The AH Debate

[magicalsushi]

WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GOOD OR BAD IN THE END, THERE ARE ALREADY WORSE LEADERS AND HE IS DEFINITLY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ANY OF THE MESO-AMERICAN LEADERS, SHAKA, MANSA-MUSA, ISABEL I, BRENNUS (his existance is based on myth)... IT IS A JOKE TO NOT HAVE HIM IN THIS GAME.

Love the all-caps.

I think this post highlights the best gameplay reason for *not* having Hitler in the game: all of those countries have only one leader (as of Warlords, at least), and it'd be a struggle to find additional leaders who offer a genuinely different flavour for most of those countries. Mansa Musa, for example, represents Mali at its peak; there's no obvious choice for a second Malinese leader. On the other hand, Germany already has Frederick and Bismarck, and between them they do a great job of representing Germany at its best. There's no need for a third leader, whereas Firaxis did need to provide at least one leader for the civs mentioned by Menzies. That said, I don't think Hitler was a better leader than any of them in any case. Even with Montezuma, it sounds like he was doing a good job until the Spanish turned up, and he can't really be blamed for that.

[An attempt to pre-empt comments along the lines of "but there are going to be extra leaders for some of those civs in BtS: yep, but I'm not convinced they're needed, except perhaps for Spain. We really don't need a new Celtic leader (she won't even be very different from Brennus!), but Boudica is so popular in modern culture (in the UK, at least) that there's probably a lot of demand to have her as a leader, whether she deserves it or not. In fairness to her (vs Brennus), we do seem to have more definite information about her identity and achievements.]

 

[ParkCungHee]

Love the all-caps.

I think this post highlights the best gameplay reason for *not* having Hitler in the game: all of those countries have only one leader (as of Warlords, at least), and it'd be a struggle to additional leaders who offer a genuinely different flavour for most of those countries. Mansa Musa, for example, represents Mali at its peak; there's no obvious choice for a second Malinese leader. On the other hand, Germany already has Frederick and Bismarck, and between them they do a great job of representing Germany at its best. There's no need for a third leader, whereas Firaxis did need to provide at least one leader for the civs mentioned by Menzies. That said, I don't think Hitler was a better leader than any of them in any case. Even with Montezuma, it sounds like he was doing a good job until the Spanish turned up, and he can't really be blamed for that.

Thats a different Montezuma. Montezuma II was the one who met the Spaniards, Montezuma I is in the game. That said, theres other Germans I'd rather see in the Game before Hitler.

[An attempt to pre-empt comments along the lines of "but there are going to be extra leaders for some of those civs in BtS: yep, but I'm not convinced they're needed, except perhaps for Spain. We really don't need a new Celtic leader (she won't even be very different from Brennus!), but Boudica is so popular in modern culture (in the UK, at least) that there's probably a lot of demand to have her as a leader, whether she deserves it or not. In fairness to her (vs Brennus), we do seem to have more definite information about her identity and achievements.]

I would have liked to have seen Mick Collins as the new Celtic leader instead, that would have been a nice contrast.

 

[rabidveggie]

I'm pretty sure they use Montezuma II. I thought it was the first also but when I read the civapedia entry it spoke of the seconds and the end of the aztecs.

 

[Kao'chai]

Didn't you how many people he killed ?
He invaded Poland and triggered the second world war !
He made his own country diveded into two and left Germany into ruins!
And he will become Germany's great leader ?!!

Germany's leader = no
Germany's leader for world war two scenario = yes

 

[kristopherb]

im surpised that this is not banned

 

[Englor]

Keep in mind that the division of Germany was not caused by Hitler - it was caused by the victors of World War II splitting Germany into East and West Germany. This had nothing to directly do with Hitler, as it was a decision made by the victors of World War II. West Germany (also known as the Federal Republic of Germany), under democratic rule, was actually fairly successful in economic and other terms. In fact, West Germany had the fourth largest economy in the world (partly due to United States efforts), quite contrary to you stating that the economy was "in ruins". Though prior and during and Hitler also greatly improved the infrastructure of all of Germany, and the unemployment rate was drastically reduced (mostly due to the war effort). East Germany (also known as the The German Democratic Republic), on the other hand, was very unwealthy compared to West Germany. Stalin stole many machines within industrial factories to be sent to Russia, as he felt Germany needed to make up for Russia's loses in the war effort. This alone drastically harmed the East German economy, which led to people from East Germany fleeing to West Germany. This, of course, only further harmed the economy, which led to the building of the infamous Berlin Wall. So you claim that Germany was in ruin because of Hitler, while Stalin was a much more decent leader, and yet, the only part of Germany that was actually in ruin was the part that Stalin controlled. So I'd have to agree with the exact opposite of what you stated.

I don't want to draw you off course to much, though their may be more there than seems to meet the eye.
Clever tactical political manuevering by other paties of the Free-alliance played a large role in the aftermath division of germany.

Russia was stuck with the crap, becuase, A it was in russia's direction, and B it all stalin could do to claim anything, while russia was i much worse shape, (overall comparison) than many of the other parties, especially America. It was all just ongoing math detailing the greater flowstream between possessive and promotional Governing qualities in society.
Yikes, that's all I've really got to say about that for now.

 

[Wade.]

Leaders all die any way! No one has lived for thousands of years!

The "leader traits" should become "civilization traits". A random generic leader, male or female, wearing culturally adequate attire for the era and civilization can be used and replaced every fifty years of game time. A portrait, on a wall or desk or such, of these leaders we currently have in the game can be in the background for each respective civilization generic leader.

The length of time of each generic leaders reign can alter too. I chose fifty years because we currently can reach age 100 more or less. Of course at some time points and places maximum age was much less. Leaders will generally be pampered though and then retire in various ways. So 50 years of reign sounds good before the next generic leader takes charge.

Also, certain types of government can have the generic leaders changing more frequently. This could all be for...looks and not affect gameplay or...EACH NEW GENERIC LEADER could could have new traits that we must get to know and contend with while adapting to our own new leaders' traits too! A whole new aspect of strategy that would be close to real life...(assuming that we are a sort of ascended being shaping and guiding a civilization while playing the game.) The "civilization traits" would always remain the same while "leader traits" would change with each consecutive leader.

Do you have any opinions, constructive critisism or support?

Is this better in another thread? I just started with "Leaders all die any way! No one has lived for thousands of years!" and ideas kept comming.

-Wade

 

[Englor]

Is this better in another thread? I just started with "Leaders all die any way! No one has lived for thousands of years!" and ideas kept comming.
-Wade

That's how it happens best dude, and don't ever let it die out, like those silly imposters quite naturally do.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Leaders all die any way! No one has lived for thousands of years!

The "leader traits" should become "civilization traits". A random generic leader, male or female, wearing culturally adequate attire for the era and civilization can be used and replaced every fifty years of game time. A portrait, on a wall or desk or such, of these leaders we currently have in the game can be in the background for each respective civilization generic leader.

The length of time of each generic leaders reign can alter too.I chose fifty years becuase we currently can reach age 100 more or less. Of course at some time points and places maximum age was much less. Leaders will generally be pampered though and then retire in various ways. So 50 years of reign sounds good before the next generic leader takes charge.

Also, certain types of government can have the generic leaders changing more frequently. This could all be for...looks and not affect gameplay or...EACH NEW GENERIC LEADER could could have new traits that we must get to know and contend with while adapting to our own new leaders' traits too! A whole new aspect of strategy that would be close to real life...(assuming that we are a sort of ascended being shaping and guiding a civilization while playing the game.) The "civilization traits" would always remain the same while "leader traits" would change with each consecutive leader.

Do you have any opinions, constructive critisism or support?

Is this better in another thread? I just started with "Leaders all die any way! No one has lived for thousands of years!" and ideas kept comming.

-Wade

It's a nice idea, but at the beginnning phase of the game, it would take half a dozen leaders just to build a barracks, as time relatively flies by....at the end of the game it would work, but the early game would mainly consist of a great no of leaders rapidly coming to power, acheiving a tiny bit of something and then dying. It would just turn into a huge list of meaningless names.

I would love to see a proper royal lineage coming into play, once (and if) a civ adopts monarch, with events recorded as in "The Great Library of King Fred II" etc.........maybe something for Civ V?

 

[Wade.]

...but the early game would mainly consist of a great no of leaders rapidly coming to power, acheiving a tiny bit of something and then dying.

That's how history is played out with the lifespans of people. A barracks completed after several different leaders represents a long time of military organization and infrastructure growth.

 

[Menzies]

Okay, screw the game up in a mod. Don't even concider changing something great about this game. Look, people enjoy the leaders. Joe Generic of the American Empire, what?!? Who cares if the leader survives longer. YOU ARE THE LEADER!!! I'd be fine with this if it was like that revolution mod I had a look at a while back, that makes some sense. You getting overthrown and a new leader comes in, but, just new leaders...

Another generic rant with countless references to the incompetant labor opposition in australia mentioned for particularly good reason later.

Not worth talking about in the Hitler thing!

 

[rabidveggie]

When I deal with a leader I want it to be a memorable face and can thus initially create my bias on that leader if I had been killed by them in the past. I don't want some randomly generated leader named Joe who only accomplished the building of a warrior in their life time.

 

[Macha]

im surpised that this is not banned

it is banned, just the mods forn this forum aren't online seemingly (btw i only saw page 1,2 and last one)

 

[Menzies]

Quick sum up, Hitler should be in the game. All not of that opinion either have no clue about History modern or Ancient, or are just idiots.

Hitler was corrupt by power, but he was no an overly bad leader in terms of how his country went.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Quick sum up, Hitler should be in the game. All not of that opinion either have no clue about History modern or Ancient, or are just idiots.

Quick sum up, trolling is against the rules.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

The fact that this debate can rage like this, alone, is enough cause to exclude Hitler. Disagree with their reasons all you like, but a LOT of people would be real upset to see Hitler included in Civ. Otherwise, the Hitler debate wouldn't be so infamous here on CFC. Sid Meier's very cautious about excluding from his games figures that would cause such infantile bickering. (some would use the word "spineless". They all probably ride a bus with 16 seats to school.)

 

[Saim]

Just like if Taiwan and China where major markets for Civ IV, we wouldn't see Mao. It would have been a good thing during Civ 3 though (Mao the only leader? Qin Shi Huang was WAY more important).

 

[Psyringe]

Hitler was corrupt by power, but he was no an overly bad leader in terms of how his country went.

Erm, he took over a country that was already recovering from a depression, and managed to totally bankrupt it within a couple of years (the German economy would have crashed spectacularly if he hadn't gone to war). He also ruined the world-wide reputation of his country for decades, left it divided and under the influence of two superpowers for two generations, started and lost a war in which he made bad decisions that turned out to be crucial, killed off millions of his people, and sat in his bunker watching UfA movies while the people who had believed in him died in droves.

If this makes him into a "not overly bad leader", I'm curious what your standards are.

 

[rabidveggie]

A leader does not necessarily have to be good to be in the game. Stalin was basically the same as Hitler and he got in due to his infamy. Maybe we should just stay clear of leaders that committed genocide and that way we can stay politically correct.

 

[Pres. Slayback]

Both sides are correct here.
But the side that says that Stalin, Mao and all the others are in so why shouldn't Hitler is missing something

Sure, Stalin, Mao, Frederick, Washington, and the whole lot did horrific things in their time but their great works are better known than their horrible ones, Hitler on the other one is the exact opposite, it would be bad for PO.