GRAPHICS: Winston Churchill Animated Leaderhead

[TracerBullet]

Just my two cents: from a strictly gameplay point of view, I think it would be rather difficult to differentiate between communism and fascism. Certainly they are two different forms of government, but in our history they've had pretty much the same result. Now of course, you could also make the same argument for the republic and democracy...

 

[Wolfshanze]

This is always such a joke to hear when people can't fathom the HUGE differances between Fascism and Communism... there's a reason why one is extreme right wing and one is extreme left wing.

These types of government are far more differant than the rather similar Republic and Democracy.

So they both have dictators... that's about where the similarities end.

Everything else about the structure of governments is very differant.

The most important of which is how the economies are run under these governments, and Stalinist Russia had a VASTLY differant economy that Fascist Germany. (State owned/controlled vs Privately owned/capitalist).

There's a lot more that goes into it, but frankly, Communism and Fascism are far more differant than Republic and Democracy, but nobody says they should be the same.

 

[TracerBullet]

Well, I was thinking more in terms of game mechanics that anything else. I don't think the addition of "fascism" as a government would add all that much to the game. I do understand the differences between fascism and communism, of course. However, if you look at the histories of Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany (or modern China and Fascist Italy, ad naseum) the effects of these two forms of government are not all that readily apparent. Both subsume the individual into the state, both have totalitarian power structures, etc. Now of course, there's nothing in the theory of Communism that presumes a totalitarian government (in fact, I would argue that a Communist state has never truly existed; neither has a pure capitalist state).
The biggest difference is in the economics.

 

[Wyccabilly]

Ok, regarding the historical realism aspect of this dispute, I have to say that I have always percieved the Civ series' relation to history as aesthetic and ambient. It's the FEEL of the game, not the facts? The idea is to MAKE the history of mankind, not imitate it.

On the fascism issue, I simply have to complain the Firaxis dropped the ball on government types altogether. Monarchy is worthless since Republic can be obtained sooner. Communism is only periodically useful at all and only because the game's concept of corruption is unbalanced. Almost any wise playstyle involves a quick dash for Republic and evolution to Democracy fairly quickly. The inclusion of new government types including variations (religious dictatorship, cult of personality, free-market plutocracy, socialist parliamentary, military police state, oligopolistic intelligencia, even benign dictator.) This would have added a great deal of depth to government as a game concept, especially if they were tied to the tribe's special attributes. England, being commercial and industrious) would make an excellent free-market plutocracy for example.

P.S. This is the number one thing I would want in an expansion pack. :crazyeyes

 

[drdegree]

The work you have done on it is amazing!

 

[God]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
Wolf,

We're seriously threadjacking here

Ban him! Ban him! Ban the guy who helped make the game this board is made for! Hah ha,

I'm kidding.

Nice job with the leader heads ccm.

 

[Cobweb]

I have posted on another thread of yours, also. Same problem here, your link takes me to a baseball graphics site with no link to your leaderheads. I would really like to use some of your leaderheads, but cannot get to them. Any solution would be appreciated. I think your work looks really great.

Thanks

 

[Smoking mirror]

You can get the leaderheads HERE I tested this so you should be able to get them.

On the subject of governments, I think they work just fine as they are, and I do think there is room for others.
I always choose monachy over republic, most of the civs have monarchy era UUs, so you may as well go to war, cos once you get the Golden age you can get techs realy quick, plus you can take advantage of the extra production to build cultural achivements. You can capture wonders, expand your borders without reaching optimal city number make peace and get more techs and more money. Even after the golden age, you may as well stay with monarchy cos you should never stop a war untill you have won, I.e reduced your neighbor to a vassal state if they have less culture than you, or assimilate them if they have more.
Ancient and middle age eras are the only time to make war!

The comunism of Civ III is a kind of improved despotism, i.e. totalitarian leadership based on a socialist economy. Facism was totalitarian leadership based on a capitalist economy, or the despotism included in Civ III (see they didn't leave facism out, its just not as good agovernment as some people would like. And historicly facism wasn't a very effective government, remember, they lost the war!)

I personaly use a "Utopian Socialist Republic" which has a "democratic" trade bonus and war wearyness with improved worker speed, comunal corruption, free mainatnece of buildings but expensive army (two coins per unit, for every unit) and no rushing of improvements. This is how I would govern a civilisation in the modern world, falling back on an emergency war government, in case of national emergency.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Quote:
"see they didn't leave facism out, its just not as good agovernment as some people would like. And historicly facism wasn't a very effective government, remember, they lost the war!"

So let me get this straight... if you lose a war, your government type is innefective? Let's see... I've known some Monarchies to lose wars, I've seen some Democracies lose wars, I've seen some Communist nations lose wars, and I've seen some Republics lose wars... does this mean they are all innefectual too?

Please don't make blanket statements that don't make any sense.

Nazi Germany also came much closer to winning than I think you give them credit for, and had a few decisions been made differantly, may very well have won the war.

Fascism is NOT an end-all-be-all government, but it deserves it's own place in the game, and for the umpteenth millionth time, there IS a differance between Fascism and Despotism... it's the economy, not the leadership that makes the differance... look into some socialogy books, they'll explain the differance in greater detail.

 

[Smoking mirror]

I agree that despotism and facism are diferent governments and I'm not saying that nazi germany lost the war only because of their government.
The advantages germany had in WWII was a scientific and engineering edge at the start of the war and good soldiers. Towards the end of the war many of the other countries managed to catch up in several areas and with good espionage the allies efectivly leveled the playing field. The russians initialy suffered from bad military organisation and general problems within the red army but once this was overcome the eventual outcome of the war rested almost entirely on production.
Although the nazis utilized slave labour the advantage was canceled out by their drive towards extermination, plus they didn't allow women workers untill it was too late, the russians had women fighters, and workers even before the war started.

Although I will admit that nazism is a form of fascism it is not the only form. General Franco ruled facist spain until the 60s.
There are plenty of divisions of government and In the post war scenario That I am working on (see creation and customisation) I plan to have several alternative governments that explore all the options.

 

[captain walrus]

I love the Churchill head!

I am going to ignore the fact that Joan D'Arc was choosen instead of Napoleon and the whole Fascist arguement and simply ask, Why was Churchill left out? Look at England - okay Queen Elizabeth was a great ruler, but Churchill lead them through WWII. Plus Churchill didn't even make the leader list for England. He wasn't even mentioned in the histroy of England in the Civilopedia.

 

[Lord Azrael]

I'm having trouble downloading it. I get taken to a baseball stadium site. Where's Winny?

 

[GIDustin]

Same here. I just dont feel right talking to a stadium in diplomacy. . .

I really wanted the leaderheads too

GIDustin

 

[zulu9812]

Here it is. I downloaded it when the site was showing civ3 leaderheads. Enjoy:

Churchill Animated Leaderhead

 

[zulu9812]

btw - I also have Degaulle, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and Hirohito. All made by ccm01. Should I start new thread for all of them?

 

[PyroManiac]

Yes do it already zulu!

 

[cgannon64]

Yes, they are too Politically Correct. I would've loved having Facsicm (sp?), not that I'm a Facist, but that it would be a nice addition. And, I think Churchill should have been the English leader, Hitler as German (yes, he's evil, but he's the most famous German leader), Stalin for Russia...

 

[tyguyx12]

Civ III does have slavery.
It is in the form of captured workers. They don't require any upkeep. But the downside is they work half as fast

 

[Snobok]

Ok,is there a way to use Churchhill as the leader of another country other than britain I am really out to warp history and make it inaccurate.
[plasma]

 

[murielwasser]

Hey! I love political correctness! S'pose that's only cause I'm a lefty freak though...

Fascism/Communism - I would argue that these are functionally the same thing. The socialist/capitalist divide is irrelevant at these levels of centralizaton of power because all resources are at the disposal of a select few individuals (whether you refer to those resources as state property or personal property).

(In my mods, I usually rename Communism "dictatorship" or "totaltarianism" and give it all units free. I also usually change democracy to liberal (i.e. capitalist) democracy and add democratic socialism - like democracy but with free facility maintianance and quadruple unit upkeep. Then get rid of Republic's trade bonus and add a few extras for flavor - Corporate Ogliarchy, Theocracy, ect.)

Leaderheads - well, if you're going to care about historical plausibility, leaderheads should be the most offensive thing in the game. I mean, really - an immortal ruler that stays in power thoughout thousands of years. I'm afraid this has always been the biggest assasin of my suspension of disbelief during the game, especially the old messages that were like "The Americans have had a revolution, deposing thier ruler, King Abraham Lincoln! They welcome thier new leader, COMRADE Abraham Lincoln!"

As for the women issue, I think it'd be perfectly fine to have as many women as men, if the female choices weren't so rediculous. I would definitely agree that Joan, Cathy, Cleopatra et al. need to be booted. That doesn't mean that some fine female leaders couldn't be drafted up. Although Napoleon and Stalin, monsters though they may be are the obvious reps of France and Russia, you could change Cleopatra to Hapetshut (hope I spelled that right) without even the need to change the animations. In addition, the Iriquios Confederacy had patriarchal tribal leadership and matriarchal supertribal leadership (think if all the US Senators were women and all the governors were men), so a female could probably replace Hiawatha, even though he's one of my fav. leaderheads. And of course liz is the obvious Brit leader. Ghandi's daughter Indira is probably a better choice than him - he always seemed like one of the more silly aspects of the game - and if Isreal is ever a civ (I know its a popular pic for mods), Golda Mier would be up there with David Ben-Gurion - although all the mods I've seen use King David or Ariel Sharon, both of whom were (are) terrible leaders.

Also remember that the industrial ages were really only time in which female leaders did not really appear, because the ancient and middle ages were dominated by hereditary rulers, and modern peoples are generally more enlightened about such issues.

Of course, what I've always really wanted is a slew of different leaderheads for each civ based on government type - like for America you could have Jefferson for liberal democracy, Hamilton for dictatorship or maybe monarchy, Roosevelt or Debs for democratic socialism, Reagan for corporate ogliarchy, Jefferson Davis for republic, ect.




SNOBOCK - all you have to do is change the name of the flc, pcx, ect files - ie instead of Art\Flics\LZ_A02, Art\Flics\CH_A02. And make sure you do it before you move them from the unzipped folder to your Art folders, that way they won't replace your old Lizzy heads. Look forward to seeing your work.