Napolean?

[Avayaman]

well, i don't think we would be able to find enough "peaceful" leaders for civ. FIraxis could do it like SMAC, but that wouldn't be that much fun.

 

[finalhistorian]

hitler was evil/insane napoleon was greedy big difference

 

[RichardMNixon]

First off, whoever pointed out VC was complainging about rebellions, you have my great respect, that was awesome.
As to the French in Spain:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/goya/goya.shootings-3-5-1808.jpg
Stalin actually did do a lot of good for the USSR, although I don't know how much was on purpose and how it would have gone in the future. By using German technology and his industrial plans, he made the USSR a world power. I don't see how you can say he ruined his country judging from how strongly they came out of WWII. That said, Kruschev's "DeStalinization" was probably also a good idea. And I think Napoleon is a good choice. To anyone who calls him a dictator, he had nothing on Robespierre and the Directory sucked. Napoleon III didn't do a whole lot of good though... he picked on the little guys until getting perhaps the worst defeat in military history from Bismarck.

 

[Vietcong]

culteral leaders are ther to be conquered by the great millitary minds i dont think its such a redneck view...

 

[sir_schwick]

but history has shown it is culture that wins over military might, the greece of Pericles and the Spartan analog have long lost their glory, but their culture remains.

 

[Commander Bello]

To all those who desperately defend their intention to have a Mao, a Stalin or a Hitler in the game:
With the same argument you could call this armed bankrobber who shot his way out killing 2 policemen and a young mother of 3 into the position of a CFO - didn't he make some money, anyway?

 

[ironduck]

Stalin actually did do a lot of good for the USSR, although I don't know how much was on purpose and how it would have gone in the future. By using German technology and his industrial plans, he made the USSR a world power. I don't see how you can say he ruined his country judging from how strongly they came out of WWII. That said, Kruschev's "DeStalinization" was probably also a good idea.

The Russian empire prior to the 1917 revolution was already a power. The soviets destroyed so much that then had to be rebuilt, but much of it never was. It is true that Stalin kept going with the Soviet war machine after Hitler almost ran over Moscow and didn't stop his arms race after the war. Thereby making USSR a *millitary* power. But under Stalin they were not a major power in any other respect that I can tell was his contribution.

And yes, the communists in Russia (and China) also did some good things, primarily in terms of free education and health care. But they did so with bulldozers in glass houses and with insane ideologies dictating what was allowed and not allowed (even in health care, and obviously everywhere in the education system).

Oh and yeah, let's just say that the de-Stalinization 'probably' was a good thing.. why, when everyone in the world's largest country had been living in fear of the same man everything else had to be better. Stalin's USSR was one of the largest reigns of terror in the history of mankind.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I didn't say he was nice about it or that I would like to have lived in Russia under him, but saying that he ruined his country is also good, he gave them a good jump start. Russia was not at all a powerful nation in 1917... They had lost a war to Japan 12 years previous and had to put down a revolution then. They lost millions of men to Germany, mutinies spread all over the place, Kerensky took power from the Romanovs, Lenin overthrew Kerensky and signed Brest-Litovsk, and then had to begin fixing a devestated Russia. I don't deny that Stalin was a terrible man, (undeniably worse than Hitler, he just doesn't seem to get as much press) but he did give a tremendous jumpstart to his country. I say De-Stalinization was a good idea for the same reasons you've stated, people were in a state of terror and as seen in civ, that limits scientific and cultural advancement.
All this aside, I must also admit that Catherine, Peter, or even Ivan would make a better choice.

 

[Trajan13]

On the whole Mao/Stalin/Hitler debate, I have a couple of nice shiny 2 cents that i'll throw in because I'm like that...
I'd say that we can keep hitler out, just because of the whole... you know... genocide thing. The game wouldn't sell to jews, to germans, and probably to many other folks. It's unwise, and wrong.
I would also axe stalin. He did kill a LOT of people, and he was a hinderence to his nation during WWII. He *did* industrialize the country, but Hitler rebuilt his nation's economy. I would argue that niether of those makes up for mass murder and military incompetance.
I would say we should have the two russian leaders as Peter the Great/Catherine and Lenin. Yes, Lenin. It's from the perspective that picking two russian czars would have two game personalities that were essentially identical. If you do Lenin and a Czar, you get two distinct Russian periods represented, without the obvious horrible mass murder that comes with Stalin, and two distinct leader personalities. Plus, Lenin was kind of the George Washington of the USSR, the new government he helped install did eventually bring Russia to superpower status. Actually, if you think about it, George and Lenin have a lot in common. Politics aside, they both unified their factions and won civil wars, they both laid the groundworks for superpowers, and they both defeated world powers.

Here's how I'd see them playing out -

Peter the Great -
Style - Absolute Monarch, Serfdom, High religiousity
Traits(possibly) - Cultural bonus(he radically altered russian culture, made it more open and more in line with the rest of Europe) Expansionist(brought russia to the Crimea), bonus to army or navy (or both, but I think he is well known for giving russia it's first at that time modern navy)

Vladimir Illyich Lenin -
Style - Proletarian Dictator, Communal(or equivalent labor option), Atheism
Traits(possibly) - economic/agricultural bonus(the New Economic Policy which he pioneered helped rebuild russia's crumbled economy after WWI), Less anarchy in government changes(he was a revolutionary, and a pretty successful one at that, but it's hard to represent that in the game), bonus in Civil wars(if they are in... he did fight and win one against pretty much the entire moderized world who acted directly in support of his opponents)

I think that would work wonders, and be fun to play. That's my two cents.

 

[Meleager]

Civilization is a game about history. You can't just hide history under the carpet. Hitler after all was once named man of the year by time magazine due to his affect on the world. So just put them in the game. Everyone needs to stop being so politically correct. If we ignor history we are sure to repeat it. And I am sure that the jews don't just want us to forget what happened.

Political Correctness is getting everywhere. Now it has reached civ.

 

[CurtSibling]

sissy cultraly leaders dont count, and if the spanish rose up aginst him, thenr thay deserved it like any group of rebal bastereds..

Cultural leaders don't count?

*laughter*

 

[CurtSibling]

To all those who desperately defend their intention to have a Mao, a Stalin or a Hitler in the game:
With the same argument you could call this armed bankrobber who shot his way out killing 2 policemen and a young mother of 3 into the position of a CFO - didn't he make some money, anyway?

The game is about remaking history, not semantics.

And only marketable ideas get into games these days, we all know this.

Adolf and his ilk are OK for total real-world or hex-wargames, but not for a game like civ...

Public modding is another question, though!

.

 

[garric]

Wait, are you telling me Napoleon will not be in Civ IV? All this stuff that piles up really doesn't make me want to buy the game anymore.

 

[ironduck]

I didn't say he was nice about it or that I would like to have lived in Russia under him, but saying that he ruined his country is also good, he gave them a good jump start. Russia was not at all a powerful nation in 1917... They had lost a war to Japan 12 years previous and had to put down a revolution then. They lost millions of men to Germany, mutinies spread all over the place, Kerensky took power from the Romanovs, Lenin overthrew Kerensky and signed Brest-Litovsk, and then had to begin fixing a devestated Russia. I don't deny that Stalin was a terrible man, (undeniably worse than Hitler, he just doesn't seem to get as much press) but he did give a tremendous jumpstart to his country.

I don't see how Stalin's ruining the country was good. Slaughtering and force transferring people with skills, capital, and intellectual resources is not particularly constructive.

The jumpstart to industrialization came at an enormous human cost, not least in agriculture and through slave labour. He raped his country to direct resources where he wanted them.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that Hitler or Stalin was worse than the other, they are the biggest mass murderers that ever walked this planet, let's just keep it at that.

 

[ironduck]

but Hitler rebuilt his nation's economy.

No, Hitler did not rebuild his nation's economy. Again, it's a common misconception. The nazis borrowed their country to the hilt and when the credit lines were maxed out they got money through plundering Europe and the jews. The nazi economy was highly ineffective, but it could maintain an illusion of wealth to those who did not see what was going on. The deployment of borrowed and stolen capital was used primarily on millitary and infrastructure spending, thus cutting unemployment. Germany was in a recovering condition when the nazis took over, from then on it was all credit lines (that were never paid back because Germany was in ruins after WW2, so they received tons of money through the Marshall aid plan instead), robbing, and highly ineffective production that allowed high employment levels.

If you do Lenin and a Czar, you get two distinct Russian periods represented, without the obvious horrible mass murder that comes with Stalin, and two distinct leader personalities. Plus, Lenin was kind of the George Washington of the USSR, the new government he helped install did eventually bring Russia to superpower status. Actually, if you think about it, George and Lenin have a lot in common. Politics aside, they both unified their factions and won civil wars, they both laid the groundworks for superpowers, and they both defeated world powers.

Lenin was also a mass murderer. Not to the extent of Stalin perhaps, but the massive purges and slaughtering of non-communists happened on a huge scale. He devastated the country in so many ways through his insane ideologies that would later be taken even further by Stalin. Oh, and what world powers did he defeat? It is true that the white army was supported by the western European powers, but it was hardly a full scale war against them - it was primarily a civil war in Russia. The Polish-Soviet war was a 'regular' war and one that Lenin lost (his plans to bring the revolution to the rest of Europe was a massive failure).

 

[ironduck]

Civilization is a game about history. You can't just hide history under the carpet. Hitler after all was once named man of the year by time magazine due to his affect on the world. So just put them in the game. Everyone needs to stop being so politically correct. If we ignor history we are sure to repeat it. And I am sure that the jews don't just want us to forget what happened.

Political Correctness is getting everywhere. Now it has reached civ.

This has nothing to do with political correctness (which is a completely empty term anyway). Civ is a game of the rise of great civilizations, not about crazy nutcases who spent most of their time murdering their own population.

If you're playing a scenario of WW2 you need those leaders, but to make them the leader figures for epic games is ridiculous. And it's the epic games we're discussing, the scenario leaderfigures are indisputable.

 

[Trajan13]

No, Hitler did not rebuild his nation's economy. Again, it's a common misconception. The nazis borrowed their country to the hilt and when the credit lines were maxed out they got money through plundering Europe and the jews. The nazi economy was highly ineffective, but it could maintain an illusion of wealth to those who did not see what was going on. The deployment of borrowed and stolen capital was used primarily on millitary and infrastructure spending, thus cutting unemployment. Germany was in a recovering condition when the nazis took over, from then on it was all credit lines (that were never paid back because Germany was in ruins after WW2, so they received tons of money through the Marshall aid plan instead), robbing, and highly ineffective production that allowed high employment levels.
Lenin was also a mass murderer. Not to the extent of Stalin perhaps, but the massive purges and slaughtering of non-communists happened on a huge scale. He devastated the country in so many ways through his insane ideologies that would later be taken even further by Stalin. Oh, and what world powers did he defeat? It is true that the white army was supported by the western European powers, but it was hardly a full scale war against them - it was primarily a civil war in Russia. The Polish-Soviet war was a 'regular' war and one that Lenin lost (his plans to bring the revolution to the rest of Europe was a massive failure).

You got me on the Hitler thing. I was aware that by 1939 it was bankruptcy or war, but the impression I had was that hitler had nonetheless done good for the economy.
On Lenin - The world powers he defeated - England, France, America, Japan. In other words the major allied powers. They landed at Murmansk with the intention of providing military aid to the White Russians. They failed.
I couldn't find anything that said Lenin committed mass murder. The closest I could find was a reference to a man named Dzerzhinsky, who operated the Cheka for the fledgling soviet government, and a reference to an unquantified "reign of terror" that peaked in 1918, pretty much right as the revolution needed cementing. Barring further info, that sounds to me less like a state-sponsored systematic policy of mass murder(like Hitler/Stalin) and more like a new government doing what it saw as neccesary to stabilize the nation. I cannot find the astronomical death figures that come from mass murderers like Stalin/Hitler. Lenin DID cement himself as dictator, but I can't find references to gulags, death camps, genocides or even the pogroms - common under many Czars.
As to his policies being "insane" that is a matter of opinion. The first Soviet policy, "War Communism," to which you refer, was abandoned because it's economic policy wasn't improving life, and it's military policy, as evidenced by Poland, was unacheivable. This was replaced with the moderate New Economic Policy, which allowed some private ownership and basic capitalism, while keeping with Socialist ideology. This, by Lenin's death, had brought the economy and standard of living up to above pre-WWI levels - a feat, considering the country had suffered much from the war alone, then suffered a revolution AND civil war. If all our leaders were that insane, we would all be rich Far from laying the groundwork for stalin, Lenin's policies were actually REVERSED by Stalin, under his series of "5 year plans," and forced collectivization. I think we all know the results of that - mass death and suffering.
I maintain that Lenin would make a fine choice as a second Russian leader for cIV. And, if you really don't like him, you can enjoy wiping him off the map!

 

[ironduck]

I guess we have rather different views on what constitutes mass murder and terror, you are using words like 'doing what it saw necessary' - but when mass murder and a reign of terror is considered necessary by the people in power, does that somehow make it better? I'm sure every despot sees his actions as 'necessary' to stabilize the country and remain in power.

The Cheka were indeed an organization that created a stranglehold on the population of fear and terror, with mass executions in the hundreds of thousands and numerous concentration camps. All this was directly ordered by Lenin.

A couple of Cheka links http://aia.lackland.af.mil/homepages/pa/spokesman/Mar02/heritage.cfm and http://iaia.essortment.com/cheka_rvph.htm

The standard of living only reached pre-WW1 standards in the late twenties as far as I can tell. The reason for this is as you mention, the abandoning of war communism, the end of war (both internally and externally), and a return to a freer market. I don't see it as being Lenin's accomplishment whatsoever, rather it happened in spite of all the destruction that was caused by the wars and the communists. Then came Stalin's 5-year-plans and the intentional starvation of the people.

Here is a link to an article that pretty much sums up my own feelings of Lenin http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/lenin.html

On Lenin - The world powers he defeated - England, France, America, Japan. In other words the major allied powers. They landed at Murmansk with the intention of providing military aid to the White Russians. They failed.
I couldn't find anything that said Lenin committed mass murder. The closest I could find was a reference to a man named Dzerzhinsky, who operated the Cheka for the fledgling soviet government, and a reference to an unquantified "reign of terror" that peaked in 1918, pretty much right as the revolution needed cementing. Barring further info, that sounds to me less like a state-sponsored systematic policy of mass murder(like Hitler/Stalin) and more like a new government doing what it saw as neccesary to stabilize the nation. I cannot find the astronomical death figures that come from mass murderers like Stalin/Hitler. Lenin DID cement himself as dictator, but I can't find references to gulags, death camps, genocides or even the pogroms - common under many Czars.
As to his policies being "insane" that is a matter of opinion. The first Soviet policy, "War Communism," to which you refer, was abandoned because it's economic policy wasn't improving life, and it's military policy, as evidenced by Poland, was unacheivable. This was replaced with the moderate New Economic Policy, which allowed some private ownership and basic capitalism, while keeping with Socialist ideology. This, by Lenin's death, had brought the economy and standard of living up to above pre-WWI levels - a feat, considering the country had suffered much from the war alone, then suffered a revolution AND civil war. If all our leaders were that insane, we would all be rich Far from laying the groundwork for stalin, Lenin's policies were actually REVERSED by Stalin, under his series of "5 year plans," and forced collectivization. I think we all know the results of that - mass death and suffering.
I maintain that Lenin would make a fine choice as a second Russian leader for cIV. And, if you really don't like him, you can enjoy wiping him off the map!

 

[Lobox]

The reason Napoleon lost is because the Russian general (I don't remember his name) was really smart.

Wrong, the reason Napoleon lost was because of the russian winter.
Have there been any smart russian generals, the russian strategy (now and then) seems to be to use the soldiers as canonfodder (sending troops to the enemyline until the enemys ammo is empty).

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

To all those who desperately defend their intention to have a Mao, a Stalin or a Hitler in the game:
With the same argument you could call this armed bankrobber who shot his way out killing 2 policemen and a young mother of 3 into the position of a CFO - didn't he make some money, anyway?

Spoken like someone who has no idea what a CFO actually does.

I think Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao should be left in the game. They should not be the only leaders for their respective civilizations, because that would be an insult to those of those civilizations, as those three leaders do not exemplify all that is French, German, Russian, or Chinese. I would love to see Louis XIV, Bismarck, Peter/Ivan/Catherine/etc., and a chinese emperor(all I can think of is Sun Tzu and he wasn't an emperor) offered as alternatives.

The important word to focus on is "leader" or "one who leads". Did these men lead powerful nations at pivotal points in history? Yes, they did. End of discussion. We don't have to like what they did or how they did it. I'm not sure we can say that we like what a lot of the leaders included in the game did. I have a feeling the reason why we have more visceral response to Hitler than say Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great is because we have more chronological distance from the latter's actions than the former.

Furthermore, a lot of the intensity of our reactions is relative and cultural. Example: there are "Nazi" bars in asian countries, where the owners see it as just an example of European culture. They don't understand what the big stink is about. However, I'm sure there are some world leaders that they would have definite opinions on, and they would feel some of these leaders do not deserve a place in the Pancivon. Which leaders we have a negative reaction to is largely due to personal views. That's why it should be reflected in YOUR PERSONAL play (i.e. you play Ghandi all the time and achieve victory culturally), not the game overall, which is trying to provide a variety of different experiences.

That said, I can understand leaving genocidal leaders like Hitler and Pol Pot out, for sensitivity reasons. Many of the leaders we have in the game are responsible for tremendous human destruction and death, whatever their aim was. But Hitler systematically murdered elements of his own and other nations population. Had he not done that, then he would have just been another Napoleon. But because he and his party did so, that puts them on another level. Yes, other leaders are responsible for many many deaths, but those were deaths to achieve a goal, be it conquest or industrialization. Death itself was not the goal, and that is what provides the additional twist to our stomachs. Add in to that there are people who can still remember the suffering that occured at these men's hands, and I do not fault the creators of Civ at all for not including them.

One last bit and then I'm done:

In one of the history classes at my high school, the teacher gave the students the chance to re-enact the events in Europe that lead up to WW2. The students were divided into teams, one team per country (all the European countries were included, even small ones, but Asia was left out because the additional complexity interfered too much with the games dynamics) and asked to act as if that team represented the leader of that country. Deals were struck, war was declared, and a Castle Risk board served to center it all.

The students who learned the least and had the most one-dimensional experience were the ones who advocated the attitude "Let's every nation gang up on Germany and Hitler because they're evil!!!" The one class where everyone did that had the quickest game ever... and got the lowest grades as well.

The ones who learned the most and had the richest experience were the ones who bothered to look at the cultural/geopolitical/economic factors actually at play and, given their 20/20 hindsight, see how history might have played out differently. These classes had scenarios where Austria, Poland, Germany, and France teamed up to stop a Soviet expansion into the Balkans or where Germany made a pact with England and both invaded France or where Poland voluntarily invited the Soviet Union in for protection against Germany while Austria and Hungry joined Germany to take over France and Spain, but never bothered their eastern front. These folks got the highest grades because they were able to back up their actions with logical choices based on existing factors. They understood why what happened happened and got a fuller experience for it.

The point of this is that we shouldn't diminish our Civ experience because of our opinions of history. While Civ can be used to repeat history, it doesn't have to. Ultimately, Civ will be better served by allowing a wider range of experiences, even if we don't necessarily want to play all of them. History is filled with a lot of ugly stuff, so if you cut everything out that offends modern sensibilities, you'll end up with just two leaders and only one route to victory.