Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Barney's_Soul, Oct 24, 2006.
by being impatient when forum speed is slow and multiclick on submit
I voted "Yes", but with an implicit condition:
All faces, mimics and speeches from Hitler (in Civ), are all direct references to the master-piece "The Dictator" by Charlie Chaplin, so then we would be able to have a lighter smile on our face and if we think about Hitler as Chaplin, we can even think about getting friendly with this leader!...
It would also avoid Firaxis / Take 2 to be sued by all american Jewish from Crime Apology...
(I think I said this somewhere else... so many Hitler threads those day, QUICK!!! THE PATCH so it can keep them busy!!!)
Perhaps, but I can understand him pushing it more then once if it's taking 13 minutes.
probably the forum server was running slow in updating the posts being made ??
He was basically a bloodthirsty thug overrunning many parts of the world at the time. Somewhat similar to the Hitler/Stalin class, where they offer you deals you can't refuse.
Mao, OTOH, pretty much did the same thing, but pretty much just within the boundaries of his own country. You know, taking over people's property for the State and so on, and then killing them or imprisoning them if they resisted (deals they couldn't refuse again).
Well that's a moot point, mulled over by folks more qualified than you or I (I am assuming you are not, like, Robert Conquest or Anthony Beevor). 1940 DOES seem a little premature for predicting the outcome of a war that was to rage for 5 more years, that GB was fighting alone, and losing.... I guess "COULD NOT have won without russia" is a little final: my meaning was could not have won the war as we know it i.e. total victory in 1945. In an alternate history in which hitler did not declare war on russia, the allies could have won for sure, but maybe not till 1948, 49, 50 -hell we could still be fighting today!
The point I was trying to make was that Russia's contribution to the victory should not never be underestimated. Their casualities, civilian and military, were greater than the rest of the combatant's COMBINED. As stalin himself put it "England gave time; America gave money; Russia gave blood"
Yes, yes Napoleaon met his Waterloo... and Hannibal had his Zama, Churchill had his Galapoli, Shaka had his, er, Rourke's Drift And so on...
The "great leaders" in this game nearly all have a chequered history. My point was that firaxis decided to include, not unreasonably, the victors of the greatest (as in all-encompassing) war ever inflicted on the earth for their Warlords expansion. FDR already in, so make up the last two of the "Big Three". I wasn't suggesting you have to have a 100% win record to be in the game.
Come to think of it, i'd probably be lying low and flipping through my copy of "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy"....
Louis XIV invaded Ireland huh? what the HELL are you talking about?!? was this around the same time Mussolini invaded Mars?
You ignorant fool. you've confused your games of Civ with real history i think.
The war was impossible to predict in 1940, coming from an amateur historian like myself. By 1943 (post Stalingrad and Kursk), you could make some more definite conclusions, but Hitler's shock attack throughout Europe in 1939-1940 looked fairly successful. Also, Hitler's unofficial allies (the Japanese, only official after Pearl Harbor, due to the Tripartite Pact that didn't require Hitler to declare war, etc.) were making progress in Asia.
Actually, I believe it looked like Germany was going to win in 1940.
As for Louis XIV invading Ireland...look at the Battle of the Boyne. As I understand it, the French sent soldiers to assist the Irish Catholics against the English (that was impossible to predict, right?), but he never officially tried to invade and control all of Ireland. It occurred in 1689-1691, as a result of William III of Orange, a Protestant, coming to power over the English throne. William III of Orange won the battle and the war, though, so England held Ireland.
Precisely. Louis assited James II to try and drive out the English. Saying he invaded Ireland is like saying the Americans's invaded England before the Normandy landings...
Hi, I am from Germany, and I can say that is true that using the Nazi emblem (Swastika or in German "Hakenkreuz") is not only blacklisted, it is a crime to use it.
Theoretically I think it would be possible to have Hitler in the game without using the enblem, but even this would be severly political incorrect. The political pressure would be so strong that the great stores who sell computer games would not sell CIV IV.
Additionally there would be the danger that the wrong people could get attracted to the game. I am sure that nobody here would like to be CIV IV the Neonazies favourite game.
I think a Civ IV with Hitler would also be unsellable in some other countries, for example Israel.
So it was chosen wisely from Firaxis to let the fingers from Hitler.
Nethertheless, I could imagine that it would be a great fun winning a culture victory with Adolf having Judaism as state religion
I don't think either should be included. But if you're going to include Stalin and Mao, you should go ahead and toss in Hitler and Hirohito as well. If two mass-murderers of an era isn't too much for us to swallow, two more shouldn't be a problem.
Hmmmm, that sounds too much like: two wrongs make a right.... it's already a shame that mass murderers made it in the game, it won't make things better to include even more of those b*st*rds
Barney's_Soul It never helps society (any societ) to just kill people. There is never any reason for a government or group or anybody to just kill people (ok maybe if they are like on a battlefeild and are going to die from being wounded)!! If you think that the killing of people helps in any way, then you need help.
Nikis-Knight (in post 48), I agree, TOTALY!!
Kristian95 (in post 54) I mean like some people say that Iraq didn't have the whatever it was that they allegedly had, but, like westerners we spent what 2 months talking about it before we actualy invaded. Tell me what you think they would have done with those few months.
Because maybe Hitler could be offencive to some people
As stated before from our friend in Germany. Anything dealing with Hitler or the third reich is illegal in some countries to be displayed. Mostly Germany. So say like its halloween and you want to dress up like Hitler becuase you are a sick person. You would be arrested in Germany for wearing a light brown uniform, which by the way is still illegal today. Just the damn color of an outfit. They would hurt overseas sales by adding Hitler with or without a swastica.
I think they added people like Stalin and Mao not so that you can play as them. But so that you feel a little more satisfaction when you wipe their faces on the wall.
I don't know about all of you. But when I play, Stalin and Mao are some of the dumbest AI's. I don't think I have ever played a game and they had scores that were not in the bottom rings. I wonder if they set their AIs to be dumber for this reason.
There are Mods available to add Hitler, that should be enough. I don't want to see him as a leader, myself. I think with the game having Fascism as a tech is far enough. To add Hitler in, would mean that you need to add a new national wonder like 'nationalist genocidial solutions.' What are they going to call it? The 'Wannsee Conference' or 'Austwitz.' I'm not going to build that.
No hiel for Hitler. Gut Wriggens.
I agree, that do to the atrocities that Hitler comited against so many people, that he should not be incorperated in the game. Still I think that, because Hitler had such an impact on modern history, Firaxis should provide a free download, that contains everything needed to add him to the game. I wopuld download it so I could kick his a$$.
With the history of how Saddam Hussein operated I would assume that if he still had any WoMD (weapons of mass destruction) he wouldn't destroy them but rather use them if he thought it is his only way of staying in power.
That was not an issue in the first Gulf War, as the US coalition forces stopped well before Bagdad.
As for talking before attacking, I still believe, that if the West is to keep any credability, we should adhere to decitions made by the UN, and only take military action if sanctioned by the UN.
Honestly speaking, I don't think that the military HQ in the US thought the war against terror in Iraq through! If they had, I think more effort would have been made to win the peace and not only the war.
With the current situation in Iraq, I am not sure the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.... after all, many civilians are killed every day!
Hind sight being always 20/20, I do believe that it was a big mistake to invade Iraq. Post war a person that I work with (scientist) was in Iraq looking for WMDs and WMD facilities. He did not find any but found evidence of facilities that could quickly ramp up produciton of such weapons. What does this mean, I do not know.
The UN is dead. It has no legitimicy outside the west.
You only need to have a few neurons firing off in your brain to figure out that things are completely messed up in Iraq. There was no plan for post war Iraq, since the Iraqies would love the liberators and bow to their will.
I agree the UN is usless. We fund the whole damn thing. With Iraq, Bush gained much support from the populus when it took 2 months for the UN to organize a search of his facitlities. At that point, the UN, more than the Bush's admin's allegation of WMDs, had a greater influence on my opinion at that point. They had so little research on Iraq, and took so long to deal it. Plus the countries sent by the UN for the surveying were from countries that have been accused over and over again for having oil deals with Iraq who was embargoed. At that point Bush had all the support in the US he needed.
However .... to say the Iraqies were better off under Saddam? What is wrong with you. Yes, we cannot really find a solution and are knee deep in steaming pile, but a couple of suicide bombers fighting for liberty IS a whole lot better than thousands of people disappearing in the night for being a Kurd or something other than Sunni. You suggest that mass genocide is better? I guess Europe wouldn't understand? OH Wait, yeah you should. Especially beign from Denmark. What's up?
I think one reason the UN has "no legitimicy" outside the west (a point I do not share completely) is that the west, i.e. USA, UK and Denmark for instance show it is of no consequence what is decided there and wage war "as they please"... slightly simplified, but I think my point comes through.
As for Iraq as it is, I think that looking back in history, people (Pentagon et al (UK and Denmark) should have learned the lesson from WWII, that the Marshall plan actually left western Europe quite stable, I think Germany could have turned out a nasty bees hive if it had been left in ruins.... therefore the sufficient amount of money should have been allocated to rebuilding infrastructure... as far as I remember it took painfully long time to even get the water supply working again in many Iraqi cities, just to name an example.
Being from Denmark myself, I think I am entitled to bash the coalitions way of handling the situation
Separate names with a comma.