No Gandhi in Civilization 6?

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Mona Lisa is also in the trailer but she's not gunna be a leader. I don't think having an abstract picture of him in the trailer means means much for him. If it was in vaguely civ VI art design then yeah. Otherwise he's as much an ideal of peace and modern democracy and political freedoms as he was a person, and most likely is there to visualise a related topic they are mentioning in the vid.

I reckon he'll be in, I just reckon even if he wasn't, he still woulda been in the vid

But she "is" in the game... as a Great Work, further confirmed by their run-through of the annoucement trailer.

 

[ashvin.l]

She's undeniably and understandably controversial. But I was pointing out Stalin, who is also controversial (although there are probably far more Indians buying Civ6 than there were Russians buying Civ1). I would argue that "India" as a Civ would not be in the game if it weren't for modern India. Instead, it would be one of the subsets that ruled over time. Her impact on India is undeniable in making it a regional hegemon and world player. I'm not saying she should be included, I'm saying she should be in the conversation.

History of India is over 8000 years old. Agreed much of it is lost since we didn't invent paper in time, but representing such a long period with the myopic view of last 50 years seems hardly right. Look at it this way, 400 years down the line, how many lines would Indira Gandhi command in the history books? Not much...

There are far more important rulers of India in the last 2500 years (Pururava Or Porus, who defeated Alexander, Chandragupta-II (Vikramaditya) whose reign is called Golden Age of India, Chandragupta Maurya who unified India 2000 years back, Rajendra Chola who commanded a Naval force large enough to conquer Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc, Shivaji/Sambaji/etc of Marathas who bankrupted the large Moghul empire in a span of 27 years). There are enough interesting leader bonuses that you can think of for each of those leaders.

On the other hand, what leader bonus can you associate with Indira Gandhi?

 

[Svip]

Many of the things you mention are a product of the timeperiod he lived in. I think most people back then had different views than we do now. Perhaps you and I will be looked at with disgust in 100 years What is normal now, might not be normal 100 years in the future/past. I doubt you can find a leader from any country, any timeperiod, that is without flaws.

By that logic, why can't Hitler be the leader for Germany then?

I found it quite offensive that Stalin used to be the leader for Russia in previous Civilization games, when Hitler could not. They amount to the same thing in my book.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

By that logic, why can't Hitler be the leader for Germany then?

I found it quite offensive that Stalin used to be the leader for Russia in previous Civilization games, when Hitler could not. They amount to the same thing in my book.

Does Russia censorship games with Stalin in them?

Because Germany does (with Hitler). There's your reason.

History of India is over 8000 years old. Agreed much of it is lost since we didn't invent paper in time, but representing such a long period with the myopic view of last 50 years seems hardly right. Look at it this way, 400 years down the line, how many lines would Indira Gandhi command in the history books? Not much...

There are far more important rulers of India in the last 2500 years (Pururava Or Porus, who defeated Alexander, Chandragupta-II (Vikramaditya) whose reign is called Golden Age of India, Chandragupta Maurya who unified India 2000 years back, Rajendra Chola who commanded a Naval force large enough to conquer Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc, Shivaji/Sambaji/etc of Marathas who bankrupted the large Moghul empire in a span of 27 years). There are enough interesting leader bonuses that you can think of for each of those leaders.

On the other hand, what leader bonus can you associate with Indira Gandhi?

I'm sorry but I have to say that's not exactly a correct statement. Sure, India's history is vast but Civ 5 didn't represent just the modern-era India, they also had the Mughal Fort and them Elephants.

People need to realise that Civilization has never aimed for historical accuracy and trying to force it to do so is quite silly. It's a game that has always been streamlined. It's NOT a Historical Simulator, it's never been one to begin with.

They're going to go the casual route, rather than the exact-to-detail 100% historical representation. They've done this since the beginning.

We will most likely see Gandhi (as well as likely Isabella and Montezuma) and his Nuke-Happy-Trigger-Finger.

 

[Svip]

Does Russia censorship games with Stalin in them?

Because Germany does (with Hitler). There's your reason.

Actually they don't. Hitler is in Hearts of Iron and that game is not censored in Germany. It's only Nazi symbolism, which is different (Hitler is not considered a symbol in that regard). They would just have avoid putting Swastikas everywhere on a depiction of Hitler in Civilization.

My point is this; any argument you are going to make in the defence of Stalin being in a game but Hitler not is going to be ridiculous. Because it is only going to be based on a modern day public perception of Hitler. Any credible historian would definitely find a decent list of leaders worse than Hitler that have made it into Civilization. Beyond Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun seem like obvious candidates.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about Gandhi, not Hitler or Stalin. Enough with Hitler.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Nekator]

Gandhi has at this point become a character of his own in the Civ-series. He's been around since the first game and has been part of countless jokes, stories, AARs and comics. By now he is an integral part of the series and he's always going to be the leader of India.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There would be more unhappy people than happy in case of removing him. You can't make everyone happy.

Given India's consistently woeful representation in every Civ title so far, I find it hard to believe many people will particularly care if he's axed.

And as a non-leader who shouldn't be cracking top 5 or even top 10 notable figures in Indian history, he should not be representing India in Civ. India shouldn't even be constrained to one civ, that by itself is ridiculous. It's not as ridiculous as Ghandi leading it though.

Civ could have Michael Jackson as a leader of the USA for all the sense it makes. Ghandi could make some sense as a great person given his presence in history. But as a *leader* of a nation? No. There are too many great historical figures in India for him to have ever been considered. Euro bias should not dominate to the extent that it actively misrepresents the region yet again. At least Civ 4 had Ashoka also. Throw in 2-3 more civs in India and give them appropriate leaders and scratch crap like Venice and civ would be a better game for it.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Amen.

Seriously though, someone make that poll, I'm too lazy

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

India could definitely be split into several civilizations as India is not exactly culturally homogen.

Ghandi could as other have pointed out be a great person in Civilization VI.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm not sure if it's fair to new gamers or casual gamers if a handful don't want to see his spectacled face any more. The fact that he harnessed Indian nationalism indicates that there is some kind of unified Indian consciousness or civilization as opposed to the mutually-suspicious Europeans. So really, this is supposed to be a compliment to the diverse yet singular nature of India. Europeans are the brutes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure if it's fair to new gamers or casual gamers if a handful don't want to see his spectacled face any more. The fact that he harnessed Indian nationalism indicates that there is some kind of unified Indian consciousness or civilization as opposed to the mutually-suspicious Europeans. So really, this is supposed to be a compliment to the diverse yet singular nature of India. Europeans are the brutes.

Under-representing and misrepresenting Indian history is not something that will do new/casual gamers any favors. You might as well argue to avoid including nations like Mali, Ethiopia, and Shoshone from previous titles because casual players wouldn't recognize them. Does that sound like giving casual gamers enough credit? If not, then why are we still okay with how India is treated?

My Michael Jackson comparison was hyperbole, but not by that much. India has had actual rulers with darned significant impacts reaching past the subcontinent, ruling a large percentage of the world's population and empires larger/longer-lived than many civs we've seen in multiple civ iterations. Not only that, India has multiple such potential civs that could be used.

Butnopeghandi. At least, that's what we're fed so far.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not sure if it's fair to new gamers or casual gamers if a handful don't want to see his spectacled face any more. The fact that he harnessed Indian nationalism indicates that there is some kind of unified Indian consciousness or civilization as opposed to the mutually-suspicious Europeans. So really, this is supposed to be a compliment to the diverse yet singular nature of India. Europeans are the brutes.

New gamers won't be familiar with the hackneyed Nuclear Gandhi joke from 25 years ago; casual gamers are probably no more likely to buy the game with Gandhi than without it.

 

[tamyrlin]

Ashoka would be good. Maybe he can have 2 phase agenda , for some 150 turns , he is a bloody warmonger and then he turns into a total peacenik.

 

[m15a]

My Michael Jackson comparison was hyperbole, but not by that much. India has had actual rulers with darned significant impacts reaching past the subcontinent, ruling a large percentage of the world's population and empires larger/longer-lived than many civs we've seen in multiple civ iterations. Not only that, India has multiple such potential civs that could be used.

I'm in favor of other leaders for the India civ as well as multiple Indian civs (not to say I'm against Gandhi being the leader). But the Michael Jackson comparison *is* major hyperbole. Yes, they were both not rulers of nations just as 99.999999% of people aren't. But Gandhi was a political leader that directly caused major political change that definitely impacted the world as a whole. Of course he didn't do it alone (although no ruler does either) and things didn't end up the way he planned (same as many rulers including many of the Civ V leaders), but he still had a major political agenda that was in part realized.

I agree that a lot of Civ's decisions are Euro- or US-centric, but claiming that Gandhi was just a celebrity is an extremely myopic fan- / history-buff-centric view (and considering most people in this fandom are North American or European, it just might also be a Eurocentric view).

 

[Scaramanga]

New gamers won't be familiar with the hackneyed Nuclear Gandhi joke from 25 years ago; casual gamers are probably no more likely to buy the game with Gandhi than without it.

Really? Pacificist Gandhi going ballistic with nuclear weapons... yeah I guess that is a bit over people's heads.

I have not watched the announcement trailer more than a couple times, but sure his face is in there and I don't think it's for the hardcore players.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm in favor of other leaders for the India civ as well as multiple Indian civs (not to say I'm against Gandhi being the leader). But the Michael Jackson comparison *is* major hyperbole. Yes, they were both not rulers of nations just as 99.999999% of people aren't. But Gandhi was a political leader that directly caused major political change that definitely impacted the world as a whole. Of course he didn't do it alone (although no ruler does either) and things didn't end up the way he planned (same as many rulers including many of the Civ V leaders), but he still had a major political agenda that was in part realized.

I agree that a lot of Civ's decisions are Euro- or US-centric, but claiming that Gandhi was just a celebrity is an extremely myopic fan- / history-buff-centric view (and considering most people in this fandom are North American or European, it just might also be a Eurocentric view).

I don't know, a nuke happy leader that wasn't a leader is a pretty contrived/ridiculous scenario. Major hyperbole? His representation, action, and behavior don't mirror history in Civ 5. How major my hyperbole was isn't the point anyway. It makes no sense to see Gandhi yet again over numerous legit great leaders in India. The new/casual gamer line doesn't hold up either.

 

[AriochIV]

Also, I've been playing Civilization since 1991, and I have almost 2000 hours in Civ V, and I can't recall ever seeing Gandhi nuke anyone. I know the attribute is still there, but I think people overestimate how often it actually comes into play.

 

[m15a]

I don't know, a nuke happy leader that wasn't a leader is a pretty contrived/ridiculous scenario. Major hyperbole? His representation, action, and behavior don't mirror history in Civ 5. How major my hyperbole was isn't the point anyway. It makes no sense to see Gandhi yet again over numerous legit great leaders in India. The new/casual gamer line doesn't hold up either.

How major of a hyperbole it was is exactly my point. I'm sure there are arguments that can be made for other leaders being good choices for India, and from what I've seen, I think you specifically could make such arguments. But that's not what you're doing. You're trying to bolster your assertion by framing the opposing assertion as ridiculous.

Also, I've been playing Civilization since 1991, and I have almost 2000 hours in Civ V, and I can't recall ever seeing Gandhi nuke anyone. I know the attribute is still there, but I think people overestimate how often it actually comes into play.

Same. I haven't noticed it particularly much either and I wouldn't even know about it if it weren't for the fandom.

 

[WillowBrook]

I posted a poll here in the Ideas and Suggestions Forum on who you think should be the leader of India. It doesn't focus on Gandhi per se (although he's the first option).