What leaders and/or nations do you want in Civilization VII?

[Patine]

Panzer VI (Tiger I) as Fascist unit, since it represent both the idea of a "Uber" weapon and man with propaganda figures like M. Wittmann (part of the Waffen-SS). And yes both Wittman and the Tiger fame are overrated products of the propaganda (at their time and present) but I think this portrait better the fascists delusions of superiority.

I still say the concept of a military wing of elite party troopers is far more ubiquitous and symbolic of Fascism as a phenomenon than ANY vehicle in a single armed forces EVER could be.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still say the concept of a military wing of elite party troopers is far more ubiquitous and symbolic of Fascism as a phenomenon than ANY vehicle in a single armed forces EVER could be.

Well, you do make a good point. Honestly, I think either one could possibly work. But I agree with you about not necessarily using a Stuka.

Another logical compromise is Fascism could just enhance production and stats of tanks in general, along with their own unique unit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think Fascism would more have something akin to Waffen-SS, MSVN, Hlinka's Guard, Japanese Imperial Guards' Brigade, etc. There is nothing at all inherently, "Fascist," about a dive bomber, and the U.S. Navy used some of their own in WW2, as well.

The dive bombing technique was invented by the air arm of the US Marine Corps, brought back to Nazi Germany by Ernst Udet. Dive Brakes and dive bombing techniques were used by several other German bombers besides the Ju-87 Stuka, and also by the US Navy, Soviet air force, and Japanese Imperial Navy, to name a few others.

It is strictly pop culture fallacy that associates any particular military efficiency with Fascism. Remember, 'fascism' is an Italian word and originally an Italian concept, and Hungary and Romania also had right-wing 'fascist' governments. Want to try to make a military efficiency argument out of the military histories of those three 'fascist' states in the mid-twentieth century?

Germany's operational and tactical military excellence in WWII was due to a 250 year old Prussian tradition of Bewegungskrieg - operational maneuver warfare - and a continued emphasis on having an army that could beat all its enemies on the battlefield before their superior resources could be brought to bear. Read Robert Citino's The German Way of War or The Path to Blitzkrieg for more complete and erudite exposition of this point in detail. Fascism had nothing to do with military excellence: if anything, it was an impediment to it, with its emphasis on romantic heroism and attempts to substitute that for realistic application of the operational art.

The Tiger tank (PzKpfw VI) is an excellent example of the gigantism that goes with that: it was the worst possible choice for a tank for Nazi Germany, which needed to fight rapid, aggressive campaigns on a skimpy resource base to end any war quickly before the combined economic might of Great Britain, the USA and the USSR smothered her. The Tiger was incredibly expensive in resources to build, slow, too heavy and large for regular rail transport (they had to take the tracks off to make it fit on specially-reinforced rail cars) and sucked down so much scarce fuel it was almost impossible to keep Tiger units supplied. And the tank was so fragile mechanically that at any given moment 1 out of 3 Tigers was under repair rather than in action. All of which meant that Germany managed to produce in 32 months as many Tiger tanks as either the USA or the USSR built medium tanks in a single month. And before you argue that the Tiger was a better combat vehicle than the medium tanks, remember that a combat vehicle is only effective if you can get it into combat: between lack of fuel, lack of mobility, lack of air and artillery and infantry support, many Tigers never got to the battlefield, and those that did could be knocked out 1:1 by Firefly Shermans, 76mm gun Shermans, M36 tank destroyers, T-34-85s, IS-IIs, ISU-122s, ISU-152s, and SU-100 vehicles on the other side - each of which was built in greater numbers than the Tigers.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Yep. Also, we must remember that the obsesion for "superweapons" did not stopped with Tiger I and Tiger II, the already in development Maus and the concept of the Ratte take us to "mad scientist" level of militar absurdity.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Yep. Also, we must remember that the obsesion for "superweapons" did not stopped with Tiger I and Tiger II, the already in development Maus and the concept of the Ratte take us to "mad scientist" level of militar absurdity.

the entire miliary is absurd. we should just have peace

 

[Evie]

And to harp on further about the superweapons, even the ones that were technologically promising and were the first combat deployment of eventual ubiquitous technologies, weren't being deployed because nazis had awesome scientific advancement and were so far ahead of the allies.

They were being deployed fast by the nazis because the nazis were desperate for a miracle weapon that would save their butt and throwing every untested prototype at the wall in the hope something would work.

 

[pineappledan]

This is going pretty far off-topic at this point. Could move this to the policy/ideology idea discussions

I'm not really sure why an ideological UU should have to embody the ideology rather than simply be an iconic design that was used by a country following that ideology. No, there's nothing particularly fascist about a Stuka, other than the fact that they were built and used by a country following fascism. Civilization UUs don't usually meet this bar of fully encompassing the character and institutions of their respective cultures either. They're just cool, interesting, or charismatic fighters from that culture's history.

 

[Patine]

My issue is not only realistically being iconic of the ideology to justify being a UU attached to that policy, but not being tied by imagery to only military of one country who practiced that ideology, and not even the first to do so, and a unit that was effectively invented by one of that nation and military's main adversaries.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My issue is not only realistically being iconic of the ideology to justify being a UU attached to that policy, but not being tied by imagery to only military of one country who practiced that ideology, and not even the first to do so, and a unit that was effectively invented by one of that nation and military's main adversaries.

- And this brings the detour back on the main road. Ideological (or religious, or any other cultural/civic elements) aspects should not be depicted with Uniques that in fact were related to the specific society rather than the ephemeral politics of that society in one period.

Relate Fascism, if that is going to be the title of Right Wing/Ultra-Conservative political movements in the game, with ideological units like the SS, the Italian Brown Shirts, the Hungarian 'Arrow Cross' or other specifically 'fascist' organizations, not with the consequences of a Prussian military tradition that predates fascism by centuries.
Communism, in turn, could be related to Commissars - military adjuncts that increased 'loyalty' and even fanaticism in combat units, sometimes at the cost of purely military efficiency, or to Worker's Brigades that allowed more efficient mobilization of civilian workforce to industrial/production tasks.
Not to a specific 'Communist' weapon that would, in fact, have been developed regardless of the ideology of the government of the country at the time.

 

[pineappledan]

Ideological (or religious, or any other cultural/civic elements) aspects should not be depicted with Uniques that in fact were related to the specific society rather than the ephemeral politics of that society in one period.

Huh… so you guys would prefer if policies and beliefs just stuck to X yield bonus on Y building kind of invisible boosts, and never tried to add any unique infrastructure or units that would require art assets like icons and models, and make a tangible impression on the map? Do you take issue with the worship building beliefs — mosques, cathedrals, etc. — added in civ6 which disjoint religious architecture onto the religion itself rather than the cultures?

 

[pokiehl]

Do you take issue with the worship building beliefs — mosques, cathedrals, etc. — added in civ6 which disjoint religious architecture onto the religion itself rather than the cultures?

Linking real religions with specific gameplay effects would be a recipe for disaster. It is absolutely for the best that religion is fully customizable without regards to "historical accuracy."

 

[pineappledan]

Even so, they could have just not had buildings as beliefs, and stuck to the bonuses that don’t have models.

 

[pokiehl]

Well that'd be boring. I like having the buildings.

 

[pineappledan]

I like having them too. I like the visual diversity it gives to the game. That’s also why I would want late game policy-unlocked units. I think it’s too late in the game to put civ-related uniques; many players would get eliminated before they got to use them. But if there are late game unique tied to policies then they could still add diversity for unit models and combat without having to sacrifice civ unique component slots.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Huh… so you guys would prefer if policies and beliefs just stuck to X yield bonus on Y building kind of invisible boosts, and never tried to add any unique infrastructure or units that would require art assets like icons and models, and make a tangible impression on the map? Do you take issue with the worship building beliefs — mosques, cathedrals, etc. — added in civ6 which disjoint religious architecture onto the religion itself rather than the cultures?

I would also prefer for each government/ideology to be more unique than they currently are in Civ 6.
Regarding late game ones I don’t know of every one of them needs their own UU. I would provably give it to fascism sense that would likely be the default domination one.
I’ll come up with more ideas on the other thread.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Huh… so you guys would prefer if policies and beliefs just stuck to X yield bonus on Y building kind of invisible boosts, and never tried to add any unique infrastructure or units that would require art assets like icons and models, and make a tangible impression on the map? Do you take issue with the worship building beliefs — mosques, cathedrals, etc. — added in civ6 which disjoint religious architecture onto the religion itself rather than the cultures?

Let me shake the straw out of my hair so nobody except you turns my comments into a Straw Man argument for something I never mentioned.

Civ is a computer game, no matter how much they try to stuff it into a board game mold. Computer games are graphic representations of their subjects, so OF COURSE every chance the game has to put a graphic representation of something out there, it should.

BUT tanks and aircraft do not have ideologies. Let's just make sure when selecting an 'iconic' ideologically - or religious - based Unique we don't do it the lazy way and perpetuate unrelated stereotypes as Uniques. The game should be better than that. More importantly, they have the resources to do it all better than that.

So, IF the T-34 is going to be a Unique Unit, it is a Russian or Soviet Union Unique, not a generic Communist Unique. Nor is Fascism indelibly linked to Stukas, except German Fascism based on the Prussian Bewegungskrieg military tradition.
The ideology can, however, be linked to some kind of militant Political Military force, like the SS or SA or Italian Brownshirts - just don't try to use any historically-accurate symbolism like the swastika or you make it impossible to legally sell in parts of the world and highly controversial almost everywhere.

Twentieth century Fascism and Communism both had a hankering for Monumental Government architecture that ignored the human scale and element, so you could have Unique city graphics for the capital of an ideologically-oriented Civ.

Another thing that is also very, very present in the modern Ideologies is their constant and ubiquitous display of symbols: the Nazi or (Italian) Fascist, Soviet Communist or even Democratic party/national symbols are everywhere in those states. Again, don't use real ones unless you want to get into serious trouble, but make up a suitably innocuous geometry/color combination and when you adopt the ideology it suddenly sprouts on your flags, buildings, ships, units, etc. Since many modern Ideologies are substitutes for religion, they could sprout on the iconic Religious Unique you were using, which might also sprout discontent/disloyalty among your population . . .

Religions and their 'iconic' structures, to my way of thinking, are not as tightly linked. Virtually all religions needed a place to worship in groups. Some wanted places elevated to be 'closer to God(s)' (Pyramids, Platforms, Mounds, etc) most wanted awesome structures to reinforce the proper respect for their Diety (Gothic Cathedrals, the Great Mosques, Wats, Stupas, etc). I think Civ VI got this Right: put together your religion from elements, pick your iconic structure if you want to - maybe in Civ VII broaden the choices, to include Sacred Groves or Henges, Hermitages, Monasteries, Minsters, etc as religious OR civ Uniques: there's a lot of religious architecture to choose from out there.

Something similar could even be used for the late-game Ideological religious substitutes: pick from a bunch of ideological traits, which include one or more Unique elements, civilian or military policies, Units, Buildings, in addition to the ubiquitous banners and symbols. IF I want to play Fascist though, that shouldn't mean I automatically get Stukas or PzKpfw VI tanks, but it might mean I get Puce Shirt Fascist security forces (for free or on the cheap) which can be used either to increase Loyalty in my territory or can be armed as Elite regular troops with tanks and other weapons and go into battle with better attack factors or some other advantage.

 

[pineappledan]

The ideology can, however, be linked to some kind of militant Political Military force, like the SS or SA or Italian Brownshirts - just don't try to use any historically-accurate symbolism like the swastika or you make it impossible to legally sell in parts of the world and highly controversial almost everywhere.

I don’t think you would get any sort of knock-off SS or Brownshirt group as a UU past any of those same censors. Depicting their existence in society explicitly as being some sort of upgrade to a default unit would be enough implied valourization of those groups that, even if it could get to market, is still pretty vile. The UUs being entirely composed of military hardware — not people or organizations — is their advantage. They at least don’t directly imply some superiority to a default unit outside of mechanical.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t think you would get any sort of knock-off SS or Brownshirt group as a UU past any of those same censors. Depicting their existence in society explicitly as being some sort of upgrade to a default unit would be enough implied valourization of those groups that, even if it could get to market, is still pretty vile. The UUs being entirely composed of military hardware — not people or organizations — is their advantage. They at least don’t directly imply some superiority to a default unit outside of mechanical.

At this point maybe just calling it a Nationalist unit would be the best compromise? It's super generic and would still get the point across. Graphically it could be a tank surrounded by a formation of infantry guards marching with it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don’t think you would get any sort of knock-off SS or Brownshirt group as a UU past any of those same censors. Depicting their existence in society explicitly as being some sort of upgrade to a default unit would be enough implied valourization of those groups that, even if it could get to market, is still pretty vile. The UUs being entirely composed of military hardware — not people or organizations — is their advantage. They at least don’t directly imply some superiority to a default unit outside of mechanical.

Good point: graphics have more impact than game mechanics and will spark a reaction every time.

On the other hand, no Nationalist/Guard unit should be an upgrade or conversion of a regular military unit. In every case they were derived from non-military organizations and created to supplement or supplant the regular military because the fascists wanted armed groups utterly loyal to their movement rather than the state - before, of course, they gained control of the state themselves. Even after becoming the state, though, they kept much of their 'guard' independent of the regular military - Mussolini's army even had separate 'Black Shirt' fascist units alongside its own infantry in the infantry divisions, while of course the German SS were kept separate in administration and control from the German Wehrmacht.

So, no 'upgrades', just Additional Units. As @Alexander's Hetaroi posted, maybe make the graphic unit icon a combination of, say, a police-type armored car and marchers with banners and Chartreuse, Puce and Vermilion uniforms to indicate their distinctly non-military, street thug origins.

 

[Patine]

- And this brings the detour back on the main road. Ideological (or religious, or any other cultural/civic elements) aspects should not be depicted with Uniques that in fact were related to the specific society rather than the ephemeral politics of that society in one period.

Relate Fascism, if that is going to be the title of Right Wing/Ultra-Conservative political movements in the game, with ideological units like the SS, the Italian Brown Shirts, the Hungarian 'Arrow Cross' or other specifically 'fascist' organizations, not with the consequences of a Prussian military tradition that predates fascism by centuries.
Communism, in turn, could be related to Commissars - military adjuncts that increased 'loyalty' and even fanaticism in combat units, sometimes at the cost of purely military efficiency, or to Worker's Brigades that allowed more efficient mobilization of civilian workforce to industrial/production tasks.
Not to a specific 'Communist' weapon that would, in fact, have been developed regardless of the ideology of the government of the country at the time.

That idea was not actually of my instigation. My ideas were more, "for the sake of argument," to be honest, with the source of that brainchild.