Modern/Kingdom of Italy

[Robo Magic Man]

Mussolini is ok for Italy, he was the first Leader that applied socialism in Italy.
For the UU....I think Folgore is better

I know Mussolini was originally a socialist and wrote for a socialist newsletter, but he never applied socialism when he ruled Italy. He was a fascist, and sent his blackshirts to kill socialists.

 

[Sadistik]

leaders shouldn't be villains.

too late. fdr and mao are in

 

[Italicus]

The Romans goes more than well for represent Italy and Italians, considering that we are descendants of the Romans at least how much the Croatians of Tomislav are ancestors of the Croatians of Sanader.

 

[Jecrell]

too late. fdr and mao are in

To compare FDR to Mao is just silly. Now get off the forums before I seriously start to just reply with "lol" to this silly post.

Everyone knows Mao was a saint!
(waits for laughter)

 

[Robo Magic Man]

Seriously, though, I can't see how u could say that FDR was a villain. Even if you don't like how far to the left he was, all the government help he provided during the depression was essential to all the unemployed workers at the time. If you want an American villain, choose Reagan. He thought trees caused pollution, confused real life with his movies, and basically destroyed anti-trust acts, allowing huge companies and monopolies to exploit workers and dominate the country again. Just because Reagan was a good speaker doesn't make him a good person, politician, or president.

Also, his first, middle, and last names each had 6 letters. 666 (see post icon)

 

[Robo Magic Man]

The Romans goes more than well for represent Italy and Italians, considering that we are descendants of the Romans at least how much the Croatians of Tomislav are ancestors of the Croatians of Sanader.

Yeah, that's what I though when I posted version 1.0, but most people wanted a more Italian leader like Vittorio (which is fine with me).

 

[Sadistik]

Seriously, though, I can't see how u could say that FDR was a villain. Even if you don't like how far to the left he was, all the government help he provided during the depression was essential to all the unemployed workers at the time. If you want an American villain, choose Reagan. He thought trees caused pollution, confused real life with his movies, and basically destroyed anti-trust acts, allowing huge companies and monopolies to exploit workers and dominate the country again. Just because Reagan was a good speaker doesn't make him a good person, politician, or president.

Also, his first, middle, and last names each had 6 letters. 666 (see post icon)

...FDR knew in advance the Japanese were going to attack the U.S., and that's specifically why he instituted the Oil Embargo. He was a huge fan of Stalin, the biggest mass murderer in European history. He brought Marxism to the United States. He tried to destroy the judicial branch of government. (See: 1848 Manifesto)

He was charismatic, and he was elected four times. But for all of his progressive views, he was still very anti-black in his actions, in a time where he could have sparked the civil rights movement 30 years ahead of time.

In closing, I could say the same to you. How dare you compare FDR to Ronnie Raygun.




FDR and Mao are in Civ 4. If FDR is a bit of a strong thing to say, then, uh... Elizabeth, who enslaved millions and attempted to exterminate entire Irish sects is in the game

 

[Italicus]

Yeah, that's what I though when I posted version 1.0, but most people wanted a more Italian leader like Vittorio (which is fine with me).

The leaders would be better ce were some than more in fact, but more leaders do not mean to change to all the civilization. I think would go well Vittorio Emanuele, Cavour or Garibaldi, or to even insert some leaders of the past type Scipio or Traiano.

 

[OzzyKP]

Because he was a fascist pig. Both Mao and Stalin helped save the world during WWII. Mussolini was on the opposite side. I believe that Italy deserves better than to be represented by a dark and shameful episode of its history. Leaders should be heroes, not villains.

Stalin a hero?

Stalin and Mao are much more of villans than Mussolini.

 

[OzzyKP]

...FDR knew in advance the Japanese were going to attack the U.S., and that's specifically why he instituted the Oil Embargo. He was a huge fan of Stalin, the biggest mass murderer in European history. He brought Marxism to the United States. He tried to destroy the judicial branch of government. (See: 1848 Manifesto)

He was charismatic, and he was elected four times. But for all of his progressive views, he was still very anti-black in his actions, in a time where he could have sparked the civil rights movement 30 years ahead of time.

In closing, I could say the same to you. How dare you compare FDR to Ronnie Raygun.

FDR and Mao are in Civ 4. If FDR is a bit of a strong thing to say, then, uh... Elizabeth, who enslaved millions and attempted to exterminate entire Irish sects is in the game

I wouldn't quite call FDR a villian, but yes he is far from my favorite President. And Robo, most economists today from what I've heard believe that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression, and didn't help it.

 

[DrLime]

Seriously, though, I can't see how u could say that FDR was a villain. Even if you don't like how far to the left he was, all the government help he provided during the depression was essential to all the unemployed workers at the time. If you want an American villain, choose Reagan. He thought trees caused pollution, confused real life with his movies, and basically destroyed anti-trust acts, allowing huge companies and monopolies to exploit workers and dominate the country again. Just because Reagan was a good speaker doesn't make him a good person, politician, or president.

Also, his first, middle, and last names each had 6 letters. 666 (see post icon)

Um, other than rejuvenating the US economy from all of Carter's mismanagement and making business in the US profitable again... Yeah, Reagan was Satan. Or maybe you just don't understand supply side economics. I'm guessing your ability of comprehension is pretty horsehockey, you know, since you're using some coincidence in his initials to prove he's satan....


And as for the topic: I don't get it, is the point of a modern Italian civilization just to suck and get raped by Ethiopians like in real life?

 

[Italicus]

Stalin a hero?

Stalin and Mao are much more of villans than Mussolini.

Between the Slavic people unfortunately, personages as Stalin or Tito are consider the heroes, and not of the criminals which was...

 

[Italicus]

And as for the topic: I don't get it, is the point of a modern Italian civilization just to suck and get raped by Ethiopians like in real life?

I don't understand why make scandal the conquest of Ethiopia when France and UK in the same years had about 50% of the planet...

 

[DrLime]

I don't understand why make scandal the conquest of Ethiopia when France and UK in the same years had about 50% of the planet...

Because even through now Italy isn't in anyway a world cultural/military/scientific power and is quite possibly the worst choice for a new civ addition.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

Of course Italy's not a major power, but I and others I've talked to would enjoy playing as Italy. Just read the Europa Europa Mod thread. One person there points out that they played as Italy, and loved the mod. Adding new civs isn't about significance (just look at the Croatia, Belgium, and Antarctica mods). It's about playing as a nation or leader that you can't normally play as, and enjoying the game more because of it.

 

[Italicus]

I am of the opinion that Rome goes well, it could insert a mod that allows to play other leaders beyond Caesar. And even than change the symbol of the civilization after a date age, but in this case would be right to make them for ALL the civilizations.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

So basically Rome would turn into Italy, Gaul would turn into France, etc. as the game goes on? Yeah, that would be neat, but that might require programming beyond modding, or a 2 part mod (Play 1 mod for ancient, reach a certain date, and load the next mod for modern). The trick with a 2 part thing would be loading the same save file in 2 mods.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

Um, other than rejuvenating the US economy from all of Carter's mismanagement and making business in the US profitable again... Yeah, Reagan was Satan. Or maybe you just don't understand supply side economics. I'm guessing your ability of comprehension is pretty horsehockey, you know, since you're using some coincidence in his initials to prove he's satan....


And as for the topic: I don't get it, is the point of a modern Italian civilization just to suck and get raped by Ethiopians like in real life?

Okay, first of all, making business profitable shouldn't be what's inportant to a country. I don't give a crap if some CEO with a Virgin Islands bank account can't afford a second Ferrari when anti-trust acts cut him down to size by making sure smaller businesses who respect their workers have a chance to succeed. Prosperity of a country means prosperity for as many people as possible, not the prosperity of the richest 5% of the population. And, if Reagan had stopped anti-trust groups because wanted a free market, which he and most of his supporters would say, then why would he stifle free competition by allowing trusts to ruthlessly dominate the marketplace?
And btw, the 666 thing was a joke. No one is supposed to take that seriously. But then again, you did .

And as for the topic: The Ethiopian thing was a mistake by Mussolini. That should have no more bearing on the national identity of Italy then that of the Holocaust on Germany. The majority of Italians today know their limits and the benefits of peace, just like Germans today are generally not anti-semitic or genocidal.

 

[DrLime]

Okay, first of all, making business profitable shouldn't be what's inportant to a country.

It's funny, because if business isn't profitable in the country then what becomes important becomes simple necessities like obtaining food and water- because without income from businesses the government can't function (no tax income), citizens cannot provide for themselves (no jobs) and the entire GDP falls.

I agree that economics shouldn't be the major focus of a nation's principlies, but a solid economy is required for a nation to fulfil any of it's other goals (civil liberties) because it's that economy that finances those liberties and their maintainence/protection.

I don't give a crap if some CEO with a Virgin Islands bank account can't afford a second Ferrari when anti-trust acts cut him down to size by making sure smaller businesses who respect their workers have a chance to succeed. Prosperity of a country means prosperity for as many people as possible, not the prosperity of the richest 5% of the population.

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no grasp of supply side economics- at all. It has been proven time and again then by the government taking direct action to redistribute and micromanage wealth supply, a subpar is done and in the end it is more costly to both the government to manage such programs and mange wealth, but also those programs are ineffective in providing ample finances to those who need it.

So Reagan came in and cleaned house. He removed restrictions on businesses to allow them to grow, gave tax cuts. The idea being that people who receive wealth on the bottom rungs of society are more likely to directly invest that money into consumable goods, whereas the rich are more likely to reinvest it in business, which in turn creates jobs and provides people on the bottom rung of society the opportunity to earn the wages to support themselves. And when Reagan did it, it worked- unemployment fell and the stock market started to rise after years of decline.

And, if Reagan had stopped anti-trust groups because wanted a free market, which he and most of his supporters would say, then why would he stifle free competition by allowing trusts to ruthlessly dominate the marketplace?

Because economies require consumers. Small businesses have to charge a higher price for a product because they lack the large scale means to produce and manufacture. Because larger companies can introduce new products to the market at a severely reduced price it sparks more consumption and the incentive for the rich to reinvest is realized in form of profits.

And btw, the 666 thing was a joke. No one is supposed to take that seriously. But then again, you did .

I realized it was a joke, but it was just so uninspired, unfunny and such an illogical cheap shot, I figured I'd do the same to you. As a joke, of course.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

You're right about a strong economy being important. I should have worded that better. What I meant was that while companies certainly need to be profitable for their country to be prosperous, I believe that many companies need to use their wealth either to function better for the consumers, or give back to people who need the money, like their workers. Many companies, like Wal-Mart for instance, funnel exorbitant amounts of money to CEOs, when it could easily go toward more reasonable wages (the average Wal-Mart store employee makes $9.68 an hour) or toward keeping business in America by not using foreign sweatshops and instead using American (preferably union) labor. By keeping jobs in the U.S., we keep money here to fuel our economy and keep our citizens out of poverty. When Reagan allowed the already huge companies to grow, those companies turned to outsourcing to make higher and higher profits. If manufacturing jobs were kept in America, employment would obviously be higher, and more workers and consumers would have more money. If the lower income workers were paid reasonably and didn't have their jobs outsourced, we wouldn't need Wal-Mart's low prices.
However, your point about tax cuts for the rich and for corporations brings me back to my first point. Yes, tax cuts for the poor will lead to less investing and more purchases of consumables, but this is needed to a certain degree because there are many people who desperately need consumables, and the drop in poverty, I believe, would more than make up for the slight decline in the economy that might occur.

And, you're right that more money going towards businesses often leads to higher wages. However, with other companies, it quite often does not. It goes toward the already rich top of the corporation, and the top rung of society, skipping over the poor who need it. They can't pick themselves up by their bootstraps if they can't afford boots.