Should Firaxis Bring Back Stalin

Stalin in Civ

  • Yes I miss him.

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • No lol???

    Votes: 22 84.6%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,035
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.
First, such an absolute statement seems more like a ploy to get Firaxis to, "sweeten the pot," which they obviously didn't. And second, the computer game industry has hugely blossomed in China since Civ4's release (and WoW:MoP was after Civ4, I believe), so the situation can't be assumed to be the same now.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,192
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
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.

And directly or indirectly an influence over the legal systems of a few dozen other countries - those that directly adopted part or all of the Code Napoéon, those who derived their code from part or all of the Code Napoléon, those who were inspired to write their own code because their country was being influenced by the Code Napoléon, and those who in turn imported part or all of the code of those countries.

But Firaxis is terribad at creating lawgiver leader, even freaking Hammurabi got precisely no ability related to legal codes XD
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,553
That comparison seems VERY unfair - in fact, grossly and atrociously so.
This is not an unusual comparison, no? The Stalin analog in Animal Farm is literally called Napoleon.

Both were megalomaniac autocrats who hijacked and perverted the cause of their prior revolutions and whose goals of expansion and unification under their banner led to millions of deaths.

Napoleon was a more charismatic leader and general and seized power far, far less homicidally than Stalin.

Otoh Stalin was a lot more successful in achieving his goals (and helped defeat the Nazis). Napoleon failed pretty completely and left France smaller, poorer, and basically ended the dominance of the French empire.

Personally, I think Napoleon makes sense as a great general, where his main genius was. But neither he nor Stalin should lead their respective countries.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Personally, I think Napoleon makes sense as a great general, where his main genius was. But neither he nor Stalin should lead their respective countries.
I don't have any problem with Napoleon, even I think he is a best leader then Catherine Medice, who is very unknown...

But speaking about French leaders, it should be Luis XIV, the sun king.
And Luis XIV should be represented as in it's 14th birthday, when he used the following fantasy:


 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
But speaking about French leaders, it should be Luis XIV, the sun king.
Louis XIV would have been fun in Civ6, where "big personalities" was the byline, but Louis XIV has been in Civ before. Henri IV is way overdue for his appearance, as is Philippe Auguste for a more warlike France.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
And directly or indirectly an influence over the legal systems of a few dozen other countries - those that directly adopted part or all of the Code Napoéon, those who derived their code from part or all of the Code Napoléon, those who were inspired to write their own code because their country was being influenced by the Code Napoléon, and those who in turn imported part or all of the code of those countries.

But Firaxis is terribad at creating lawgiver leader, even freaking Hammurabi got precisely no ability related to legal codes XD
- And the state of Louisiana, which I've heard a lawyer describe as like working in a foreign country compared to anyplace else in the USA.
- And I know the chance of Firaxis including Legal or Law in anything is remote. But then, if I confined myself to only what I thought Firaxis might do, I'd be better off keeping silent . . .

. . . Napoleon failed pretty completely and left France smaller, poorer, and basically ended the dominance of the French empire.

Personally, I think Napoleon makes sense as a great general, where his main genius was. But neither he nor Stalin should lead their respective countries.

Not entirely. The French military was still the dominant model for a Modern Military for 50+ years after Waterloo, until von Moltke cut it down to size in 1870. Since the only French Empire was that of Napoleon (the Ancient Regime was a Monarchy, not an Empire), his defeat certainly ended it (until his nephew resurrected it), but French was still the language of diplomacy for the rest of the 19th century and Paris the center of art and culture for both sides of the Atlantic for at least a couple of generations after Buonaparte was gone. And as I noted, his civic achievements have lasted to the present day.

Just in passing, note that there is a Napoleonic Society of historians in the USA dedicated to studying the man's effects in all aspects of government, culture, civic and military affairs (Full disclosure: one of my old friends used to be the President of the Society). As far as I know, there is no such organization (outside of Russia) dedicated to studying Stalin.

Because Napoleon's military skills had such an outsized effect and influence, it's easy to think of him only as a self-promoted General masquerading as an Emperor, and I am NOT arguing that he was the best civil leader that France ever had, but there was far more to him than just his success in battle, so that he is a legitimate Leader for France, in addition to being a prime candidate for a Great General.

If I were being thoroughly contrary, I could argue that if Napoleon is 'only' a Great General, then Alexander of Macedon is far more so, because he had virtually no effect on Macedonian or Greek culture, civics or anything non-military except indirectly: he scattered elements of them all over the Middle East by his military conquests.

- But, let's be honest: Great Leaders are all too often in popular history Great Generals: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Trajan, Chinghis, Saladin, Napoleon - a complete list would include a large number of familiar names from History Channel and Civ games. The Civ franchise is firmly wedded to the Great Person theory of historiography with all the named characters and Leaders in the game, and that means various Great, Not-So-Great, and Self-Proclaimed Great Generals will keep parading through the games we play.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,035
This is not an unusual comparison, no? The Stalin analog in Animal Farm is literally called Napoleon.
George Orwell was a sensationalist in his politicized works, in case you hadn't noticed. Also, his views are - idiosyncratic, to say the least.

Both were megalomaniac autocrats who hijacked and perverted the cause of their prior revolutions and whose goals of expansion and unification under their banner led to millions of deaths.
In the case of Stalin, most of those deaths were civilians atrociously and unjustly massacred by atrocity. In the case of Napoleon, they were, in great majority, military deaths, with the majority inflicted by the First to Eight Coalitions and Iberian Alliance against French forces than vice versa, though the Grande Armee did take immense chunks of the lines, and probably killed more than any one opposing army, by far. But the HUGE difference is still there.

Otoh Stalin was a lot more successful in achieving his goals (and helped defeat the Nazis). Napoleon failed pretty completely and left France smaller, poorer, and basically ended the dominance of the French empire.
France was reduced to its pre-war borders, precisely, and it returned as a world power, and in not too long, after, and its biggest territorial extent just before Fall Gelb in June 1940, when it's Colonial Empire reached its zenith. I have no idea what you are talking about, here.

But neither he nor Stalin should lead their respective countries.
Thus, I stand that this comparison is semantic nonsense.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,035
As far as I know, there is no such organization (outside of Russia) dedicated to studying Stalin.
There's one in Georgia, too, that was founded by his very grandson, probably not surprising. Said grandson also founded one of the several splinters of the Georgian SSR affiliate of the CPSU that run (separately) in modern Georgian elections.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
There's one in Georgia, too, that was founded by his very grandson, probably not surprising. Said grandson also founded one of the several splinters of the Georgian SSR affiliate of the CPSU that run (separately) in modern Georgian elections.
You can tell a lot about a Georgian's politics by their opinion on Stalin's ethnicity. :shifty:
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
There's one in Georgia, too, that was founded by his very grandson, probably not surprising. Said grandson also founded one of the several splinters of the Georgian SSR affiliate of the CPSU that run (separately) in modern Georgian elections.
This is what comes of spending several hours each day researching in Soviet-era documents for a book - it's easy to forget that much of the old Soviet Union is now separate countries - like Georgia. Yep, they're all Stalinists there, but at least they have a Favorite Son excuse . . .
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Explain it better, please.
Georgians who readily admit that Stalin was Georgian often have communist and/or pro-Russian sympathies; many Georgians would rather insist that Stalin was an ethnic Russian because they don't want him associated with their country.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Explain it better, please.
"Joseph Stalin" was born in Georgia of Georgian parents: his baptismal name was Ioseb Desarionis dze Jughashvili, which is Georgian, not Russian. He later 'Russianized' it as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzughashvili and adopted the name Stalin ("Man of Steel") around 1912, when he was 34 years old.
As @Zaarin said, he is Georgian to those Georgians who still want Communism back, he is Russian to those Russians who still think the Great Patriotic War (1941 - 1945) under his leadership was Russia's Finest Hour. The 37,000 + Soviet officers murdered by his NKVD squads and the 11,000,000 + Soviet military dead in the Great Patriotic War, many as a result of his manifest incompetence as a military or military-civil leader might have different opinions.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,618
Location
Texas
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.
To add what @Zaarin said I remember reading an article about the 2010 Civilization board game in which the developers had to remove Mao to be able to sell the game in China. Thankfully my edition I bought was the 2nd one with Wu Zetian as the leader of China. :)
But Firaxis is terribad at creating lawgiver leader, even freaking Hammurabi got precisely no ability related to legal codes XD
Hopefully Suleiman the Magnificent will be close enough, if the leaks are right.
Louis XIV would have been fun in Civ6, where "big personalities" was the byline, but Louis XIV has been in Civ before. Henri IV is way overdue for his appearance, as is Philippe Auguste for a more warlike France.
I've come to peace with Magnificent Catherine being the closest thing I'll get to Louis XIV in Civ 6.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,582
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.
1. Did E.J. Sieyes has anything to do with 'Code Napoleon' ? (F'xis, as well as other American 'Historians' ignored him as a prepertator to 18 Brumaire Coup but emphasized that it is Napoleon's thinking all along.). And is it a solution to troublesome years of French Revolution which characterized by unstable governments and bloothbaths?
2. I don't understand why he favors more archaic wargear like Lances and Cuirass and disdain something as advanced as Baker Rifle? He even reintroduced several junior regiments of Cuirassiers to the point that he rebraded Carabiniers as Cuirassiers in addition to give them Bourbon White uniforms?
3. Holy Roman Empire has always been an obstacle towards the evolution of Nation-States. In latter years it became interchangeable with Austrian Empire. Whe Austria itself restored the Empire discarded all HRE traditions for good. What actually is a good thing comes out of the absence of HRE?
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
At the time neither the Cuirass nor the lance were "archaic" military options, and rifled firearms before the invention of the Munroe Effect bullet (the bullet with an air pocket in its base that expands the bullet as it is fired so it engages the rifling, in America called the Minie bullet) were all much slower firing than smoothbores. That meant that while rifles were handy for sniping at the enemy from a distance, smoothbore muskets could put out a higher volume of fire at short range. It is very much the same distinction later made between submachineguns and bolt-action rifles in World War Two: one is for the quick infantry assault, the other for ranged defensive fire. Since battles are won by attacking, the smoothbore musket was the preferred weapon and that's why Nobody in Europe carried rifles before 1815 except a few battalions of the British 95th Rifles and a few battalions of Jaegers scattered amongst the German states - less than 1% of all the infantry units.
The British boasted for the rest of the century that nobody ever broke a British Square, but French lancers broke three of them in a single battle in Spain, because it was raining so hard that the muskets wouldn't firre and the lances were longer than a musket with a bayonet - the lancers simply kept stabbing until they made a hole in the square and then overran it. The cuirass protected heavy cavalrymen against swords, lances, pistols and bayonets. It encouraged them to charge into contact, which was the primary way cavalry units decided an action. If they hadn't been worth the cost of making them and breeding the large horses required to carry a big armored man, nobody would have gone to the trouble, but France, Austria and Russia all did.

Once the HRE was gone, a true German nation-state could be formed. Th remaining question was who it would form around: Austria or Prussia, the two most powerful German states. This was the focus of Bismarck's attention and activity until 1866 when the Prussians beat Austria and decided the question pretty firmly.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,582
I don't have any problem with Napoleon, even I think he is a best leader then Catherine Medice, who is very unknown...

But speaking about French leaders, it should be Luis XIV, the sun king.
And Luis XIV should be represented as in it's 14th birthday, when he used the following fantasy:


His Court outfit is 'Malburian' sytle frock coat with tricorne. apparently he appeared to be the first leader to do so.
 

Horizons

Needing fed again!
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
1,446
Location
UK
I'd like to see a drunken, slurring Yeltsin falling on his backside and embarrassing himself and his civ for my amusement.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Back to the topic about communist leaders, maybe Russia and China should have leaders of it's imperial times, as Russia with Peter the Great and China with Qin Shi Huang. And be add other civs who don't have great names otherwise it's communist names as Cuba, with Fidel Castro and Yugoslávia with Tito.
Vietnã should be amazing with Ho Chi Minh, but I guess they have a lot of other names.
 

FishFishFish

Warlord
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
105
And be add other civs who don't have great names otherwise it's communist names as Cuba, with Fidel Castro and Yugoslávia with Tito.

Or just have an Indigenous Caribbean Civ and a South Slavic people instead. No need for Communists. :)

Frankly I don't want Civ's whose only viable leaders are from the 20th century in general.
 
Top Bottom