What would historic figures think of strategy games?

[Flying Pig]

Woodrow Wilson would lose hopelessly after he tried to establish a League of Civilizations and insisted that Civ boundaries should be determined by national identity, thereby immediately rescinding every one of his territorial gains. Stalin would ruthlessly subjugate the entire map, using Slavery on at least half of his production, and still manage to create a 100% approval rating in the demographics screen. Churchill would ignore the game and find a pub.

 

[Ajidica]

Stalin would ruthlessly subjugate the entire map, using Slavery on at least half of his production, and still manage to create a 100% approval rating in the demographics screen.

I thought State Property and Slavery were in the same civics column?

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, yes, you're right... a dilemma.

 

[Lord Baal]

Stalin would keep disbanding his veteran military units because he felt they posed a threat to him.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I bet Elizabeth I would kick major arse at Civ though, right?

She'd spend the whole game changing production products and getting nothing built.

Well, Elizabeth AI in Civ4 is rather incompetent...

 

[Tahuti]

I thought State Property and Slavery were in the same civics column?

No, they are not. State Property is in Economics, Slavery in Labor. So you could combine them.

 

[Antilogic]

Industrial-era generals had wargames as well as the more abstract games like chess to play, so I think they would be familiar with the core concept of modern strategy gaming.

The ability to play on computers against AIs (of varying but usually underwhelming competence) would be far more exotic.

 

[ls612]

Napoleon would ask why the AI performed just as poorly against him as all of his human Continental adversaries.