Leader Appearance Chart

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually there is more to it than that. The main reason is definitely political...You see, the Chinese want Mao to be respected in the West as well, and it is illegal to talk negatively about Mao in China. For 2K and Firaxis, adding Mao means more money and support from China. They probably don't mind other Chinese leaders as well, but they would especially want Mao. Also, if the Devs do not include Mao in the game anymore, it is possible that China may take it that he is deliberately not being included, and that could mean a drop in sales of the game in that part of the world (I've heard of something similar actually happening for something else)...That is just a risk though, and may be overly pessimistic. Also, the fact that Mao has already appeared a lot in the game series makes it a lot less risky to exclude him now, as they can reason that he has been in the game multiple times before, and that the game company cannot have anything against Mao. Anyway, it would be safer for achieving the highest possible game sales in China to include Mao, and the West generally doesn't care, or don't know about how Mao killed millions of Chinese people (How ironic that it is his inclusion that the Chinese want, when anyone who loves Chinese people would not like seeing someone in the game who is responsible for the deaths of many millions of Chinese). What would be more than just a risk is if they did include him in a strictly negative way. That would ensure that the game is banned in China, and probably even everything from 2K and Firaxis.

Mao can't be depicted in China as potentially losing a game. It was apparently recently after Civ IV they found out. I know for the 2010 version of the Board game the first edition depicted Mao as the leader of China, since they just got leaders off of the console Revolution game, and then Fantasy Flight Games couldn't sell the game in China because of it. They had to reprint the game with Wu Zetian, who by that time was the Civ 5 leader. That ended up being the copy I ended up with and glad I did.

 

[Greywulf]

Mao can't be depicted in China as potentially losing a game. It was apparently recently after Civ IV they found out. I know for the 2010 version of the Board game the first edition depicted Mao as the leader of China, since they just got leaders off of the console Revolution game, and then Fantasy Flight Games couldn't sell the game in China because of it. They had to reprint the game with Wu Zetian, who by that time was the Civ 5 leader. That ended up being the copy I ended up with and glad I did.

I stand corrected...That is interesting to find out, though not surprising. Then the good news is we don't have to worry about seeing Mao in the game in the future.

 

[Thormodr]

I stand corrected...That is interesting to find out, though not surprising. Then the good news is we don't have to worry about seeing Mao in the game in the future.

While it is good that Mao will not be making a reappearance in Civ games, the reason is not.

I thoroughly dislike the fact that that brutal, authoritarian government can dictate what we can or cannot do. Not that I am in favour of Mao (I definitely am not) but by cow towing to that regime, that means there will likely never be a Tibetan Civ.

 

[evanaurora]

Well we know why. Schools largely employ teachers of a progressive persuasion who are blind to their own bias, so will condemn one evil leader... but not others closer to their own political values. Meaning that most are oblivious to the outrages of these other leaders.

not to go off topic but... um okay. I was in public high school-- in the 21st century US-- in a very "progressive" area-- and we spent more time talking about the USSR, China, and Cold War-era dictatorships in Modern World History than we did on WWII and Hitler. what do you think schools do, sit a teacher down and say "now SIR, if you can quote large sections of the Communist Manifesto, then you're HIRED!"

I'm no Maoist or Stalinist; I'd be disgusted if they were ever put in the game again. but I see twenty comments saying WHY AREN'T PEOPLE DISGUSTED WITH MAO, BUT THEY SCOFF AT HITLER for.... I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two saying that it was Good and Proper that Mao was in the game. It's an opportunity to slide in that wish for Hitler in the game, not a true critique of Mao or Stalin. And that's disgusting in its own right.

 

[nzcamel]

not to go off topic but... um okay. I was in public high school-- in the 21st century US-- in a very "progressive" area-- and we spent more time talking about the USSR, China, and Cold War-era dictatorships in Modern World History than we did on WWII and Hitler. what do you think schools do, sit a teacher down and say "now SIR, if you can quote large sections of the Communist Manifesto, then you're HIRED!"

It is heartening to hear about your schooling evenaurora. Yet even in the States (the country traditionally most openly hostile to communsim) I think your experience was an outlier; let alone in other Western countries. No...I don't think that schools question people on their communist values. But I do think that teachers tend to be much more progressive than conservative; and therefore while they know that [redacted] was evil, they are conflicted about the other big names here due to their political leanings, and they have no incentive to push through that discomfort zone to challenge their views; nor do curriculum's demand they address it either.

All of that, and (in a morbid way of course) WWII was sexier than the cold war. It was short, big, and brash; and the National Socialists brazen contempt for humanity far more shocking than those who murdered more...yet had the virtue of at least pretending less that this situation (mass murder) was normal. And while there are grey areas, the rights and wrongs of WWII are far less nuanced than WWI, or almost every other large modern war that has ever been fought. So WWII is waaaay easy to teach, and naturally the baddies get highlighted as a part of that process.

I'm no Maoist or Stalinist; I'd be disgusted if they were ever put in the game again. but I see twenty comments saying WHY AREN'T PEOPLE DISGUSTED WITH MAO, BUT THEY SCOFF AT HITLER for.... I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two saying that it was Good and Proper that Mao was in the game. It's an opportunity to slide in that wish for Hitler in the game, not a true critique of Mao or Stalin. And that's disgusting in its own right.

I would contend that Civ is a game that attracts its fair share of historically and civically minded people, when compared to other games. And we have many of those who contribute here at Civfanatics. So I don't think the average comments here reflect the West as a whole well at all.
Think on this - [redacted] was never ever going to appear in the game. Ever. If our societies thought of Mao and Stalin (and a few others) in the same light as they do [redacted], they to would have been completely unacceptable right from the get go.

 

[Krajzen]

What other leaders do you think would be the best and most interesting to represent England, Spain and Russia - other than Elizabeth, Victoria/Isabel, Philip/Catherine, Peter?

 

[Siptah]

What other leaders do you think would be the best and most interesting to represent England, Spain and Russia - other than Elizabeth, Victoria/Isabel, Philip/Catherine, Peter?

Alfonso X of Castile for Spain would be interesting. There's lots of talk about Leaders for Russia and England over in the Suggestions forum.

 

[CivLuvah]

This is great! Thanks @clapyourhands

Although I would want to make a second table for civilizations so we could see the big picture.

 

[God of Kings]

This is great! Thanks @clapyourhands

Although I would want to make a second table for civilizations so we could see the big picture.

I agree as well. The civ table would contain capitals as well.

 

[nunor]

Wikipedia's article on Civilization had a leader chart. It was recently removed for being deemed too trivial, but you can still see it if you check earlier versions of the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...2103153#Civilizations_and_leaders_represented

 

[Sagax]

What other leaders do you think would be the best and most interesting to represent England, Spain and Russia - other than Elizabeth, Victoria/Isabel, Philip/Catherine, Peter?

Russia: Ivan....nope, not the Terrible one! Two other Ivans come to mind: Ivan I (Kalita) or Ivan III.

We had Soviet Russia and Imperial Russia, would be nice to showcase the Rus’ for a change.

 

[clapyourhands]

This is great! Thanks @clapyourhands

Although I would want to make a second table for civilizations so we could see the big picture.

Funny enough, I already had one made for my returning civ analysis which can be found here. It has numbers in it from the ranking, but other than that it's a list of civs in each game (consolidating Norway/Denmark/Vikings and Sioux/Native Americans).

 

[Disgustipated]

So why have they never had Lenin? I'm curious. Is he not considered a good leader?

 

[Guandao]

So why have they never had Lenin? I'm curious. Is he not considered a good leader?

He was in Civ2 and CivRev2.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't remember him in Civ2 at all. But then again, I almost always played America back in those days since there were no different bonuses for different civs.

 

[Siptah]

I don't remember him in Civ2 at all. But then again, I almost always played America back in those days since there were no different bonuses for different civs.

America in civ II? No, always a custom civ ;-)

 

[clapyourhands]

Updated the chart with RnF leaders. The only real award changes were with the returnees, namely Genghis Khan and Shaka Zulu joining Gandhi/Alex in the 6-for-6 category. This leaves Elizabeth I as the only leader to appear in every game but VI, with Isabella coming in close by appearing in every game since Spain was introduced in Civ II except VI. Wilhelmina also breaks Willliam of Orange's tie with Gilgamesh for always being the leader of his civ (you can count Shaka here if not for Civ II, so he has an honorary mention for being the only real leader of his civ in every appearance).