Hitler??

[Xen]

civ3 was full of not-very nice people at the helms of nations; Lincoln (genocidical to aboriginals), Elizabeth (ask the irish, we wont hesitate to answer), Mao (obvious reasons), Shaka (had millions of his own people killed) and Caesar (killed thousands of people)

the only reason people are squeemish about hitler is because of the recentness of WWII, I would have no problem, but that's just my opinion.

You seem to throw in Caesar at the end onyl to include the Romans for the hell of it; EVERY leader aside from ghandi has bloody hands in that game, its fruitless to make a point out of any but the most bloody included, which woudl be Mao (far better possible leaders in Chinese history exist) using examples who did far more good then Bad, such as Lincol, or Caesar seems to be straying from the point soemwhat

 

[Greek Stud]

Hitler also killed many Romaniotes (Greek Jews) and Greeks in WW2. I am not offended if he is playable. The point of this game is to teach history and just like history books teach us events and important people, so should the game.

Saying people would react to a game is like saying people would reach to a classroom. Am I right or was Sid Meier's intention in creating Civilization was to teach history in an innovative and dynamic way?

The more you try to erase history and historical events, they tend to lose credibility because they lose documentation. Could you imagine if the Egyptians had not wrote about their enemies because it offended some Egyptians. Or if the Greeks had not wrote about the Battle of Salamis, where the Persians almost crushed Greece. Your enemies and allies should both be accounted for in books, documents and games. Otherwise future generations will believe they were not important or that the Holocaust was not so important to us if we stop teaching about it.

I hope good and bad leaders alike are represented because I want people to learn, I dont want censorship for the sake of people not being able to cope with past events.

 

[Louis XXIV]

civ3 was full of not-very nice people at the helms of nations; Lincoln (genocidical to aboriginals)

Aboriginals are Australian

In US history, Lincoln was actually pretty mild with Native Americans (if we were talking about Andrew Jackson, I'd understand your point better). Lincoln did pretty much dramatically reduce the freedoms of Americans during the Civil War, though (he suspended the right to habius corpus). Plus, he authorized the actions of Sheridan and Sherman.

 

[Vael]

"Aboriginal" is a synonym for "native".

 

[kryszcztov]

Hitler also killed many Romaniotes (Greek Jews) and Greeks in WW2. I am not offended if he is playable. The point of this game is to teach history and just like history books teach us events and important people, so should the game.

Saying people would react to a game is like saying people would reach to a classroom. Am I right or was Sid Meier's intention in creating Civilization was to teach history in an innovative and dynamic way?

The more you try to erase history and historical events, they tend to lose credibility because they lose documentation. Could you imagine if the Egyptians had not wrote about their enemies because it offended some Egyptians. Or if the Greeks had not wrote about the Battle of Salamis, where the Persians almost crushed Greece. Your enemies and allies should both be accounted for in books, documents and games. Otherwise future generations will believe they were not important or that the Holocaust was not so important to us if we stop teaching about it.

I hope good and bad leaders alike are represented because I want people to learn, I dont want censorship for the sake of people not being able to cope with past events.

Is it me, or does Wisdom come from a country called Greece ? Good post ! Not much to add really.

About Richelieu : he wasn't King, he isn't as famous as Louis XIV, he wasn't in place as long as Louis XIV, etc... I know Bismark wasn't Emperor, I said it. But it's difficult because German emperors weren't that impressive. It is true that in France the King or Emperor or President actually rules, whereas in Germany the Emperor or President has so little power. But I'd have no problem with having the Emperor behind (behind ? ) Bismark. If you only tell me his name (yes I can google, but...).

Louis XIV ruler of the French is the only suitable solution, like in Civ2. And Civ2's Louis XIV was well depicted (always pissed and quite strong).

 

[Philips beard]

Moderator Action: No need to advertise your threads. If people want to read them, they will.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Philips beard]

Moderator Action: No need to advertise your threads. If people want to read them, they will.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

OK! I'm sorry!

 

[sgrig]

Somebody said here that Hitler doesn't deserve to be a leader of Germany in Civ because he wasn't a "great" ruler. I totally agree. Although at it's peak Germany during his rule was incredibly powerful, but everything collapsed a few years later. It's not even a matter of Hitler killing lots of people, but it's just his rule didn't achieve anything for his country in the end. That's why there is a difference between Hitler and Stalin. At Hitler's death Germany ceased to exist for a short while, but under Stalin USSR went from being a poor weak agrarian country to a superpower (albeit, still poor). Although Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler. Using same logic I don't think Mao should be the leader of China, because his policies didn't do China any good. However somebody like Deng Xiao Peng could be a good choice for a Chinese leader because he actually has accomplished something.

 

[Philips beard]

Somebody said here that Hitler doesn't deserve to be a leader of Germany in Civ because he wasn't a "great" ruler. I totally agree. Although at it's peak Germany during his rule was incredibly powerful, but everything collapsed a few years later. It's not even a matter of Hitler killing lots of people, but it's just his rule didn't achieve anything for his country in the end. That's why there is a difference between Hitler and Stalin. At Hitler's death Germany ceased to exist for a short while, but under Stalin USSR went from being a poor weak agrarian country to a superpower (albeit, still poor). Although Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler. Using same logic I don't think Mao should be the leader of China, because his policies didn't do China any good. However somebody like Deng Xiao Peng could be a good choice for a Chinese leader because he actually has accomplished something.

Well, you know, at least Mao ended the chinese civil war, and gave China nukes, he also founded the basis the rulers of China stand on today! That's something, isn't it?

 

[Nate1976]

Way to much controversy, won't happen.

By that idea religion, slavery, and regicide won't be in it, either.
Neither will Khan, Mao, Lenin, or anyone else.

Why is everyone so uptight about it being controversial(sp?),controversy sells people! Why would Firaxis make a different copy of a game for one country. They didn't make a different copy for china without Mao in it, eh? If he's in he's in, if not, I'll make him be in.

EDIT: I'd liek to add something going with what Greek Stud said. He brought out a good point. Hitler may be "controversial"(sp?), but you see him in history books. You see him in WWII movies, even the new ones. I have a friend that's German and he wants to mod Hitler into the game.

I mean honestly, I never heard of "bismark" until I bought this game. I head of everyone else but him, and it's weird, because they are afraid to add the most known German ruler because of controversy. I mean, who can even name who he replaced without looking it up? Honestly.

 

[Vael]

Why is everyone so uptight about it being controversial(sp?),controversy sells people! Why would Firaxis make a different copy of a game for one country. They didn't make a different copy for china without Mao in it, eh? If he's in he's in, if not, I'll make him be in.

Controversy sells Grand Theft Auto, not Civ.

Like I said before, just look at this thread. The fact that the mere mention of Hitler has brought so much attention shows how much of a bad idea it would be to include him in the game. If 1 out of every 100 people who would buy Civ don't because of Hitler that is a major blow. Let's say Civ sells 2 million copies. Losing that 1% means 20,000 copies stay on the shelves, which translates into $1 million in sales. And it's not as though people are going to say "oh wow, I can play as Hitler, I have to get this game!" The reverse is clearly true however...

 

[Sarevok]

I think it would be awesome if Hitler was in Civ 4 - There would be something amusing about seeing an enraged Hitler is full Nazi uniform demanding a peace treaty as your troops surround Berlin.

But I doubt he'll be in it. He would be rather controversial, and would probably tick off a lot of Germans. (He would at least have to be removed for the European version)

Indeed. If they want a second German leader, they ought to go for Frederick the Great.

 

[Own]

Well, Charlemagne was a French man, also Holy Roman Emperor, who conquered a lot for his country that was in present day France. I don't think you can be too detailed about "French and Franks." I don't think the Franks were Germanic (I may be wrong), but Charlemange sounds pretty French to me.

 

[dc82]

Well, you know, at least Mao ended the chinese civil war, and gave China nukes, he also founded the basis the rulers of China stand on today! That's something, isn't it?

well mao's a bit more contraversal than hitler - he's made a lot of progressive moves and brought china out into the world, but he's also linked to the deaths of millions of people, esp. in his failed programs, such as the great leap forward and the culture revolution. so i guess it's kinda how u wanna look and remember him.

either way, i still think there r other past leaders and rulers of china that are worthy of being made a leader in civ4.

 

[Vael]

It's all about how the leaders are percieved. Mao is still 'safe' because most westerners don't equate him with pure evil like with Hitler, even if he did cause the deaths of more people. In China he's not an issue either. When you're marketing a game to a mainstream audience that's what really matters in the end.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, Charlemagne was a French man, also Holy Roman Emperor, who conquered a lot for his country that was in present day France. I don't think you can be too detailed about "French and Franks." I don't think the Franks were Germanic (I may be wrong), but Charlemange sounds pretty French to me.

Yeah, that's the ironic thing: Practically every great Frenchman was really not French. Charles Martel, and Charlamagne were German, and Napoleon was Corsican.

 

[Greek Stud]

kryszcztov, is my homie: word! Thanks for the compliment and France rocks, you guys are the only nation sticking up for Greece and if this was a Civ Game I would demand Turkey give me Istanbul, Erdine, Izmir, Pergamon, Ephesus, Miletus, Philadelphia, Halicarnassus, Troy, Abydus, Chalcedon, Nicomedia, Nicea, Northern Cyprus. And then I would pay tribute to France for being so cool, and then I would give France the city of Phocaea, they have a salt industry there so it has a resource. Bouya!

Philips beard, you crack me up bro, you tried again.

Back to Hitler
I have to disagree with people that say he isnt a good leader. By evaluation, good leaders are motivators that get people to do what they want accomplished. Austria handed itself to Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany had rapid inflation yet under Hitler his people were motivated to produce. Hitler was able to ally up for his cause. Even in WW2 Turkey still supplied Nazi Germany with materials, otherwise the Nazis wouldnt have been able to fight as long as they did. Hitler acheived alot for such a poor country. Maybe there is confusion between moral and good leader. It is obvious that Hitler was an immoral leader. As was Ghangis Khan of Mongolia, Stalin of USSR, Tito of Yugoslavia, and Mussolini of Italy; but why do you know these figures? Most likely because they represent an age of importance.

PS I know most of you dont know Tito (called himself, equal to Stalin), but his name is funny, speaking of which cough cough: he's the person that made up the name Macedonian, cough, for a Bulgarian speaking community, cough, in an effort to spread Communism to Greece. Greece and America fought Communists who were armed from Skopje, the capital of a people that want to be named after a Hellenic Kingdom/Empire, an Empire that spoke Greek. Well one things for sure, if they want to read Macedonian artifacts from 2000BC, they'll have to learn Greek.

Greek Leader (CIV 3): Alexander the Great

snap

 

[Uiler]

My grandmother hates Mao with a passion due to having suffered through the abuses of the Communist regime, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution etc.. If possible she would spit on his dead cold body and kick it . But even she has some good things to say (they are few and grudgingly given but they exist) about Mao and what he did for China. Imagine my surprise when in one of her usual rants about him she said "Though I guess he did help improve the lot of the landless poor a great deal and he massively improved the status of women." I'm guessing many Russians would have the same feelings about Stalin. Things are not always simple when looking back at history.

I still think that there are better Chinese leaders for Civ though, esp. since Mao doesn't represent China at the height of its power and doesn't even match the UU!!!!! In fact the UU matches the Tang dynasty and Lee Sai Mun (Li Shimin in Mandarin), the Incorruptable, widely considered to be one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history.

 

[fish_229]

well mao's a bit more contraversal than hitler - he's made a lot of progressive moves and brought china out into the world, but he's also linked to the deaths of millions of people, esp. in his failed programs, such as the great leap forward and the culture revolution. so i guess it's kinda how u wanna look and remember him.

either way, i still think there r other past leaders and rulers of china that are worthy of being made a leader in civ4.

Mao was neither progressive nor opened China to the world for the very reasons you stated, his failed revolutions.(great leap, etc). Dieng was the one to introduce free market reforms. All Mao did was create the Red Gaurds and generally cause havoc within China.

As for Hitler, like it or not he did have a huge impact on Germany and the Western world. This debate is an example of that influence. After being 60 years dead, a bunch of diehard fans are debating whether to put him in a video game or not. And all the laws that restrict saying or writing things about him in Germany. In a modern democracy, this scale of censorship would never be tolerated, except in this unique case. Hitler's impact is still very real today, and that's why he should be included.

 

[StavrosMelb]

Somebody said here that Hitler doesn't deserve to be a leader of Germany in Civ because he wasn't a "great" ruler. I totally agree.

I agree too. What exactly made Hitler a "great" leader and qualify to become a figurehead? He is hardly something to be proud of.

Others said it, but it will probably only be Hitler in a scenario if included. Personally though, I don't mind either way, it's just a game in the end.