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

Is anyone else disappointed that we can't play as Chairman Mao or Hitler?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Superjew, Oct 26, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kirejara

    Kirejara King

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Northern Germany
    Hitler is a absolut no-go for me in a game!

    Not only was he an insane madman, but he also did not achieve anything positive.

    If a game would include him, than I would not buy it (even if it would not be placed on the Index in Germany).
     
  2. Paramecium

    Paramecium Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Messages:
    330
    Oh, maybe some clever 2k salesman comes up with the idea of an "evil, genocide -leader/dictators" - DLC pack, having all those dictars of the facism and communism in it and yeah, I dont care about it, I have no need to play as Hitler or against him, so they can price it very high.

    To be honest, I dont feel very comfort about Hitler. What do you aspect from him? An emotional eruption in case of DOW him like in "DER UNTERGANG"? Or if he declares war against you, saying something about that you are inferior? Hitler itself might be not illegal in Germany (in HOI you have Hitler in Germany too), but there is a reason "Mein Kampf" is/was forbidden in Germany and if you guys and gals really want to have him as a leader, you will be the firsts to complain about him, when he wouldnt act at least a little bit like the original one and yeah, that will be forbidden in Germany and so I think Firaxis will never make him, because why putting effort in an optional DLC when one of the biggest market will forbid it?

    So dream on or mod it yourself. But I think, we only will see very few mods, which will get a nearly as good animation as the one designed by Firaxis, and yeah, playing against just a picture is not as good as those animated ones, I already cant stand Peter, if he doesnt accept a deal, that [insert sth rude] ...
     
  3. Pico 22

    Pico 22 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14
    I'd love to play as Caligula, with some appropriate additional mods, of course.
     
  4. budweiser

    budweiser King of the Beers

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hidden Underground Volcano Lair
    My idea is that during the game, a civ has a chance to put a 'monster' leader in charge for awhile if a certain set of conditions are met. This would allow some bad guys to show up and you would face them. A lot of civs through history have had bad guys in charge. So, for example, if a civ got behind the rest of the world, or got a bad deal (germany WWI) then this bad guy shows up and starts to become a problem.
     
  5. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    That would pretty much go beyond Civ's premise of "one leader ruling his empire from the dawn of time until the end of the game".

    If you want to "turn evil", why not use social policies/civics? Use Autocracy in Civ V or some of the fascist/totalitarian civis in Civ IV (Police State, State Property, Slavery). But when you really think about it, the one aspect of the Civ-series that makes this whole idea rather pointless is the fact that "evil" policies don't really give you significant disadvantages. Like I said further up: Most of those "monsters" did a lot of harm not only to their neighbors but to their own countries as well. So playing as one of them should grant you, perhaps, a few benefits but also lots of disadvantages like running up huge debts, ruining your infrastructure or food production or significant reduction in GP-points or even population (Stalin's purges? Hitler forcing the cultural and scientific elite to flee the country? Hitler wasting precious resources to continue the mass genocide of the Jews? Mao crippling his own country's food production and destroying much of the Chinese cultural heritage?).

    If Autocracy/Fascism and Order/Communism worked in the real world like they do in Civ V, with lots of benefits but virtually no drawbacks other than from "cultural pressure", I don't think Fascism and particularly Communism would be as "unpopular" as they are in today's real world.

    Besides: With the AI behaving rather brain-dead right now, can you imagine what would happen if civs could switch leaders (and thus "personalities/agendas") mid-game?

    S.
     
  6. cools0812

    cools0812 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shanghai, PR of China
    The GLF and Great Famine ended in 1961. After the Economy Adjusment Period of 1962-1965,the economy was stabilized and once again growing. During the decade of Cultural Revolution the domestic production actually grew by 6.8% per year. By Mao's death in 1976, the economy had grew by 77% than it was in 1966, so I wouldn't say he left the economy "in a mess".

    The sexual part of Mao's image is from The Private Life of Chairman Mao. I brought a copy of it from HK in '95, the first edition, still on my bookshelf. It was a riskful act back in 1995 as it is still banned today in mainland China. But I have to say, after reviewing all the criticisms against it by other people around Mao (some pretty strong arguments were never translated into english), I concluded for myself that memoir's credibility is questionable.

    I'm not trying to whitewash Mao, but merely pointing out that his image is "controversial", by that I mean it's free for the audience to judge - by facts, not rumors or prejudices. My family had a hard time during the Cultural Revolution, I grew up in an atmosphere that condemned Mao as a murderer. But the deeper I studied, the more controversial his image looks.

    For every narrative that depicts Mao as a brutal monster, there is a counter narrative suggests otherwise, both sides could be equally convincing, and every piece of the history of people's republic is extremely complicated, especially the earlier half of it. Many people would not know that the initial intention of the 1959 Lushan conference which caused the radicalizaton of GLF was to contain it, until Peng Dehuai's letter opposing GLF brought an unexpected twist, and the person who attacked Peng most strongly was not Mao but Liu Shaoqi, who is depicted as “the good guy against Mao” in traditional Cultural Revolution narrative and later openly criticized GLP in the 1962 conference, brought an end to it, then drafted the economic policy in the Economy Adjusment Period together with Deng Xiaoping; that during the Great Farmine, the three governors of the most severely starved provinces were all among Deng’s faction, as Deng later protected them from serious punishment for their mismanagement; that Liu Shaoqi, the prime victim of Cultural Revolution, was actually actively promoting it during its initial stages. For a history filled with color grey, drawing conclusion is maybe too early so far.

    Probably it would be wise to end the futile ideological argument here, as we both stated our opinions. There are many more better topics to discuss than this one.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  7. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    True, but I do appreciate getting a more "inside" perspective on Mao from you. This is actually the first time a Chinese person has talked to me about him and how he's viewed in China today .. :)

    S.
     
  8. MistyRonin

    MistyRonin Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    225
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland
    Well, I wouldn't say Hitler was a madman. Most of what he and the Third Reich did was really logical in a cold psychopathic mind (remind you that psyhcopathy is not an illness), it simply was morally terribly awful from my point of view.

    But then again, the same can be said from many leaders depicted in the franchise, including VI. If we analyze the numbers, we have had in the games worse murderers than Hitler.

    In any case, if there's ever an official inclusion of him in the game (which I doubt), IMHO should be through a voluntary DLC, so it can be restricted in certain countries and everyone can freely choose if they want him in-game.
     
  9. Wellfooled

    Wellfooled Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2016
    Messages:
    44
    I don't want to give the impression that I'm attacking your opinion, because that's not it at all, but I'm curious what are your criteria for boycotting the game because of leader selection? Montezuma I attacked a neighboring City State, had its leader strangled to death, took the strangled man's family as slaves, and used girls from the conquered city to add to his harems; Genghis Khan's entire approach to conquest was the total genocide of anyone who didn't surrender (An estimated 30 to 40 million people died in the Mongol conquests started by Genghis); and Qin Shi Huang is alleged to have buried 460 scholars alive.

    If orchestrating acts of mass evil is enough to disqualify a leader from being present in Civ, many of the leaders in the roster would not be included.

    I would argue that these are two different discussions entirely, but I think any discussion of including Hitler in the game should begin with the understanding that no one asking for his inclusion is condoning his actions. Just like we wouldn't condone the actions of Montezuma, Genghis Khan, or Qin Shi Huang.
     
  10. GermanSettler

    GermanSettler Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    Germany


    As I wrote in my original post, most of the leaders in any Civ version are no innocents or angels.

    I still think that Hitler holds an absolutely unique role in that regard... breaking all codes of humanity at a time when what he did and orchestrated was already considered just that - a breaking of all moral and civilized codes and standards. While many of the others you name have lived in times when much of the atrocities they committed (I also do not want to condone them) were - sadly - seen in a much different zeitgeist and did not prohibit them from becoming symbols and representatives of their respective civilizations and cultures (rightfully or not is a totally different and even more complicated discussion, of course). Still, they for the most part work as representatives, archetypes and sometimes mere stereotypes of their civilization.

    As others have said, Civilization has a rather positive and optimistic message underlying it. It is about progress and development. Building a civilization. Is there any leader who stands more for the exact opposite of positiveness, optimism, building and progress than Hitler? Any country that stands more against what would be called civilized than the Third Reich? I do not think so.

    As said above, Germany under Hitler is the antithesis to a great civilization and what the game, I think, tries to project. It is the fall from civilization.

    His inclusion would cross a line for me which does not say that I neglect other issues that arise with the inclusion of certain leaders (and as I said there have been leaders in the games that I also consider a mistake).

    Luckily, I am 100% positive that no Civ game will ever have him as a leader through any official development channel.
     
    Wellfooled and Stilgar08 like this.
  11. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    One difference here is that some of the people Hitler persecuted and terrorized are still alive today.

    Another difference is time-frame. When Montezuma reigned, Europeans were no strangers to terrible violence (religiously or otherwise motivated) themselves. Just look at what happened to the Aztecs, Maya, Incas at the hands of the Spanish Conquistadors. Which doesn't make the actions of long dead leaders any less horrific or morally objectionable. But we still have to take their environment and the times in which they lived into account, IMO.

    Hitler reigned post Enlightenment, post French/US Revolution, when ideas like individual liberties/freedom and human rights were already well established in lots of countries all around the world. Monty lived in a world of mysticism where people believed they had to sacrifice human beings to ensure that the sun would come up the next day. To summarize it a bit crudely: Monty didn't/couldn't know better - Hitler should've known better.

    Plus people like Hitler brought killing to an industrial scale. Including warfare, human sacrifice, mismanagement and all that, and looking at their entire existence, I very much doubt that all the old Meso-/South American civs combined were responsible for the kind of death-count we can directly or indirectly attribute to Hitler - who only reigned for little over a decade.

    Besides: "Ranking" leaders and their "evilness" according to how many people they killed is rather cynical and pointless, IMO. Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler did - does that make Hitler a better leader?


    Having said all that, I now do fear this thread is about to take a turn for the worse and should probably be closed. Just my 2 Pfennigs.

    S.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
    Wellfooled likes this.
  12. ComradeDavo

    ComradeDavo Formerly God

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,243
    Location:
    Europa
    In answer to the threads questions: NO.
     
  13. Myth and Legend

    Myth and Legend Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    328
    Trajan did the equivalent of ethnic cleansing in Dacia (because Decebalus was a moron, but nevertheless).
    Genghis Khan butchered entire cities and strung the people up so that other cities along his path of conquest would not resist.
    Scipio Africanus rased Carthage to the ground and salted their fields.
    Boudicca butchered enitre settlements.
    The crusaders slaughtered Jerusalim when they first took it.
    The Teutonic Knights butchered the baltic pagans.
    Charlemagne butchered the Saxons.

    There are many historic nations and leaders who had commited gross atrocities by modern perspective, but we let them in because the veil of history has hardened us to the plight of people dead for over a millenia. But those recently dead (50 years or so), still make us tip toe.

    I would love Hitler and Stalin as alternative leaders. I want Hitler to act in his spastic, Moderator Action: snip insane way, frothing at the mouth when he starts losing territory (which will probably look like those "Hitler reacts to..." videos). 21st century morals and views on war and what is and isn't concidered an atrocity differ greatly comapred to WWII, and WWII differed from WWI and so on. Were they good for their countires? Debatable, probably not. Are they prominent, recognizable, thus "great" leaders? Hell yes!

    it's also funny how probably the most consistently annoying Civ AI is nuke-happy Ghandi.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2016
  14. Nathair

    Nathair Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    41
    You know, Superjew, not much has changed since the last time you lamented that Hitler, your favorite ruler, wasn't represented.
     
  15. Stilgar08

    Stilgar08 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Zeven, Germany (Lower Saxony ;)
    Spoiler :


    Spoiler :


    Spoiler :


    Spoiler :


    Spoiler :


    I'm very happy to especially read a lot of my german fellow countrymen expressing there strict refusal for having Hitler in the Game! Thank you All, I personally repel the idea very much, too! :)

    It always strikes me as odd how these discussions keep coming back every few months and with every new iteration of the game. I really don't see any benefit for the game to have Hitler included (or Stalin e.g.). It would be a reason to turn my back onto this franchise, that I love quite a lot.
    The unavoidable mod will come fast and I'll be happy to ignore it!
     
    Sascha77 likes this.
  16. Wellfooled

    Wellfooled Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2016
    Messages:
    44
    Thank you both for your answers. This is what to me is the largest driving force behind not including Hitler as a leader. When I was a kid I met two gentlemen who were both kept in Nazi concentration camps. Their stories were heart-rending.
     
    Stilgar08, Sascha77 and Nathair like this.
  17. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Not many Pegida/AfD-supporters on this board, I guess ... thank God! ;)

    S.
     
    Stilgar08 likes this.
  18. cephalo

    cephalo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    It would be entirely offensive to have Hitlers smiling face as a player ally, or even doing anything positive. There may even be some Civ players out there who's parents were murdered by him and they don't even have pictures of them because of the brutality which their young lives were up-heaved. They don't want to see Hitler's smiling face trying to trade for gems or marble.
     
  19. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,343
    Yes, I would probably be less likely to speak flippantly about someone brutally murdered if that person's child or parent was in the room. I don't regard that as bizarre behavior.
     
  20. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14,618
    May I suggest an evil leader who somehow manages to enjoy a decent reputation in modern times: Andrew Jackson.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page