More evil civs!

[Gustavus Rex]

I think Babylon, Aztecs and Shaka is potrayed as kind of evil in Civilazation V. And I like it!

I would like some (most) civs with historical opportunity to have two leaders to pick from. One good and one evil. For me-this would open up more fun games with more obvious villains to beat!


What do you think?

 

[Loucypher]

In before thousands of screams for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Thing is, who would you classify as an "evil" leader for, say, the Netherlands, America, Poland, Brazil...and I could go on and on.
Heck, I think the Montezuma depiction is kind of insensitive as it is.

 

[Gustavus Rex]

In before thousands of screams for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Thing is, who would you classify as an "evil" leader for, say, the Netherlands, America, Poland, Brazil...and I could go on and on.
Heck, I think the Montezuma depiction is kind of insensitive as it is.

Evil, well. Let's say aggressive then? Many of the ones now is sush leaders that with modern eyes can be considered pretty evil.

If not regents I'm sure there is plenty of general- or spiritual-type of persons to find out there. Gandhi was never a true regent? I admit it's hard to pick for the modern times civs though.

 

[seanflokstra7]

In before thousands of screams for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Thing is, who would you classify as an "evil" leader for, say, the Netherlands, America, Poland, Brazil...and I could go on and on.
Heck, I think the Montezuma depiction is kind of insensitive as it is.

The current leader of The Netherlands(Mark Rutte) is evil

But in all seriousness, this is a nice but impossible idea

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I don't think of the game as a re-creation of history. If I want to play evil, I just pick as civ suited for that. I think there are other things the creators could do to improve game play that are more important. And I think there are issues that picking leaders such as Hitler that would be untenable (stumping for him and such).

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

The AI personalities often create villains on its own. I mean who here doesn't meet Alex or Hiawatha and immediately go "Ok, this guy's going to need to be dealt with" Just play enough games and you'll have your own villains.

Funny thing is some of the AIs who could have been considered villainous are usually pretty good allies. Genghis will usually be undyingly loyal right up until you're the only two left standing (at least the last two with their capitals)

 

[Gustavus Rex]

I don't think of the game as a re-creation of history. If I want to play evil, I just pick as civ suited for that. I think there are other things the creators could do to improve game play that are more important. And I think there are issues that picking leaders such as Hitler that would be untenable (stumping for him and such).

Me neiher, still I'm very interested in history. I don't think any of the 19th century bad guys should be in the game of respect to the open scars still left out there. But as for the ancient, medieval and renaissance-crooks I can't see what the big deal would be.

Why even bother with real leaders at all if we at the same time is afraid of facing the bad parts of our history?

 

[Gustavus Rex]

The AI personalities often create villains on its own. I mean who here doesn't meet Alex or Hiawatha and immediately go "Ok, this guy's going to need to be dealt with" Just play enough games and you'll have your own villains.

Funny thing is some of the AIs who could have been considered villainous are usually pretty good allies. Genghis will usually be undyingly loyal right up until you're the only two left standing (at least the last two with their capitals)

Very true. Alex is indeed my nemesis!

 

[Bulldog Bats]

GR - I agree that the world has become too politically correct, but I think some leaders are just off limits. People would have a legitimate beef with seeing those images on the screen. It would also create a storm of controversy that I assume the buliders would want to avoid.

 

[Loucypher]

You're always gonna offend someone. That's a sad truth. In the case of Civ, they already have to be careful, given that if you pick a true horror to represent a country, then the people in that country will feel rather misrepresented, which might end up with lessened sales and bad press. Portray a national hero as a villain, and you'll get much the same issue.

Civ is a big name and they have to maintain a good image. I honestly wonder what the Aztec descendants living this day would think of Montezuma's personification in game.

I suppose you could argue for "villainous" leaderheads from now fully dead civilizations, but even then...Nebuchadnezzar is probably as far as they'll go.

 

[Gustavus Rex]

GR - I agree that the world has become too politically correct, but I think some leaders are just off limits. People would have a legitimate beef with seeing those images on the screen. It would also create a storm of controversy that I assume the buliders would want to avoid.

As i said, i do think all 19th century bad leaders is off limits. Every single one of them. What I'm asking for is more leaders like Montezuma and Nebuchadnezzar. Ivan the terrible. Henry VIII, Vlad Terpes- type of leaders.

 

[Sagax]

First of all, I personally don't like one-sided leader portrayals. As much as Monty and Shaka are interesting, I still prefer Harald for his mixture of good and evil which makes the leader more realistic.

The term "evil" is too vague. It's more or less obvious with warmongers, but what about the non-warmongering backstabbers like Enrico Dandolo? Venice seems peaceful, but Firaxis actually had the "bad guys" concept in their mind, hence the leader choice for this civ. IMO there are plenty of "evil" civs in the game if we look at the term broader:

Aztecs
Assyria
Zulu
Japan
Mongolia
Venice
Carthage
Ottomans
Songhai
Huns

Not to mention some "gray zone" civs like Germany, Greece or Rome.

 

[Gustavus Rex]

You're always gonna offend someone. That's a sad truth. In the case of Civ, they already have to be careful, given that if you pick a true horror to represent a country, then the people in that country will feel rather misrepresented, which might end up with lessened sales and bad press. Portray a national hero as a villain, and you'll get much the same issue.

Civ is a big name and they have to maintain a good image. I honestly wonder what the Aztec descendants living this day would think of Montezuma's personification in game.

I suppose you could argue for "villainous" leaderheads from now fully dead civilizations, but even then...Nebuchadnezzar is probably as far as they'll go.

What I like with history and science is the part were you as far as possible try to rely on facts. And Fact is that our history have bad parts we all could learn from.

They should not pick real leaders at all if they are afraid of people unwilling to face facts. I mean. It's not like a modern swede is well represented by the warmongering Gustav but its also a fact that Sweden would not exist at all if it weren't for leaders like him.

And again. I agree that none of the controversial modern leaders should not be in the game. There's an, for me, obvious limit.

In the end of the day it's still just a game.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I wish Gustav was a better civ to play. I also smile when I see him as a neighbor - he's gonna be a good trading partner as long as I am strong, but if I let my guard down and get too weak, he is going to come - eventually we are going to fight. Better than some civs that backstab for no reason (I'm talking to you Siam), or just uncooperative in general.

 

[danaphanous]

Most of the civs turn into scumbags when you're winning anyway unless you have a really strong friendship and they happen to be one of the few reasonable civs or you have a common enemy that has close to your score--then they see you as the protector of the continent.

I played an immortal game as India, going for cultural where I only actively kept 4 cities most of the game. I had a huge score and massive science lead on my continent but Spain, overseas, had wiped out both cultures on here continent and was periodically picking off city states. I was able to set up a continent-wide defensive pact and denouncement cascade that kept the continent stable until I could win. No one wanted to weaken me because spain already owned half the world and wanted the other. My modern navy and air force was the only thing keeping her subs/tanks/aircraft carriers at bay. Ironically, even with the pact spain attacked everyone. I was at war for a fully 30-50 turns up to the point I built utopia project and sank, and destroyed, literally "hundreds" of troops--never seen anything like it--I had to sink 10 aircraft carriers, destroying about 50-60 bombers in cities and boats, sinking 20 battleships and destroyers and bombarding to death about 30 radar artillery and a blend of other weird troops I've never built like anti-aircraft turrets, missles, and nukes. She would not give up trying to take my city-state friend on the coast. Her obsession with the city-state was hilarious--it's what cost her to war. Usually this would be a bad situation, but in this case it kept everyone off my back while I won. Most fun and Easiest Immortal game I've ever played. And for those that haven't tried them: nuclear subs are saviors if your navy is outnumbered--no special resources needed and with standard upgrades from buildings they come out of the box ready to sink an aircraft carrier, destroyer, sub, or battleship one shot. I had a fleet of about 7 elite ones with 3-5 upgrades and they turned the entire war. Anyway, sorry for rambling, that story was off-topic but it demonstrates my relevant point:

I've found that playing the politics and focusing on a common enemy works wonders at keeping even warlike civs reasonably allied. It's the only reliable way. Cliquish games with petty wars are the only ones where I've kept my friends to the end on high difficulties--you just gotta be careful to be consistent otherwise they get pissed that you aren't going along and realize you're a better target.

 

[danaphanous]

I like the suggestion of multiple leader choices but don't think they should be divided along on arbitrary line like "evil". Just pick two sufficiently famous but different ones.

As for evil civs:
1. starting next the the huns, aztecs, iroquois, mongols, or zulu: I pretty much know war is coming and start preparing for the inevitable that moment--they always attack early.

2. starting near greece, rome, france, germany, japan, russia, spain, (maybe more?): they will almost always attack, but will be smarter about it, building up some infrastructure and waiting for you to build a few juicy wonders. They will strike sooner if you leave your military looking weak or expand quickly. I haven't had much luck derailing them. If I'm weak they attack, if I'm doing well they attack--just wait slightly longer. Basically, if you're doing better than them I've decided.

3. America, Askia, Babylon, Persia etc: Sleeper cultures. They want war but can sometimes wait forever. If you're farther away they're great friends but if you're near no amount of history is going to save you in the long run--especially if you're winning.

4. Kamehameha, Siam, Egypt (and many others) - never seen them not start wars but they like to pick on weak people and can be derailed by having common enemies even if they're nearby.

There's only a small handful of cultures I've seen not start wars as a pattern most games, but as a general rule everyone will if it looks tempting enough. Examples: India, Maya

I actually haven't been near enough or in games with everyone (also only have G&K) so I can't vouch for the rest. As a whole they seem really warlike compared to Civ IV or III though. It's like a feeding frenzy when someone gets weak, especially someone disliked.

 

[vibe96]

I personally don't like all warmongers. Ok, it's fun to have one shaka in, but still it's a lot more fun not to know weather you's neighbor will attack or not. And I'm talking about Napoleon, Dido, Bismarch, Alex and Augustus Caesar. These are the worst backstabbers, who you can never trust. It's quite fun not to be sure about them.

I'm a bit suprised to see the mongol hate. I myself like gengis khan. He can be evil, but that's just for his enemies. Befriend him, and you have the most trustworthy ally in the whole game. But I totally agree about Siam. He steals your wonders and city-states. He expands like plague. His stupid elephants warmonger all his neighbors. And after that that douche thinks that you are an evil leader. I hate him even more than alex and hiawatha

 

[Bulldog Bats]

To me, the country for the leader is irrelevant. Whether it is the civ I choose to play, or when I look to see who my AIs are, I look at attributes, not names. I am American, and consider myself somewhat a student of US history, but the US attributes put me to sleep, so I haven't played it yet. If I want a history lesson, I'll pick up a book.

 

[LincolnofAmeric]

Well the leaders aren't good or bad, it's what they do. For example, Atilla seems bad but if you ally him he's the best ally in the game. And Alexander looks good but you can't trust him.

 

[Ronza149]

In before thousands of screams for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

No way Mao would be on the villain list,for God's sake,if Mao's a bad boy then all of the Chinese are Darth Vaders.