Terror has been with the game since the beginning. If he wasn't there now there would be outrage.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,876
    They had this in Civ IV. Napoleon and De Gaulle were pretty freaking opposite on AI spectrum ends, Bismark/Frederick and Stalin/Peter/Catherine being pretty different from each other also. It was nice.

    There could be some distinction between different time periods in India. India in its modern form is different from Ashoka's time, and you could very plausibly include Mughals led by Babur as a separate civ (considering some of the civs that made the cut in V, it's a little silly that Mughals haven't made it into any Civ title yet, only a UB reference to them). It's always just been "India", but that's kind of like putting in Italy and ignoring Rome/Venice.

    Rome/Byzantium/Venice but no Mughals/India is pretty crazy, especially when you have nations like Huns or other territorial overlap nations that were much smaller, lasted less time, less influential across history etc. Considering its relative size/population India's pretty under-represented in Civ in general. Europe has a ton of civs that held similar territory throughout the ages, multiple that were included in Civ despite not lasting longer than some very populous, large empires in India. China's a bit hosed that way too.
     
  10. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Yeah, bored of the Gandhi joke and multiple leaders and multiple civs for India. Agreeing with all y'all:

    At best based on what we know:
    Indian: Ghandi, Asoka, Akbar
    Dravidian: Krishna Deva Raya

    But ideally:
    Maghada (The center of both the Maurya and Gupta empires): Asoka, Samudragupta
    Mughal: Akbar, Shah Jahan
    Vijayanagar: Krishna Deva Raya
    other kingdoms as City-States: Chola, Pandya, Rasthrakuta, Bengal, Maratha, Kerala, etc.
     
  11. Hannibal XIII

    Hannibal XIII Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    120
    For Dravidians I'd go with Rajaraja I Chola, personally.
     
  12. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Yeah, he'd be great too! So much possibilities! Civ ∞!
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,876
    Quite good. Bengal as a city state though is :p.
     
  14. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,912
    Location:
    Poland
    I sighed upon seeing Gandhi once again as the face of civ. Yeah I get it, civ1 gandhi nuke meme but personally I don't like India being represented by him.

    He never ruled the country and I have the feeling he is overrated by West, I also don't like his philosophy and personal hypocrisy. Honestly I don't like him at all and I think he is a person similar to Mandela: charismatic politician who mastered the art of selling his image well in the eyes of Western media, while simultaneously ruthlessly pursuing his political agenda at home and hiding his shady acts. I am also very skeptical about the real legacy of Gandhi, seeing how his preaching didn't stop violent division of India and 70 years of clashes, conflicts, wars and fanatic violence his country faces.
    But okay, this is my fringe opinion, I have to research the subject more.

    However even if I accept the stellar image he has in the Western media, I have the biggest problem with the fact he is not, in my opinion, representing Indian civilisation well. Hindu civilisation was never "pacifist hippie" land always built by Gandhi personality in civ series. India has been a subcontinent of sacred warriors, monumental architecture, powerful kings and queens, religious and ethnic diversity, cultural powerhouse on global scale, a resistance to warmongers through ages, a hub of commerce and science, one of global capitals of mathematics and science etc etc

    ...and all that is overshadowed by this stupid cliche "pacifist passive resistance! much food, much people! spirituality and ancient wisdom!" as if Indian civilisation in civ series was designed by middle school girl.

    I would love to see India ruled by, for example, Rani Lakshmi Bai, legendary warrior queen. Or Ashoka, or one of countless great kings and emperors. But no, it will again get personality of a passive pushover idiot incapable of threatening human player (as in civ5), a food overpopulation bonus, an elephant and introduction text mentioning poverty (civ5) and focusing on Gadhi's life.

    That's why I don't like Gandhi in civ series: a character of a civilization 3000 years old in each game is overshadowed by the personal character of a guy with 30 years of political activity.


    And I don't care about the 'series tradition' in the slightest, good traditions should be kept but bad traditions changed. I can't stand Zulu civilization for example, which completely doesn't deserve on the same level of 'great empire' as Persia or Ethiopia, and barely deserves name of 'civilisation'. I'd gladly see both Gandhi and Zulu to be removed. Instead I'd welcome better Indian ruler and more worthy Subsaharan civilization (if you wanna it to be southern - take Kingdom of Kongo or Great Zimbabwe, or Kilwa Kiswani).
     
  15. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,876
    That's going too far in the other direction. India as a subcontinent is not exactly a single cultural civilization, and modern India vs Mughal India vs Ashoka's time have some pretty significant contrasts, to say the least.

    We're in agreement wrt the Ghandi representation though, it's pretty silly especially when there are so freaking many potential rulers you could use from various eras that were *actually in charge* during effectively golden ages of a major world civilization of their time.
     
  16. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Yeah, I meant like the Palas, but yeah I see what you mean.
     
  17. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,489
    The one thing I'd like to see is Ghandi as a leader of post colonial India, it sucks that India always end up feeling more like a mix of diferent civilizatios.
     
  18. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,912
    Location:
    Poland
    Yeah... That's separate issue :p
    In general I strongly dislike the way India is potrayed in civ5 series, sometimes I have an impression it crosses the line between 'ignorant' and 'insulting' (civ5 india: mix of separate civilisations, elephant unit, poverty and "oriental spiritualism" in description, gandhi hippie and unique trait of overpopulation - which sucked on top of that :p )

    Oh, I forgot to mention that. Yeah that's another reason I should dislike Gandhi as a leader:

    Most civ series leaders are people who led their nations in their greatest golden eras.
    Indian leader is a guy who was not even a leader of his nation in its worst era, and he failed to prevent situation from worsening :lol: (on top of that all, though this may be rare opinion, I think his ideas if implemented would devastate his nation - his fanatic distrust of capitalism, urbanisation, and ideas of 'returning to simple life' - that's ideology of crazy hermit, not great ruler).

    I mean, for most of history India had like 25% of world's GDP and was one of greatest centers of civilisation, in times of Gandhi it was like 3-5% of global GDP as almost the poorest pariah, and he failed to make the situation better in any way :crazyeye: and it got even worse in upcoming four decades in significant part because of his ideological legacy :crazyeye:

    Eh, maybe I dislike him as a ruler so much partially because of my political beliefs (I distrust any charismatic 'spiritual leaders' and radical 'soul over matter' ideologies) but anyway, there are so many cooler and greater and more appropriate Indian leaders than him...

    EDIT
    Oh and I forgot to add. "Gandhi was not ruler but spiritual leader", fine. The problem is, he failed even as spiritual leader :crazyeye: after all his preaching about religious tolerance (one of few of his traits I like), it didn't help at all and next 70 years of Indian history was constant worsening of religious intolerance and conflict in the subcontinent.

    So here we go: an influential charismatic man who slightly helped India in independence (he overshadowed a lot of other people without whom independence would be impossible, and which was inevitable anyway after devastation of UK in WW2 :crazyeye:), never ruled the country, his ideas were not implemented in practice (and if they did they could make things even worse), and his influence is limited to being 'inspirational symbol'.

    It's as if Martin Luther King was leader of American civilisation in civ6, except I like and respect MLK much more and think he did much bigger difference. Anyway, human rights activists still shouldn't be rulers of civ series empires in my opinion.
     
  19. GenjiKhan

    GenjiKhan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,117
    People here overstimate the importance that leaders have over their countries . One leader does not define its whole country. One leader does not undo and reverse secular religious conflicts by himself/herself . One leader does not lead alone, and depending on the truth of some conspiracy theories, does not lead at all .

    IMO, Gandhi does not represent all the cultures that have ever inhabited the Indian subcontinent . He only represents the nationalistic culture that only emerged less than 200 years ago in the Indian subcontinent . A nationalistic culture that created three countries . Still, I'm glad he never left
     
  20. sugerdady87

    sugerdady87 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    291
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Marina del Rey
    I essentially agree with everything you said here. I have no idea why he's so hyped to be honest, kind of like Mother Teresa. I would go so far to say I don't even like the high use nukes in his personality. It was a fun glitch in Civ1, but come on. I would much rather Shaka have a max use nuke rating.
     

Share This Page