No Gandhi in Civilization 6?

[Tsuchinoko]

They wouldn't do Indira Gandhi, she's too recent for Civ and Fraxis doesn't usually like to include leaders from anytime after the 1960s.

Although she would be interesting; there'd certainly be a precedent for THIS Gandhi to be a nuclear warmonger because Indira accelerated India's nuclear weapons program during her time in office.

She was one of the leaders for India in Civ II I believe, so she's certainly not an impossible choice.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

He is in the trailer for a reason; he is in the game.

Yes, the Great Wall is also on the video. But it changed from being a wonder to a unique improvement. It could happen to Gandhi too. Also in the video Gandhi is following up Mona Lisa (Leonardo Da Vinci) and painting of van Gogh. After Gandhi painting of french revolution (another great artist) shows up and then the airplane of the wright brothers (great engineer). If this sequence does mean something, Gandhi is summed up between great people. Also the text at the moment when Gandhi's picture show up: "towards something greater". Just before that: "We inspire, always". The word "greater" could mean something here hinting to great people.

On the other hand we see also the empire state building in the video. For me it does not seem obvious it would be in the game.

 

[Metecury]

He is an iconic part of the civ series and contributes to the character of the game, I would be sad to se him go. Anyway if we are getting multiple leaders as some have speculated based on the ua and uu linked to leaders on top of the civ specific ones, you might partially get your wish.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They wouldn't do Indira Gandhi, she's too recent for Civ and Fraxis doesn't usually like to include leaders from anytime after the 1960s.

Too close to the 1960s was more true when the first game came out 25 years ago, though. I mean, Civ1 had Stalin who died 38 years before the game's release. Indira Gandhi died 32 years before this one was released. So we're at least getting there.

Although she would be interesting; there'd certainly be a precedent for THIS Gandhi to be a nuclear warmonger because Indira accelerated India's nuclear weapons program during her time in office.

Before I learned about the bug, I honestly thought that was the explanation.

 

[Morningcalm]

Too close to the 1960s was more true when the first game came out 25 years ago, though. I mean, Civ1 had Stalin who died 38 years before the game's release. Indira Gandhi died 32 years before this one was released. So we're at least getting there.

Indira Gandhi is an interesting idea, but she was hated by her countrymen if I recall. Her iron-fisted ways were quite divisive, and her decision in one particular incident to order troops to quell a rebellion directly resulted in her assassination.

She doesn't have quite the same acclaim or renown as Ashoka or Akbar either, unfortunately. I suspect if they want female leaders, they will look elsewhere. There are female leaders not included in Civ previously that could work for the Mayans, the Koreans and maybe other nations too.

 

[shyPiano]

She doesn't have quite the same acclaim or renown as Ashoka or Akbar either, unfortunately. I suspect if they want female leaders, they will look elsewhere.

I would agree with you there. But then I remembered Maria I of Portugal.

 

[Morningcalm]

Maria was considered a good ruler before she went mad, dismissing a nasty Secretary of State, encouraging a flourishing of arts and construction, having Portugal join the League of Armed Neutrality to keep Portugal out of the Napoleonic Wars, etc. Maria I was also greatly admired by historic scholars, something which is not quite true of Indira Gandhi, who experienced intense criticism during her time as prime minister (including notable criticism by noted author Salman Rushdie). See here for concrete examples of some of the things Indira did to warrant criticism (among these was her corruption): https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-hate-Indira-Gandhi

Certainly Maria I was not the best choice for Portugal one could imagine, but certainly she was a better leader choice than Indira Gandhi. Despite her madness, Maria I lacks the nation-tearing controversy having Indira Gandhi in the game would cause.

 

[SMcM]

Fairly sure it will be Gandhi as leader of India gain, but I would be thrilled if was Ashoka instead. He ruled an area far larger than modern India, whilst Gandhi was never a leader or a policeman, just a protester. He makes as much sense as a leader for India as Joan of Arc would for France.

 

[Willie5000]

Indira Gandhi is an interesting idea, but she was hated by her countrymen if I recall. Her iron-fisted ways were quite divisive, and her decision in one particular incident to order troops to quell a rebellion directly resulted in her assassination.

She doesn't have quite the same acclaim or renown as Ashoka or Akbar either, unfortunately. I suspect if they want female leaders, they will look elsewhere. There are female leaders not included in Civ previously that could work for the Mayans, the Koreans and maybe other nations too.

Exactly - her handling of the Punjab Rebellions, largley due to her stifling of democracy, led to her being assassinated by her own bodyguards, who were Sikhs. Perhaps on paper it would seem like a good idea to have Indira Ghandi as the leader, but it would probably go about as well as having Margaret Thatcher lead the English civilization.

Besides, India does have a healthy dose of great female rulers throughout their history:
Rudrama Devi was one, but she never ruled over a unified India...

 

[Mustakrakish]

Yes, the Great Wall is also on the video. But it changed from being a wonder to a unique improvement. It could happen to Gandhi too. Also in the video Gandhi is following up Mona Lisa (Leonardo Da Vinci) and painting of van Gogh. After Gandhi painting of french revolution (another great artist) shows up and then the airplane of the wright brothers (great engineer). If this sequence does mean something, Gandhi is summed up between great people. Also the text at the moment when Gandhi's picture show up: "towards something greater". Just before that: "We inspire, always". The word "greater" could mean something here hinting to great people.

On the other hand we see also the empire state building in the video. For me it does not seem obvious it would be in the game.

Very very good points, I'm sold. Plus why would they show a lone leader in the teaser trailer? And not an ingame interpretation at that. No Ghandi hype initiates, woooo

EDIT: I don't want to see him as a unique improvement though...

Rudrama Devi was one, but she never ruled over a unified India...

We know this is not a criteria for firaxis. Ghandi never ruled India.

 

[sugerdady87]

If it's Gandhi again I'm just gonna mod the game files and change the name to Asoka with a static leaderscreen.

I'm tired of Gandhi and this stupid running gag about nukes.

Anybody else would be satisfying.

I agree with everything Krajzen said and I agree with your statement. I don't understand why is this Gandhi use-nuke attribute fun for some people. I personally find it idiotic.

 

[WillowBrook]

Fairly sure it will be Gandhi as leader of India gain, but I would be thrilled if was Ashoka instead. He ruled an area far larger than modern India, whilst Gandhi was never a leader or a policeman, just a protester. He makes as much sense as a leader for India as Joan of Arc would for France.

Joan of Arc was the leader of France in civ 3. I'm not saying that makes sense, but it has been done before.

 

[Zaarin]

Joan of Arc was the leader of France in civ 3. I'm not saying that makes sense, but it has been done before.

Arguably, Jeanne d'Arc actually makes more sense than Gandhi, since she at least (nominally and briefly) led France's army. Still far from ideal, but Gandhi didn't even do that.

 

[Civciv5]

Rudrama Devi was one, but she never ruled over a unified India...

If you really want a woman who actually ruled India, well, there was Nur Jahan, who was Empress regent (not regnant) of the Mughal Empire for quite some time.

If they're really desperate, Mumtaz Mahal is also an option, she wielded considerable influence during her husband Shah Jahan's reign.

 

[Thormodr]

1) He wasn't a leader of India
2) He wasn't an architect of Indian independence
3) He wasn't a nice person
4) His ideas were mostly horrible or fanatic
5) He is imo the most overrated person of 20th century and I despise him with a passion

http:// http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/308550/

Highlights of his life include ridiculous anti-black racism, admiration for Mussolini and, yes, Hitler, recommending capitulation vs Nazi Germany and suicide of all European Jews (to avoid holocaust), fanatic hostility against technological progress, education and industrialization, ruthless pursuit of power behind the mask, opposition against medicine (his abused wife died because he refused giving her vaccine... but when he got ill he immediately went into luxury hospital; he also had moments of general vaccine denial), he was sleeping naked with underage girls, was total abusive tyrant vs his entire family, and literally nothing of his ideology was ever implemented or succeeded (mostly for good because most of his ideas was idiotic, he wanted to turn India in a bunch of communal agricultural villages with no modernity). He also opposed sexuality in general, homosexuality and birth control.

What he was very good in was marketing and making pop star out of himself in the eyes of journalists. The day when I won't see him in the iteration of civ will be the glorious day.

+He also sucks as Indian leader in civ series, because he always warps this great civilisation into a ridiculous pacifist caricature which has nothing to do with how Indian subcontinent looked... well... ever in its history full of warfare and empires. This tired nuke makes India even more of a caricature overshadowed by popcultural mascot.

Well said. The Gandhi with nukes joke got stale a long time ago. It's time to retire the gag and use a real Indian leader.

 

[darko82]

Plus why would they show a lone leader in the teaser trailer? And not an ingame interpretation at that..

The trailer does not show in-game footage at all - including Teddy, so this is not a valid argument

His ideas were mostly horrible or fanatic

So what? It's just a game, in which we actually need some fanatics, too. Unless you prefer Stalin or Hitler

He wasn't a nice person

This argument is just funny. Was Genghis Khan etc. a nice person? This is not the criteria by which the leaders are chosen.

Shaka is very nice. All leaders nice to each other. What a nice game, so sweet

He wasn't a leader of India

But he was a leader of Indian independence movement, which was enough to put him into the game.

and I despise him with a passion

Oh, that's why you do not want him in the game. That's the reason - you despise him. Well, if he was a nice person...

Highlights of his life include ridiculous anti-black racism, admiration for Mussolini and, yes, Hitler, recommending capitulation vs Nazi Germany and suicide of all European Jews (to avoid holocaust), fanatic hostility against technological progress, education and industrialization, ruthless pursuit of power behind the mask, opposition against medicine (his abused wife died because he refused giving her vaccine... but when he got ill he immediately went into luxury hospital; he also had moments of general vaccine denial), he was sleeping naked with underage girls, was total abusive tyrant vs his entire family, and literally nothing of his ideology was ever implemented or succeeded (mostly for good because most of his ideas was idiotic, he wanted to turn India in a bunch of communal agricultural villages with no modernity). He also opposed sexuality in general, homosexuality and birth control.

You should check other leaders from the game. I wonder how many of their barbarian sins you can find

Such arguments for a game, which actually needs villains and warmongers to be fun is a bit ridiculous. Yeah, he was bad; and we need "good angel leaders"

Actually, all the things you mentioned make him interesting to put into the game - to fill a gap and give some variety. That's what makes Civ games feel more real. Those things should also be takien into account in the game.

Following such arguments and analogy, we would have to remove fascism, most leaders and other stuff from the game, which would be ridiculous.

 

[skyclad]

I always prefered playing Asoka instead of Gandi in Civ4, I say bring him back!

 

[Schuesseled]

Perhaps Gandhi will now only appear as a great general

 

[Mustakrakish]

darko82, Khan is fun, many "not nice" leaders as you say, are in fact fun and interesting, Ghandi is just annoying, plain and simple. Deal with it. Comparing him to Genghis and other great conquerors is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Felis Renidens]

What I will prefer to play depends on the bonuses. If they make an interesting play I wouldn't mind his sorry face. Civ4 Asoka was more fun than Gandhi. Civ3 Gandhi was OK as a leader. Civ5 is terrible.