Let's use those leaderheads!

[PPQ_Purple]

I disagree with you people about excluding contraversial leaders.
Hitler, Musolini, Stalin, all of them were extremely importmant parts of history, you can't just remove them becouse you dislike to remeber them.

I think that they should be included, but I also think that your choice of civics not only the time you are playing should effect the leaderhead.

So:
Police state + Nationalism + Modern age Germany = Hitler
Police state + Nationalism + Modern age Rome = Musolini
Police state + State Property + Modern age Russia = Stalin

The same way, there is no point in having Mao if you are not runing State property.

Personaly, I think we should include 2-3 leaderheads for most nations.

1 for medieval, 1 for industrial and modern and 1 conditional witch only spawns under certain situations like those afore mentioned.

Evil or not, but when I am playing in europe, and that Germany runing nationalism and police state is sending panzers at me, I want to see Hitler in charge.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, but that's an entirely different point. We were talking about leader changes according to time/technology, and thus new leaders emerge and stay permanently, until another, entirely new leader replaces them. That's how it works in RFC currently. I was only suggesting to expand the existing system by using user-made leaderheads, not changing it, as you propose (as you suggest leader changes according to civic).

In that case, I would see no problem in, say, Hitler representing Police State/Nationhood Germany. I only objected to the idea of Hitler leading a Universal Suffrage/Free Speech Germany until 2020 ... I think this would have bad connotations. Remember, I never said "We shouldn't remember Hitler/Hirohito/Mussolini because they were evil". I was making the point that having Hitler/Hirohito/Mussolini represent their countries although they were democratic during most of the modern era, would simply leave wrong historical implications.

 

[dragodon64]

I know for "official" reasons why depiction of Hitler and pals would be a bad idea, but going historical accuracy, no it would not be a bad idea to have Hitler represent late industrial/early modern Germany (not sure what the dividing line is). The Third Reich is culturally unlike the GDR and FRG, but shares a lot with the German Empire. So although it seems a waste to bother with a modern-only leader, especially when comparing historical significance to Hitler, it may be worth it.

 

[Leoreth]

So you say yourself that there isn't much difference between the Third Reich and Imperial Germany*, which is already represented by Bismarck? You're right, the FRG was something entirely different compared to its precursor states. But as far as I have understood RFC's changing leader feature, a new leader is there to represent a distinctive era. So by your own logic, a leader representing the FRG should be more appropriate.

*by the way, I don't want to start an argument over it, but that's not even true. The Nazis and their supporters were motivated by bringing the days of the Second Reich back, but the results were a very different state. This is illustrated very well by the various conflicts between the government and the aristocratian army, which was the part of Germany's society most strongly associated with the 2nd Reich.