Redesigning the Civ VI Civs

Honestly said, Lenin was far better than many other historical persons in that time period, and any leader beyond 1900 would be controversial compared to today's norms, and after 1950, they're also controversial since politics are much more polarized than ever before. It's much harder to find a leader with whom you will unite proponents and opponents, since everything is divided into a right-wing and left-wing spectrum.

But Khrushchev would indeed be a very original choice, and could be linked with Eisenhower, who would also be more original than FDR or JFK. And i heart today that Lenin wouldn't be a good choice, since he was only a few years head in office, but the same can be said about JFK (or even Lincoln). And let's not forget that life for the Russians improved much during Lenin's reign, despite everything they tell you about. Yes, cruel things happened in the USSR, but let's not forget that those happened even more under the reign of the Tsar (and that they had an elitist, anti-reformist and a huge i don't care about the folk-attitude, which also made the Bolshevik revolution possible). If the tsar was much more human, the soviet revolution would never had happened in the first place, and without the Soviet Union, Russia would be less modern today, more fractured/unstable (maybe even a second Middle East with lots of population unrest, wouldn't have been able to defend well against Hitler's Germany despite the purges of Stalin (-> they were humiliated in a Russian-Japan war and lost in WW1 which was called the war of the Bourgeoisie in Russia) and general technology would have been delayed, just like good life circumstances would have been delayed in not only the USSR, but also Europe that rapidly enacted social laws and reforms to prevent the spread of the revolution to Europe.

 

No, like with most revolutions the ones who ended up with the power turned out to be much worse than the people they replaced. Mainly because the ones that ended up with the power tended to be the most ruthless and sociopathic.

When the Tsars exiled you to Siberia, that was it just exile. They didn't care what you did as long as you didn't come back.
When the communists exiled you to Siberia, they put you in a gulag and/or forced labor camp with the full intent to work you to death.

 

I don't agree. We rather all live in a ultracapitalist feodal monarchies, since the French revolution apparently also ended up turning bad? I think the Sovjet Union was much better than the Tsarist regime, especially towards the end. The gulags also was something exclusively done during Stalin's reign.

 

I don't think bad leader choices by Firaxis should justify making bad leader choices. I agree that Harald and Cleopatra are not the best leaders, and if you read my suggestions, you saw that I didn't use them.
As for a Soviet leader for Russia, I agree Khrushchev would be a nice choice, as he was somewhat competent and someone who was actually trying to make life good for the people, not just himself. I also admire his decision to end the cult of personality for Stalin and tell the truth about him.

 

We now have four Hellenized leaders in the game. I think we all agree that's too much (however you can argue that too some extent we're all Hellenized and then Romanized afterwards). Still Gorgo, Alexander and Pericles were honestly enough (and even three Hellenized leaders would be too much for most, but I like the Sparta / Athens divide and the Macedonian civ).

 

Especially towards the end? Yes, the stagnation, the war in Afghanistan, and the turmoil years of the Perestroika were wonderful!
The only good thing about the final years of the USSR was the absolute freedom of speech (the late 80s and early 90s were the most democratic period in Russia's history so far) and the golden age of Russian rock music.

 

Americans also have a role in the Afghan war, and also created a lot of unnecessary wars, even very recently (Iraq, Libya), or also overthrown regimes and replaced them by much worse regimes (Allende being replaced by dictator Pinochet, who also created work camps, watch the movie Colonia if you want to understand what). The stagnation and the turmoil years of the Perestroika weren't ethical not right. Stalin was cruel. The stagnation and the turmoil years are at worst bad leadership but not results of cruelty. And personally, i would had preferred to be raised in Russia, and not in the USA as a poor child (since healthcare, a decent income or even paid / sick / maternal leave are still not established). Or because they have free gun ownership, and you would never be safe if you walk on the streets. Or because they're the only country who didn't sign the climate agreement and refuse to believe climate change, and this is something that concerns all of us, both good and evil people and both the rich and the poor. So, i'm willing to elaborate about the ethical nature of the USSR and America, but i think i've made my point.

I agree that the end 80's and early 90's were the most democratic years Russia ever had. What would follow on the end of USSR's regime, ended up being worse, however, Putin is not the worst guy either. But it's an authoritarian democracy right now.

 

Ultracapitalist and feudalism are pretty much opposites. France wasn't either by the way. It was an absolutist monarchy that had a strangle hold on all the aspects of the French state and simply wasn't decentralized enough to take advantage of the wealth creating industrial revolution until it was toppled.

Remember also that the socialists/communists were responsible for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II who was slowly remaking the Russian government into something akin to the UKs and even signed such a law as he was literally dying. The Tsars after him were much more reactionary.

Most revolutions place worse people in power, not all of them. The few that don't are largely celebrated. The ones that follow the historical are just seen as normal.

 

I don't agree. And I wouldn't say necessarily that socialists / communists were responsible for his assasination, since also "democrats" were involved and since the terror group also spread basic democratic ideas. And yes, he could have done good things (and was much better than the tsars who came after him), but he also did bad things (like suppressing the Polish revolt / independence movement after annexing it). I don't understand why the tsars are always seen in a much brighter light than the soviet leaders like Lenin or Khruschev.

 

I did read your suggestions. I've stated earlier that I don't really mind Cleopatra anymore because her playstyle I believe is unique as the player and as an AI opponent. That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind another leader however for Egypt. However I do agree that Harald could easily be replaced by any Viking king and that leader would still have the same abilities, not that I dislike him personally.

 

My point was not to champion the cause of any one leader, such as Stalin, but to champion the idea that any leader or any political entity (the Soviet Union being one such entity) can equally be considered for inclusion in the game. I understand the controversy behind certain persons, but history should not be about the controversy and simply an examination of the facts.

I will return to Stalin as an example. He remains one of the most influential men in recent history. Certainly more so than Teddy Roosevelt on a number of levels. (I should add that I have a great affection for Teddy, and despise Stalin as one of the most evil men.) No matter his crimes, the fact remains his influence was monumental in pre-war Europe and the post-war world. The mere fact that he killed some 20 million people under his rule gives him a place at the table. He was personally responsible for the Iron Curtain. He was, by far, more influential to the U.S.S.R. than any single American president was to the U.S.A.

On a side note, life under Lenin did not improve from Czarist Russia. One need only ask the thousands who emigrated from Russia to the west (often the US) in the 20's and 30's. In Soviet Russia, religion was virtually banned in favor of the importance of the State. I am not trying to give the Czars a pass, but the Russian people saw no improvement under the Soviets. The names might have changed, but the conditions were hardly much better.

 

The game is called "Civilization", it is about the entire history of mankind, and about nations. The Soviets were not a civilization. Unlike the "artificial" civilizations, such as the Americans or the Australians, the Soviets did not exist for a long period, and did not form a new nation. So if the USSR is to be represented, it should be only as a part of the Russian civilization.

Being influential is not everything. In "Civilization" the developers show the greatness of each civ. This cannot be done with leaders such as Stalin. I mean, the only reason we do not treat him like the horrible dictator he was is because he was on the right side of World War II. Still, putting Stalin in the game would be disrespectful to the Russian people (although there are quite many brainwashed people in Russia who still think Stalin was good). And if Stalin is controversial, Hitler is twice as controversial, because he is actually despised by the German people. No German who loves his country and nation would be OK with Hitler being included as a leader of the Germans (this does not apply to World War II scenarios, in which Germany is Nazi Germany, and the leader is supposed to be Hitler).

 

I am afraid I don't understand your personal criteria for a "civilization". As you say, the game is about the entire history of mankind, however, it is represented in play by 'snapshots' of history to set the stage. I do not understand how Alexander and his Macedonian/Persian empire is any more valid than Stalin and the Soviet Union. Alexander died fairly young and his empire fell apart immediately after.

And while I understand your personal distaste for people such as Stalin, most of the other leaders currently depicted have their share of sins as well. Many of them practiced slavery and killed enemies without compunction. Some committed murder within their circle, or ordered the murder of other 'rivals to the throne'.

Whether they be good or bad, I believe any historical leader, or any political entity from history, has a place in the game of Civilization.

 

Even Hitler, or Pol Pot?

Personally, I don't care for a separate Soviet Union Civ. It would take space from Civs that I desire even more. It should be the same as the Russian Civ. Soviet Union was practically Russia at its core.

 

I confess I don't care much about leaders for any Civilization, because any one (or three) leaders barely scratches the surface of any civilization that has been around for any length of time - like France, China, Egypt, Russia, England/Britain, etc. If you have Stalin as a leader, that doesn't mean the player is going to 'play' Russia/Soviet Union the same way Stalin would, no matter how many 'hard-wired' Unique Attributes you attach to the leader. And if the gamer is the same sort of Homocidal Paranoic as Stalin was, he may play the game just like Stalin would regardless of the in-game 'leader' - but will have far more problems outside of the game than inside!

So, setting aside the Leaders for the moment, let's go back to Russia the Civ VI Country:

Any ability based on climate or terrain is immediately suspect, because it assumes something resembling a terrain/climate 'historical start' for the Civ, and that just doesn't happen that often. Also, the 'General Winter' ability assumes a severe Continental Climate, a sprawling Civilization, and mediocre infrastructure within Russia to make supporting an army difficult - not an impossible combination, but not one most gamers strive for, as a rule.

I think we can get a similar result by using a different mechanism. Both of the major invasion of Russia: the Patriotic War against Napoleon in 1812, and the Great Patriotic War against Hitler in 1941 - 45, shared one common Russian denominator: the Opolchenye, or Militia. In 1812 Russia raised over 300,000 Opolchenye, and they filled out the regular army, fought as separate units at Borodino, and formed the core of many partisan units harassing the French retreat. In 1941 in response to the German invasion, Soviet Russia formed over 60 divisions of militia, PLUs over a million men in separate, smaller militia units.

Civilization Ability - Opolchenye. Whenever an enemy Civilization (NOT City State, NOT Barbarian) has a unit on a Russian-owned land tile at the end of the Russian turn, on the following turn the Russian player may raise one Opolchenye unit in each of his cities. The Opolchenye unit is always slightly worse than the best melee unit of the Era:
Ancient Era: Opolchenye Unit = Warrior
Classical Era: Opolchenye Unit = Spearman
Medieval Era: Opolchenye Unit = Swordsman
Renaissance Era: Opolchenye Unit = Pikeman
Industrial Era: Opolchenye Unit = Musketman
Modern Era: Opolchenye Unit = Musketman
Atomic Era: Opolchenye Unit = Infantry
Information Era: Opolchenye Unit = Infantry

Opolchenye cost no Maintenance until they are Upgraded (become part of the Regular Army)
All Opolchenye have the Urban Warfare Promotion

For the unique units, I'm sorry but the Gulay-Gorod was a development of the Wagon-Burgh of the steppe nomads (Pechenegs, Bulgars) and not even particularly unique: The Hussites made much more use of a similar equipment, and Poland and Lithuania both fielded similar. The Leib-Guard cavalry also was not particularly unique: every absolute or semi-absolute monarch in Europe had 'Guard' heavy/armored cavalry, who all shared the characteristics of being ridiculously expensive to keep while being not much better in combat than 'ordinary' heavy cavalry.

Here are some suggestions for unique Russian units:
Tsar Pushka ("King of Cannon', massive 36" diameter cannon used to flatten walls and cities. Ivan IV had 7 of these monsters, possibly the largest smooth-bore artillery ever built) (replaces Bombard) +20 Ranged Attack versus Districts/Walls, +20 production cost
Dragoon (ALL of Peter I's regular cavalry were dragoons, and the overwhelming majority of the Russian cavalry in the 18th and 19th century were dragoons, contrary to the 'cossacks everywhere' popular belief) (replaces Cavalry). Moves as Cavalry, but dismounts to fight, so Combat Bonuses against Mounted do not apply.
IL-2m3 Shturmovik (Arguably more iconic to the USSR than the P-51 was to the USA) (replaces Bomber) Range 8, Air Combat 70, Ground Attack 100 but only 60 versus Districts, Production - 40.

 

Nah, if Russia is going to have a WWII unique it has to be the T-34 tank which should get a defense bonus due it introducing sloped armor.

 

Actually, sloped frontal armor was already in use on the Christie light tank and the BT series tanks designed based on it, years before the T-34 or its immediate predecessor, the A-20, were designed and built.
If the T-34 were to be a Unique Unit for Russia, its historical characteristics were that it was easy to maintain and produced in massive quantities. The unique characteristics, then, could be lower Maintenance Cost and lower Production Cost: say, Maintenance Cost of 4, Production Cost of 400, instead of the regular Tank Unit's 6 and 480.

As a pure combat tank, the T-34 is very over-rated. It had serious deficiencies from the beginning in internal and external communications and command and control, and its firepower was only superior for about 1 year - the rest of its career it was outclassed by the opposing PzKpfw IV and PzKpfw V and as a tank-killer the T-34's late 85mm gun was actually inferior to the M4A3 Lend Lease Sherman's 76mm - in late 1944 the Soviet 1st Guards Mechanized Corps turned in its T-34-85 tanks and replaced them with Shermans, which is a pretty good indicator of what the Soviet military thought of the relative merits of the two tanks!

Now, a real Soviet Unique would be a National Wonder of Kharkov Tractor Works: Zavod 183, a Factory with a +50% Production Bonus when building Tanks or Modern Armor, with the other unique ability that it can be moved from one city to another...

 

Sure, why not?

They may have been monsters, but they are part of history. Such people influenced our way of thinking every bit as much as those we consider good and enlightened. Stories of the Holocaust and the Killing Fields have done much to shape our thinking today, as well as our laws. The heroes we worship are measured against the villains we despise and I see no reason to exclude such persons from a game purported to be an examination of human civilization. I would love to play against the truly ugly of history.

To me, civilization is about the good, the bad and the ugly (not to mention the horrific and insane).

 

- And besides, don't forget that not only is One Man's Freedom Fighter Another Man's Terrorist, but one nation's war hero may be that same nation's later war criminal.
Case in point, Curtis LeMay's B-29s firebombed virtually every Japanese city except Nagasaki and Hiroshima between March and July 1945, and may have incinerated over 500,000 civilians in those cities. Even more than the two atomic bombs, that probably shortened the war and made a costly (for both sides) invasion unnecessary. But, a fraction of the same level of civilian casualties today would have LeMay charged as a war criminal before the International Court.

Alexander the Great, for obvious reasons, is not celebrated as a magnanimous Leader by the Persians/Iranians
Timujin the Khan may have been and still is a hero to the Mongolian people, but he was an object of terror to the rest of Asia.
William Tecumseh Sherman has no statues in his honor anywhere in Georgia or the Carolinas...

All of these shared three characteristics: they were heroes to their own sides, they won their wars, and their actions would be considered criminal today.

Sic Transit Gloria...

 

Don't forget that Civ VI has Qin Shi Huang, who burned books and buried scholars.