Should Firaxis Bring Back Stalin

[Henri Christophe]

Mao as a leader could not be depicted in China, unless his ability is he automatically wins when he's in the game.
You can thank the CCP for that.

But Mao isn't the Chinese leader in civ 1? If they can before why they can't now?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

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.

Saying Stalin is better than Hitler because he comitted less atrocities, not none at all, is just... no. In fact, let's not do this with any dictators anywhere, please.

Also, the Katyn Massacre, Stalin's Purges, Siberian Camps, and so forth are evidence that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, he just wasn't part of the Axis or as virulently racist.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Saying Stalin is better than Hitler because he comitted less atrocities, not none at all, is just... no. In fact, let's not do this with any dictators anywhere, please.

Also, the Katyn Massacre, Stalin's Purges, Siberian Camps, and so forth are evidence that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, he just wasn't part of the Axis or as virulently racist.

One historian quite accurately pointed out, though, that only having Nazi Germany in the war prevented Stalin's Soviet Russia from being the most virulently anti-Semitic State in the war. The major difference between the two being that the Soviet Union did not single out any specific group but oppressed/suppressed/murdered Everybody at one time or the other.

- Oh, and contrary to current Putinic assertions, in all the official reports by the Red Army (of which I have personally read and translated over 2000 pages in the past 5 years), Ukrainians were reported as a separate racial/national group from Russians - or Belorussians, for that matter.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

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.

So actually what's the point of Napoleon's bid to Rule Europe? did he simply try to fulfill revolutionalry dream or to 'bury' Bourbons for good?
In the end he failed, and so did his nephew whom his allies lost their respective civil wars. (The Confederacy, Mexican Monarchy, and Tokugawa Shogunate were all finished off) and within a couple of years so did his own regime
abit off topic. Is this a correct representations of French Fusilier of the Grand Armee? Finally i've just finished making Fusiliers model via existing Imperial Guard 3D assets. yet it took me several months. if not years for me to figure out how to achieve this.

 

[HEYZOMBO]

No, we can do without dictators of recent times. If people really want to play Stalin, mod him. It would be more interesting to see someone new and farther back like Rurik or something.

 

[Evie]

I'm rather of the stance that we can and *should* compare evil, but at the end of the day, if "He was not as bad as Hitler" is the best you can say about someone, then you're effectively saying they're a very strong contender for second worst human ever. Not much of a compliment there, nor a selling point.

If we really were to want communist leaders in the game, and especially a Soviet Russian leader, here is a list of all the ones that would be better choices than Stalin: all of them.

 

[HEYZOMBO]

I'm rather of the stance that we can and *should* compare evil, but at the end of the day, if "He was not as bad as Hitler" is the best you can say about someone, then you're effectively saying they're a very strong contender for second worst human ever. Not much of a compliment there, nor a selling point.

If we really were to want communist leaders in the game, and especially a Soviet Russian leader, here is a list of all the ones that would be better choices than Stalin: all of them.

I somewhat want Gorbachev, I feel he would translate well with his iconic look.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

all of them.

I contest your assertion with the example of one exception: Pol Pot.

Jokes aside, I agree, literally any other Communist Leader is better than Stalin.

 

[Zaarin]

I somewhat want Gorbachev, I feel he would translate well with his iconic look.

He literally died three months ago.

 

[Evie]

In mean I did narrow it down to Soviet leaders for a reason XD. That reason is Pol Pot. (Okay, Mao to a degree and the Kim also came to mind)

 

[Henri Christophe]

If we really were to want communist leaders in the game, and especially a Soviet Russian leader, here is a list of all the ones that would be better choices than Stalin: all of them.

You are right, maybe other communist leader should be better, maybe Lênin can be a good choice.

I somewhat want Gorbachev, I feel he would translate well with his iconic look.

I don't think Gorbachev is a good option because the sovietic union fall in his reign, it is a bit decadent leader to lead a Sovietic Union civ.

Other option can be Brezhnev, he leads the Sovietic Union in it's high of power.

 

[HEYZOMBO]

He literally died three months ago.

Fair point, I can't believe I forgot and that's on me. My bad.

 

[Evie]

The Soviet Union was already in decay before Gorbachev. He didn't cause it, but it cna be argued he managed to keep it from neing much worse.

But yes, someone who died this year is not a very good choice (and yet better than Stalin).

 

[HEYZOMBO]

You are right, maybe other communist leader should be better, maybe Lênin can be a good choice.

I don't think Gorbachev is a good option because the sovietic union fall in his reign, it is a bit decadent leader to lead a Sovietic Union civ.

Other option can be Brezhnev, he leads the Sovietic Union in it's high of power.

True but I was mostly thinking appearance. Still, I would rather look pre SU.

 

[Aurelesk]

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.

If Napoleon could make the Sun to explode, then there would be no more wars in the whole Solar system for, at least, the next 200 years.

Napoleon, or mostly his time period, is pretty huge in both good and bad. It is basically the spread of Enlightenment ideas and nationalism, during a time-shift where power shift from Monarchy to a more Parliamentary type of regime. I don't know what to decide:

• Napoleon's period is a major key-point in history that deserve to be represented in the game.
• Having Napoleon as a leader of France mean that France is stuck as a warmonger representation, which is quite frustrating as France have a rich history. Plus, having Napoleon every time is very dull.

Even if it is a very bland or controversial point of view of mine, I believe a Leader should represent a major point of the Civilization. Or at least one leader if the Civilization has numerous. The Soviet period and the rise of Communism in Russia is a major key point in Russian history. It basically made Russia catch-up from being a backward medieval society into an somewhat industrial superpower in less than a half century at huge cost, the downside outweighs the ends way too much, but it did lead Russia to be a superpower.

So Soviet period is worth being represented. The problem is that Soviet period is fairly recent. There is a saying in France like "mort au kilometer" (roughly: dead by the mile, does it exist in English?) which basically mean that the further away in space a tragedy is, the less likely we would care. And we only care if the tragedy is massive.
Here, it is more a dead by the year kind of scenario. That is why Genghis Khan or Napoleon are fine, but not Stalin: it is not far away in time enough. But which leader Russia can have to represent his Soviet period? Lenin? Khrushchev? Stalin is the embodiment of Soviet era, so anyone else would feel as a B-team leader. So I guess Soviet period is too recent from being represented.

Meanwhile, Germany during WWII isn't a major key point. Sure it was successful until it wasn't, and did more bad than good. Which mean that the legacy of it is mostly negative, and didn't shape either Europe or Germany of today. By shaping, I mean following the same path. Taking the opposing path to distance yourself from that legacy could mean it was a key point, but a key-point in no-representation.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If Napoleon could make the Sun to explode, then there would be no more wars in the whole Solar system for, at least, the next 200 years.

Napoleon, or mostly his time period, is pretty huge in both good and bad. It is basically the spread of Enlightenment ideas and nationalism, during a time-shift where power shift from Monarchy to a more Parliamentary type of regime. I don't know what to decide:

• Napoleon's period is a major key-point in history that deserve to be represented in the game.
• Having Napoleon as a leader of France mean that France is stuck as a warmonger representation, which is quite frustrating as France have a rich history. Plus, having Napoleon every time is very dull.

Even if it is a very bland or controversial point of view of mine, I believe a Leader should represent a major point of the Civilization. Or at least one leader if the Civilization has numerous. The Soviet period and the rise of Communism in Russia is a major key point in Russian history. It basically made Russia catch-up from being a backward medieval society into an somewhat industrial superpower in less than a half century at huge cost, the downside outweighs the ends way too much, but it did lead Russia to be a superpower.

So Soviet period is worth being represented. The problem is that Soviet period is fairly recent. There is a saying in France like "mort au kilometer" (roughly: dead by the mile, does it exist in English?) which basically mean that the further away in space a tragedy is, the less likely we would care. And we only care if the tragedy is massive.
Here, it is more a dead by the year kind of scenario. That is why Genghis Khan or Napoleon are fine, but not Stalin: it is not far away in time enough. But which leader Russia can have to represent his Soviet period? Lenin? Khrushchev? Stalin is the embodiment of Soviet era, so anyone else would feel as a B-team leader. So I guess Soviet period is too recent from being represented.

Meanwhile, Germany during WWII isn't a major key point. Sure it was successful until it wasn't, and did more bad than good. Which mean that the legacy of it is mostly negative, and didn't shape either Europe or Germany of today. By shaping, I mean following the same path. Taking the opposing path to distance yourself from that legacy could mean it was a key point, but a key-point in no-representation.

Napoleon is almost always represented as the quintessential military leader, but the game could go 'counter-intuitive' with him in several directions based on his Non-Military accomplishments:
He reformed the entire Legal Code of France, so thoroughly that the Code Napoleon is still the basis for the French legal system over 200 years later.
He reorganized France geographically: the modern sub-divisions of France are Napoleonic, not earlier.
He finished off the Holy Roman Empire, and set the basis for the Italian state (fun fact: Napoleon's favorite color was a medium green, so the Italian flag he designed was a French tricolor with green in place of the blue)
He was notoriously oblivious to the importance of technological innovation, showing no interest at all in such new inventions as the submarine, hot-air balloons, steam engines or canned goods.

So, you could have a Napoleon who does special things with other Civs or City States that he conquers or suzereigns, can make fundamental changes to the Civics of his own state for (nearly?) free, but has a malus towards Science. No military chops required, except possibly a UU, and arguably Napoleon's most important military innovation was the Corps d'Armee, the army-sized combined arms force that allowed his forces to move by Corps but concentrate to overwhelm any single enemy force they encountered.

As for representing the Soviet Russian State by a leader, one is faced with the fact that all of them were either ephemeral (can anybody name all the nobodies that 'ran' the USSR between Brezhnev and Gorbachev?) or Monstrous, or so corrupt they practically crippled their own state (Brezhnev presided over a looting of the State that pails only in comparison to the free-for-all grabbing-with-both-hands pillaging that has taken place under Putin: modeling either of them with any accuracy at all would require a major malus to your economy and production be included as the Leader 'Bonus'!) so that one is left with Damn Few real candidates: Lenin and Khruschev would, in fact, be the only two I would seriously consider. The one founded the State in all of its aspects, including the crippled agriculture that became almost a Soviet Trademark, while the other presided over the recovery from WWII and Stalin and 'pushed' the Space Race and technological innovation that kept the Soviet Union in contention as a Superpower for the rest of its existence.
Seems to me the Civ VII Design Team should be able to do somethings with those attributes far better than trying to make a viable leader out a of genocidal paranoic or an autocratic Thief.

 

[Patine]

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.

Yugoslavia waited ten YEARS till after Tito died, but in most cases, yes...

 

[Patine]

sad David the Builder noises But yes, best not to let Russia have the Georgian spirit.

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.

To be fair, he led the USSR, which was a different nation (in a lot more ways, than it's given credit for) than Russia, or other modern nations that had belonged to it, like Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc. Saying it WAS Russia is not that accurate, any more than saying the UK IS England.

No. Also no to France's Stalin - Napoleon.

That comparison seems VERY unfair - in fact, grossly and atrociously so.

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.)

And don't forget Belarus, Estonia, and Finland having a goodly piece of their national genesis in the Kievan 'Rus, as well.

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.




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.

Yes: all humans have the right to be enslaved by the Party.

Ideal vs. practice. We must also remember, Adam Smith's, "invisible hand," of Free Market Capitalism was supposed to have negligible unemployment and poverty and theoretically unlimited opportunities for gainful employment and business endeavour. That's not how that turned out, either.

Mao as a leader could not be depicted in China, unless his ability is he automatically wins when he's in the game.
You can thank the CCP for that.

I don't think he'd have to automatically win. I believe that's an exaggeration. When the Mists of Pandaria expansion for World of Warcraft was being negotiated with the PRC to include, "Pandaren," a race of fantastic, anthropomorphic panda people with a vaguely Medieval Chinese-esque culture and mystical martial artists (largely because of the cultural theme, the protectiveness of the animal base, and the large number of WoW subscribers in China), it was believed by many they'd decline the permission, because Pandaren player and non-player characters would have to able to be killed, and suffer in-game negative, "conditions," inflicted, and the two main, "factions," where player characters arise from - the Alliance, with strong Western Medieval and Tolkien/Gygax infuence on its cultures and races, and the Horde, whose faction name, if nothing else, reeked of the Mongols, would be able to compromise Pandaren and Pandaria. Surprisingly, permission WAS given, and the expansion also released several months later, with surprisingly minimal edits, in China.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think he'd have to automatically win.

That was literally the PRC's objection to Mao in Civ4, though, leading to his replacement by Taizong in the Chinese release. Mao cannot be depicted as losing.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

That was literally the PRC's objection Mao in Civ4, though, leading to his replacement by Taizong in the Chinese release. Mao cannot be depicted as losing.

I remember reading about that nonsense.

Goes to show that dictators and dictatorships are very insecure individuals.