The inevitable leaders thread

[Dragonflow]

A thing I would really laugh about would be if they put in Putin, Yeltsin or any other modern Russian leader. Also putting in Nicholas II would be very funny, but that would be a very bad marketing move.

 

[LightSpectra]

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the general public sees him as a leader of Russia - Russia and the USSR are seen as synonymous, probably because the USSR was Russia plus.

So video games premised upon re-writing history should encourage, rather than correct, common misconceptions?

 

[cybrxkhan]

^It's a video game. The designers do what they see as necessary. Some of their choices and decisions in the past have been quite laughable to those who knew history a bit more. Take Charlemagne as leader of the HRE in BtS, or the Vikings having horned helmets.

 

[Tusked]

So video games premised upon re-writing history should encourage, rather than correct, common misconceptions?

It's barely a misconception. Where was the power in the USSR? Russia. Not in Ukraine, not in Georgia, not in any of the myriad Stans, but Russia. Your position is like railing against Victoria being an English leader because in her time period England controlled large swathes of overseas territory - sure, the USSR wasn't nominally "Russia" but so what? It's less a misconception than nitpicking - who cares what they call themselves, it's still a sackfull of Russia.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sorry, you're wrong. The U.S.S.R. was not a neo-Russian Empire. They saw themselves as a union between several different republics, even though Russia was the most influential of these. Suggesting that it's a nitpick to differentiate between Russia and the U.S.S.R. is like saying it's a nitpick to differentiate between California and the United States.

 

[Tusked]

Sorry, you're wrong. The U.S.S.R. was not a neo-Russian Empire. They saw themselves as a union between several different republics, even though Russia was the most influential of these. Suggesting that it's a nitpick to differentiate between Russia and the U.S.S.R. is like saying it's a nitpick to differentiate between California and the United States.

If the US had a revolution right now and afterwards joined in a union with Mexico and Central America that they called the Capitalist Alliance where the official language was still English and the capital was still Washington DC, you'd keep referring to it as the US, because the differences are barely noticeable. Russia was larger than all the other territories in the USSR combined, both population-wise and area-wise. Yes, if California took up five-sixths of the US and the only other states were Rhode Island and Wyoming copied fifteen times over, I'd say it'd be fair to refer to the US as California. It's like the nineteenth century German Empire being called the Prussian Empire: sure, there were some other states in there, but who cares compared to Prussia? The USSR was an extension of Russian Imperialism through backdoor diplomacy - even Georgia, where Stalin comes from, was ALREADY under Russian control when the revolution happened! Names are great, but they don'y change anything. Try to tell the residents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that they're living in a democratic republic.

 

[Atrebates]

Sorry, you're wrong. The U.S.S.R. was not a neo-Russian Empire. They saw themselves as a union between several different republics, even though Russia was the most influential of these.

I think that is a very bold claim for a questionable statement. The USSR's military might was Russian, when those "equal" states tried to leave (Hungarian uprising '56, Romanian leadership issues etc...) they got stamped on by orders from the Kremlin. All chairmen of the Communist party were russian and USSR territory was land annexed by Russia after WW2. I cannot conceive of a single reason to call USSR a partnership rather than a domination by Russia.


Back to leaders. I am not too bothered, I would *like* to see genuinely good/interesting leaders in rather than popular ones (Henry VII for England fr'instance) but readily bow to economic pressures of Fireaxis putting in the popular leaders and using the stalwarts of the series...

I spent far too much time debating such things pre-CivIV to mind now .

 

[LightSpectra]

If the US had a revolution right now and afterwards joined in a union with Mexico and Central America that they called the Capitalist Alliance where the official language was still English and the capital was still Washington DC, you'd keep referring to it as the US, because the differences are barely noticeable.

My mistake, I wasn't aware you were joking.

Still, to the other people disputing my claims: Stalin was not a Russian, not did he ever rule or lead "Russia" in any official capacity but as chairman of the Soviet Union.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

You can't create a seperate Civ for the USSR; likewise, many historical leaders in Civ didn't actually lead certain Civs due to name differences, for example:

1. Frederick II of Prussia
2. Kublai Khan, in a Mongol Dynasty yes, but in China.
3. Asoka didn't rule India; he ruled the Mauryan Empire.
4. Saladin was an Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt and Syria, he didn't rule an Arabian Empire.
5. Hannibal was a military general.
6. Obviously, Sitting Bull never ruled Native America, but Native America should never, EVER return to Civ, being the most blatant attempt at a placeholder civ ever...
7. Willem of Oranje didn't rule the Netherlands, the Netherlands not gaining formal independence until 1648.

 

[CossackProblem]

My mistake, I wasn't aware you were joking.

Still, to the other people disputing my claims: Stalin was not a Russian, not did he ever rule or lead "Russia" in any official capacity but as chairman of the Soviet Union.

Semantics, really.

I do think Peter and Catherine should come before Stalin, though.

 

[MrBanana]

If Stalin didn't lead Russia at the time, who did?

 

[Tusked]

My mistake, I wasn't aware you were joking.

Still, to the other people disputing my claims: Stalin was not a Russian, not did he ever rule or lead "Russia" in any official capacity but as chairman of the Soviet Union.

He wasn't Russian: so? The history of european leaders for the last thousand years is a bizarre intermashing of leader-trading: Elizabeth II, for example, is the direct product of Victoria marrying a german: Edward VII's house was officially the "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha." Does this make him, or indeed Elizabeth, any less English? Russia was FOUNDED when a bunch of Kievan princes sent away to Scandinavia. A dude called Rurik came, and you got the house of Rurik, longest lasting in Russia's history, based on a SCANDINAVIAN. It doesn't matter WHERE he's from, the fact is that the USSR was the product of Bolshevik-led latter-day Russian imperialism and thus he was the leader of RUSSIA!

edit: Just spoke with a noted Eastern European historian on the subject (that's less douchy than it sounds, she's my mother) and she agrees.

edit again: Also, Cathy was German. Just saying.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well then, it's settled. They're going to have to use Alexander II/III as the leader of Russia.

 

[Skyre Noktis]

Your position is like railing against Victoria being an English leader because in her time period England controlled large swathes of overseas territory

This is why you'd rail against her being an English leader, not because she was queen of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well (the UK and England is very similar situation to the USSR and Russia, TBH), or the fact that she was a figurehead and had no real power?

 

[Koning]

lets see ... of our knowledge as of yet from screencaps and publised pictures we have

Washington
Bismarck
Stalin
Elizabeth
Napoleon

Happy with Washington, Bismarck and Napoleon (luckily no Jeanne d'Arc or so). Would rather see Peter the Great for Russia and Victoria for England though.
England was at the apex of its power during the Victorian Age, and Russia during/after Stalin's rule. Big difference between in post-mortem appreciation however

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I thought we only know about Washingotn and Bismarck for sure. Where are pictures of Lizzi, Napoleon and uncle Joe ?

 

[Dragonflow]

Well, we don't have any pictures of them but a danish magazine says that they are the leaders for their civs.
Also, about the USSR being a Russian Empire. I wouldn't call it that, I would rather call it a Slavic or Easter-Slav Empire. Many don't know that both the Belarus and Ukraine had a very powerful economy and were very important Republics. There were also many Ukrainians and Belarusians fighting in the Red Army during WWII. The USSRs power was in the Russian,Belarusian and Ukrainian Republics. The other Republics like Georgia,Turkmenistan,Armenia and so on weren't that important.

 

[Tavenier]

Holland was ruled by Willem van Oranje. Independence was already gained. Only not recognized by Spain. A bit like Taiwan and China these days, I guess.

Willem was stadhouder of Holland. Stadhouder translates something like steadholder. He holds power in stead of the king.

On topic:
I do hope most (or all) civs get at least two leaders. Especially important civs like England, Spain, France or China.
Also I hope that they will get leaders from different era's. For example: France was a very important medieval power and around 1800 they were the dominant power. Not only military, but also technologically, philosophically and socially. So both era's should be represented, in my opinion. Same goes for England (19th century and WW1+2), India (ancient times and modern age), Arabia (Middle Ages and modern age), etc.

 

[Tee Kay]

Carthage: Not Hannibal. Not a general. A guy who ruled Carthage.

Hannibal did rule Carthage. After the War he was elected to the position of governor and did such a good job the Romans forced him into exile.

 

[climat]

Alexander as a Greek leader will be a problem, then.
Firaxis will make Alexander a Greek leader and make Stalin a Russian leader if they're in, anyway.