Should Firaxis Bring Back Stalin

Stalin in Civ

  • Yes I miss him.

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • No lol???

    Votes: 19 82.6%

  • Total voters
    23
  • This poll will close: .

GeneralZIft

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
73
Come on guys, tell me it wouldn't be fun?? He can take the place of like a modern day Shaka. Give him some Nuke bonus. Loads of people killed people and became leaders in Civ.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,354
Location
Texas
Tamar can stay as the only leader from Georgia. :p
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,651
Location
Babylon 5

Duke William of Normandy

King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
3,607
Location
Rouen, Normandy

Lord Lakely

Idea Fountain
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,004
Location
Belgium
He'll keep being an obvious option for modders, but not official content.

I mean, you can be certain they'll be extra careful with which leader they pick for Russia in Civ VII. If the chances for Stalin were extremely low before, they are non-existent now due to current events.
Depending on for how much longer The War will be waged, I'd reckon there's a decent chance we'll get a Rus' Civ, as opposed to a Russian one.

Kyivan Rus', that is.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,651
Location
Babylon 5
Depending on for how much longer The War will be waged, I'd reckon there's a decent chance we'll get a Rus' Civ, as opposed to a Russian one.

Kyivan Rus', that is.
As delighted as that would make me, it feels like wading into a political minefield, given that both Russia and Ukraine (reasonably and legitimately) claim descent from Rus'. If anything, I expect a more aggressive, villainous Russia led by Ivan IV--and while he's not my first choice, I'll welcome any break from Enlightenment or Soviet Russia. (Though I will be put out if our only representative of the Orthodox world until we get either Byzantium or Ethiopia is a slavering filicidal psychopath.)
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,640
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
The essence of Stalin's rule from beginning to end was genocidal paranoia. So, let's see how to model the actual "accomplishments" of the Stalinist State in the game:
1. At random removes a Great Person or Governor every turn, representing the purges that decapitated the Red Army starting in 1937, the Party in 1934, and the on-going disappearance of writers, artists, journalists, etc, etc throughout his regime.
2. All military units build 2 for each unit built, but all military units have -7 combat factor and in any combat that goes against a Russian unit there is a chance that the unit joins the enemy (over 1,000,000 Soviet soldiers fought for the Germans in WWII)
3. Any City State's forces activated by Russia get the same effects as above, and in addition the entire City State will drop any Russian suzerignity as soon as any Envoy from any other Civ is introduced to the City State
4. Every Russian city aside from the Capital has its Loyalty reduced by half at all times unless it has a Russian military ground unit garrisoned (These two points are due to the fact that EVERY Non-Russian culture, people or state 'allied' with the USSR under Stalin revolted at one time or the other, even those that had been part of Russia for many decades or centuries before the Revolution - as two examples, Lithuanian and Ukrainian partisans were still fighting the Red Army in the mid-1950s - it took longer to recover control of those countries than it took to defeat Nazi Germany!)

- And before you trot out the USSR's massive industrial and military mobilization in WWII and the pre-war 5-Year Plans of industrialization, I'd just note that IF the USSR had industrialized at the same rate that Tsarist Russia was industrializing from 1904 to 1914, then even allowing a moratorium for the Civil War from 1917 - 1927 she would have had a larger economy than Stalin produced by 1940, and the 5-Year Industrialization Plans were accomplished only with massive American help and at enormous cost in Russian/Soviet lives even aside from the Purges. Latest estimates are 20 - 30 million dead between 1927 and 1937, which comes close to matching the cost of the German invasion.

- And before you call out the USSR as a World Power after WWII, I would point out that the Soviet population did not recover from the Stalin years until over 30 years after he died - it was the 1980s before the population recovered to its pre-1930 level, and the population of native Russians has been falling steadily for the past 30 years or more.

The only 'Leader' who did a worse job was Hitler, who managed the dubious feat of destroying every single German State in less than 13 years.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,651
Location
Babylon 5
As I figured eons ago while in small school, if Napoleon would have unified Europe in his time, there would not have been the two world wars. ;) He was a visionaire.
That hypothesis is impossible to prove and completely ignores the existence of nationalism that was blossoming across Europe in Napoleon's lifetime.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,651
Location
Babylon 5
Well, several states, nationalisms, vs. one state, and nationalisms decaying. The equation is pretty clear.
Nations don't require nation-states to exist (see, for example, Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Tibetan nationalism, pre-1948 Zionism, etc.); the Napoleonic conquest would not have prevented the spread of nationalism. If anything, a successful Napoleonic conquest would have given way to a series of bloody revolutions (including in France, where bloody revolutions are never out of style). If it didn't happen during Napoleon's lifetime, it would have happened ten seconds after his heart stopped beating, as usually happens with the empires of charismatic megalomaniacs. Thinking that one century of bloodshed could prevent another century of bloodshed is wishful thinking with no historical evidence to back it up.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,640
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Well, several states, nationalisms, vs. one state, and nationalisms decaying. The equation is pretty clear.
First, for Napoleon to unify Europe would have required a World War, so at most his efforts might have eliminated one of the two 'World Wars'.
But second, Nationalism was already too firmly established for a Napoleonic hegemony to take root. Napoleon seized virtually all of Germany including Prussia and Austria by 1806, abolished the HRE, re-organized the 1500+ German states and city-states into larger state units, and still had to fight Austria again within 2 years and Prussia by 1813 - and the 1813 continuation war was referred to as the "War of Liberation" in Prussia, which is a Nationalistic slogan if ever there was one - even amongst the notoriously independent myriad tiny German states. The exclusive/Nationalist feelings were even more pronounced in more cohesive political entities like the Russian and British Empires.

Napoleon the conquerer was doomed. He boasted that he could use up 1,000,000 men a year. The problem was that he did use up that many just trying to keep a lid on eruptions of Nationalism from Portugal to Moscow, and so unfortunately for him, that meant that by 1814 France was out of men who were willing to join Napoleon's armies, and he fought his campaign that year with an army that never numbered more than about 60,000 men - less than half the size of the army he had at Borodino in 1812. The French regiments at Waterloo were about 1/2 their authorized strength, because none of the draftees called up actually showed up for the campaign. Napoleon didn't use up 1,000,000 Frenchmen a year, he used up France trying to conquer Europe.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,466
Nah!
Actually I want to see either
1. Ivan IV 'Groznui'
2. Alexander I (Tsar who successfully resisted Napoleon's ambitions)
and no... don't bring back Pete or Cathy please. only expansions
And on Cossacks. they better be Mercenaries OR Ukrainian UU if they're to be introduced. Russian Cavalry Corps in the Imperial Era were no less differen to everyone else in Europe, and actually Russians were Dragoon heavy. And these Dragoons were organized as Infantry and not Cavalry!!! yes they ride horses but as mode of transportations not fighting platform, and there are good reasons to do so, particularly because Russian Empire was already a big country, to defend every nook and corner of the empire you need mobile infantry in addition to oldschool cavalry to do so.
UU. either a kind of knight replacement in the middle ages OR Streltsy (a kind of Earlymodern musketeers)
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,860
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
I voted for YES.
I would like to see more comunist leaders, not just Stalin, but also Ho Chi Minh from Vietnã, Fidel Castro from Cuba, Mao Tsé Tung from China or Tito from Yugoslávia.
Maybe they can come all together in a same expansion pack of communism or something related.



By that logic, Hitler should be able to lead Germany. :shifty:
But Hitler cannot be a German leader never, it's incomparable what Stalin does and the Nazi german does... The Nazis want the vanish of the Jew people and communism is from the philosophy of all humans have rights, they even aid anti-colonial war in Africa and Asia.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,651
Location
Babylon 5
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,354
Location
Texas
Mao Tsé Tung from China
Mao as a leader could not be depicted in China, unless his ability is he automatically wins when he's in the game. :rolleyes:
You can thank the CCP for that. :p
 
Top Bottom