AeroTerroR
Chieftain
Hitler will be in Civ5. What proof do i base this off, you ask? Mao Zedung was in Civ3, Stalin was in Civ4, therefore, Hitler will be in Civ5. The dictators get worse and worse with each Civ game.
I have a theory
- Thread starter AeroTerroR
- Start date
Black Bart
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27
So by that logic, George W. Bush will be in Civ 6?
Moderator Action: This isn't a political thread - please don't make it one - this is actually considered trolling (hence the response you got below)
AeroTerroR
Chieftain
I knew some brain washed democrat was going to pull something like this.
Moderator Action: Please don't flame.
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Not a chance in hell....
Also, there's some (quite a lot, actually) as to who was worse, Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
Now, is GWB in that class? Not quite, but still pretty horrible.
Also, there's some (quite a lot, actually) as to who was worse, Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
Now, is GWB in that class? Not quite, but still pretty horrible.
Swashbuckler.
Chieftain
Great, another Hitler thread. 
IAM
Emperor
Dude. No. Not going to happen. It's illegal in Germany so you have distribution problems there, etc. It shouldn't be an issue. He should have been included early on as a representative important factor in modern history.
Side note: When any government absolutely bans any information then I am hyperinterested in it. I'm sure any information I would type here would ban me from the site again so I would just sa... wait someone is knocking at the door
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
Yes, and let's have Che for Inca.
JoeHollywood
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 235
I would like to play Idi Amin in the next civ, but only if Forrest Whitaker does the voiceovers!
UU would be scottish tourists
UB would be prisoner of war camps ( +2 food )...if you get that, you're both sick AND twisted.
UU would be scottish tourists
UB would be prisoner of war camps ( +2 food )...if you get that, you're both sick AND twisted.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Hitler completely sucked historically. You might as well use Nero or Al Gore.
Losing sides don't usually get leaders from when they lost. If they do, it is not a leader that dragged every facet of their country into the ground simultaneously, except stalin...but he didn't lose.
Losing sides don't usually get leaders from when they lost. If they do, it is not a leader that dragged every facet of their country into the ground simultaneously, except stalin...but he didn't lose.
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
Just took like 70 years?
LeHam
Prince
I think it's time for a new Internet Law:
LeHam's Law: "All threads about Hitler and/or Nazism will eventually lead to a comparison with former president George W. Bush."
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Or Obama. Or any number of former US or other leaders in the world.
Or not.
Hitler was a special case in *recent* history, few leaders have committed anywhere near comparable atrocities, although one of them did make it into civ IV. Thing is, Germany has a lot of leaders from that region that were legitimately good, actually bringing good things to its people and helping it prosper. Why include the garbage?
He didn't lose his war, and some very great men have had shorter terms and found their way into the game. What Stalin did was bad (more like horrifying) for his country and to some extent the world (Russia isn't done suffering from that influence even now), however it was a lot more historically significant than mass murder followed by/including a lost war that did much to destroy the nation's identity rather than build it.
Stalin's about as low as the game can/should go, IMO. I'm not 100% convinced he belongs in it, but I can see the reasoning.
Putting Hitler in would be like putting the Confederate States of America in and then making the favorite civic slavery ^_^. You have fun trying to sell a game like that...fireaxis has done some stupid things with civ, but they know better than THAT.
BuDDaH
Chieftain
There are many people in Russia who think that Stalin was great. He won the deadliest war ever, major industrial projects were done under his rule, one of them was a nuclear bomb to guarantee security of the USSR and keep the world from another deadly war.
Still it's not popular now to support Stalin. People tend to support democratic values (supremancy of personal interests and benefits over those of the state or society). Life and wellbeing of a person is thougt to be of greater value than wellbeing of the system. Still a single person's life value remains extremely low in Russia, much lower than in the West. And that's not Stalin's sole fault. Russian authoritarian traditions are much older. When first republics and parliaments of mercahants, prospering on cruel colonial trade, appeared in Europe, Russian monarchs grabbed power away from the rich and middle class instead of sharing and distributing there absolute authority to the representative institutions or elites. Late middle ages is the main culprit. Stalin just followed traditions and the nation allowed him to.
No Representation, Police state, Nationhood, Slavery, State Property and Stalinocracy is not that bad option when nobody agrees to open borders, all the coprporations are founded somewhere and a major war is imminent.
Playing for Ghandi a player using these civics will be actually Stalin.
Absolutely impossible. That sort of decision at Firaxis isn't made at the level of "how evil was the leader". The questions would be "How objectionable would the leader be." Hitler would be far too objectionable to put in the game. Whether he's more evil than Stalin isn't their question.
It's actually surprising Stalin stays in the game. Nobody complains loudly enough.
Regarding winners. It's usually true that the leaders selected are successful. Not always though. Hannibal keeps making it in for Carthage, which I like, but ultimately he wasn't a winner. His civilization was pretty much destroyed in his time.
It's actually surprising Stalin stays in the game. Nobody complains loudly enough.
Regarding winners. It's usually true that the leaders selected are successful. Not always though. Hannibal keeps making it in for Carthage, which I like, but ultimately he wasn't a winner. His civilization was pretty much destroyed in his time.
Junuxx
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Including Hitler would mean that Civ5 would not be allowed to be sold in Germany. That makes this a matter of simple economics.
Germany is the single most important country in Europe, and hugely so. For the Americans who just look on the map and think it's tiny: Germany's current population and economy is easily twice that of California, your most important state. Would it be a wise decision to lose such a huge market because of a simple, small bit of content? No, it would not.
Germany is the single most important country in Europe, and hugely so. For the Americans who just look on the map and think it's tiny: Germany's current population and economy is easily twice that of California, your most important state. Would it be a wise decision to lose such a huge market because of a simple, small bit of content? No, it would not.
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
If you wanna go by success/notoriety, give Brennus a look-up sometime. Good luck finding much there.
I personally can't say I agree with Stalin or Mao as acceptable leaders either. The game would do fine without them.
I personally can't say I agree with Stalin or Mao as acceptable leaders either. The game would do fine without them.
