Muhammad was going to be an ARABIAN LEADER in CIV IV

[Plains-Cow]

Just a fun fact that I thought would be cool to share with the CIV IV community that might not be known:

Muhammad, yes, THAT one, was going to be a leader in CIV IV for Arabia. I found this out from Sullla's leader draw stream where he talks about his past experience working on the AIs in CIV IV for Firaxis and he brings up the leaders that were cut as well as the concept art for them. Sullla doesn't show Muhammad, but you can see a bit of what he looks like in the thumbnail, sort of like Mehmet but with red hair.

Video is timestamped below:

 

[Keler]

as far as I count I see these:

Muhammed for Arabia
Menes for Egypt
Manco Capac for Inca
Meiji for Japan
Sundjata for Mali
Ogedei for Mongolia
Crazy Horse for Sioux (renamed as Native American civ)
Charles V for Spain
Sargon for Sumeria

They were cut from the game. There was still room for 3 more leaders (the missing trait combos) so it is a shame. Many of one leader civs could get a second leader aparently.

 

[Tecumseh1]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but any idea if Hitler was close to making it in?

 

[Plains-Cow]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but any idea if Hitler was close to making it in?

I don't believe that there's been any discussion about that. Bismark even makes it in over any of the actual Kaisers at the time. Hitler was actually a playable character, portrayed in a positive light, in a Japanese strategy game called Super Famicom Wars under the name "Hetler."

Hetler | Wars World News

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Why did they rename the Sioux as 'Native Americans'?

 

[Plains-Cow]

Why did they rename the Sioux as 'Native Americans'?

I know, right? Horrible call that makes them even more generic. Should have just called them by their own self-identifiers. Historically, the "Sioux" were called such by their enemies as a pejorative, and it just stuck. Quote: "The Lakota's name, Sioux, is an exonym that literally means "snakes", and was first applied, pejoratively, by a rival tribe. It was popularized after the Sicangu Oyate nation settled in the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, becoming a bureaucratic term in the treaty process. Hence, some Sicangu Oyate prefer the endonym Lakota."

It's like if France were called "Surrender Monkeys."

 

[Tecumseh1]

There was a quote a I heard in Ken Burns' The West (paraphrasing) - When our enemies came, we prepared to fight. When the Lakota came, we prepared to die.

 

[Plains-Cow]

There was a quote a I heard in Ken Burns' The West (paraphrasing) - When our enemies came, we prepared to fight. When the Lakota came, we prepared to die.

Who was talking?

 

[danjuno]

I don't believe that there's been any discussion about that. Bismark even makes it in over any of the actual Kaisers at the time. Hitler was actually a playable character, portrayed in a positive light, in a Japanese strategy game called Super Famicom Wars under the name "Hetler."

Hetler | Wars World News

I remember the arguments from back in the day of why Stalin and Mao made it in but not Hitler.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I remember the arguments from back in the day of why Stalin and Mao made it in but not Hitler.

It probably has something to do with the simple truth that those two won their wars.

 

[Patine]

It probably has something to do with the simple truth that those two won their wars.

Which is probably why Nixin was never an American leader.

 

[Lennier]

I remember the arguments from back in the day of why Stalin and Mao made it in but not Hitler.

Putting Hitler in might have gotten the game banned in Germany. But no one is banning the game because of the inclusion of Stalin or Mao.

 

[Nick723]

Putting Hitler in might have gotten the game banned in Germany. But no one is banning the game because of the inclusion of Stalin or Mao.

Almost certainly also a factor in why Muhammad not featured.

 

[danjuno]

It probably has something to do with the simple truth that those two won their wars.

As far as I can tell, this is only the case with the more modern leaders. Defeated leaders like Hannibal, Boudica, and Montezuma from before the 20th century are rather plentiful.

Putting Hitler in might have gotten the game banned in Germany. But no one is banning the game because of the inclusion of Stalin or Mao.

My understanding is that there was some censorship around Mao in the Chinese release, but it would make sense that their concern would be more so on the western market.

 

[Patine]

My understanding is that there was some censorship around Mao in the Chinese release, but it would make sense that their concern would be more so on the western market.

Or at least it would have been when the first three Civ iterations were released. The Chinese market has blossomed in importance, since, and Mao has conspicuously disappeared as a leader.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I find it strange they had a concept for a specifc Native American civ but instead went for a generic blob

 

[The_J]

As far as I can tell, this is only the case with the more modern leaders. Defeated leaders like Hannibal, Boudica, and Montezuma from before the 20th century are rather plentiful.

They are kinda beloved by their people though...

 

[Plains-Cow]

As far as I can tell, this is only the case with the more modern leaders. Defeated leaders like Hannibal, Boudica, and Montezuma from before the 20th century are rather plentiful.

Sure, but those leaders also had mixed successes in multiple separate conflicts, not all defeats, while Hitler lost both world wars: one as a bit-player and the other as its primary conductor. I mean, I don't think you can have an "I failed" story as big as Hitler's.

I'm more surprised they didn't add Saladin's foil Richard I in for England during the Warlords expansion. Makes more sense than CHURCHILL to me lol. I guess Churchill is more Anglo-Saxon...?

 

[Patine]

They are kinda beloved by their people though...

I'm unclear of views about Hannibal in modern Tunisia, to be honest. Though, Boadiccea's image is on the official watermark logo of the Bank of England, and Montezuma get iterative revenge on every tourist to Mexico too drunk to remember to drink bottled or boiled water...

 

[Patine]

Sure, but those leaders also had mixed successes in multiple separate conflicts, not all defeats, while Hitler lost both world wars: one as a bit-player and the other as its primary conductor. I mean, I don't think you can have an "I failed" story as big as Hitler's.

I'm more surprised they didn't add Saladin's foil Richard I in for England during the Warlords expansion. Makes more sense than CHURCHILL to me lol. I guess Churchill is more Anglo-Saxon...?

I don't know if defeat in WW1 can be at all viewed as impacted by a corporal in a reserve Bavarian regiment - that participatory level for even, "bit player," status, and he had almost straight, overwhelmning, and shocking successes until Winter, 1942 in WW2, so...