Which decade has the most Civfanatics?

Late '80s here. Civ II was my first (and in some ways I think still the best...there's a certain elegance to its simplicity which the later games did away with). Very fond memories of the WWII scenario...after getting bored as the major powers I loved trying to see how much I could accomplish as Spain, Turkey, or (gasp) the Neutrals. Inevitably got decimated by Axis stealth fighters and bombers.

 

Born in 1987. Stumbled on Colonization thanks to my uncle somehow. Played that game to DEATH!!!

I didn't even know there was a such thing as Civilization until I was in Best Buy with my dad one night and saw Civilization 2 and made the connection to Colonization. My life was never the same. I didn't know CivFanatics existed at that point. I played Civ2 like crazy and was pretty obssesed. Got Civ3 and found CivFanatics around that time too (most my posts are from that time period) and have very fond memories of that time.

Played Civ4 some, but that was during college and my computer couldn't handle it much.

Spent a solid year enjoying the Civ5 titles and can't wait to fall deeply in love with a new Civ6.

 

this thread is so awesome the moderators resurrect it.

Late 90's not 99 though, I started with Civ IV it was my brothers who really got me into Civ, I really liked Civ IV but I never really got to play everyone just because some of the civs were too good to not replay, a bit strange for a CivFanatic but I didn't really care so much when Civ V came out and I forgot about it until I saw Civ V gold edition 75% off and logged a ton of hours on that.

 

It looks like the 1940s has added two more to its ranks in the past few days.

 

Damn! If only Delano Roosevelt was the American leader in Civ 6, the 1930's fans could actually play as a leader that they lived under. I couldn't imagine it as a youngster, that would be surreal to me!

 

I believe that's the reason not to use any XX or XXI leaders in game. They are too fresh and controversial.

 

What about Gandhi and Haille? And in IV we had Stalin, Mao, Churchill, and de Gaulle. Oh and FDR himself.

 

Yes, the further we go, the less of them we see. I'd say the content of video games is picked with more caution and thought now. In Civ4 we had named great prophets, but not in Civ5.

Gandhi is a neutral leader and quite far away in history, starting his role in XIX. Haille was a good move, though.

 

Yet they just added Theodore Roosevelt, a 20th century ruler, in Civ VI.

 

Yes, first decade of it

Ok, I was wrong about setting time frame like this. It's more about actual controversy than specific timeframe. While Ghandi and Stalin are generally rulers of the same time, Ghandi generally has its judged place in history, while Stalin's shadow is still a big deal in Russia. Not to mention Hitler, who died before those two, but is absolutely impossible for inclusion as a leader.

 

They could always have a special DLC of modern leaders: Putin, Obama, Kim Il Un, etc. that would be fun.

 

Mods, of course. And, of course, they need to wait a couple of weeks after Civ6 to see who will be modern US leader.

 

That's mod territory. IMHO

 

With an agenda that doesn't really fit with what we know about him, since it characterizes him as someone who doesn't like aggressive nations when he himself was an aggressive imperialist who wholly pushed for the American invasion of the Philippines.

And the Philippines certainly didn't make any aggressive moves towards its neighbors, it was just achieving independence from Spain.

Where was Roosevelt's "big stick" protector principle then?

 

Not that this has anything to do with what we were discussing, but I've argued against this before in the relevant thread. Here's an analogy:

I really like eating cookies. I hate people that prevent me from eating cookies (that's my agenda). People that also like eating cookies prevent me from eating cookies (because they eat cookies I could have eaten). This does not mean that I hate myself, and it does not mean that I will refuse to eat cookies. And just because I eat cookies, it doesn't mean that I don't hate other people that eat cookies.

 

By the game's logic, according to Roosevelt's primary agenda, he will not get aggressive with civs that aren't aggressive themselves. Meaning if all civs just refused to go to war with each other, he'll likely never go to war with anyone unless dictated by a hidden agenda. The actual Roosevelt was far, far more aggressive than that.

So your cookie analogy is all crumbs.

 

No, you're assuming that the AIs only act on agendas. We don't have evidence that the AIs only act on agendas.

So, my agenda is that I hate people that eat cookies. But that doesn't mean that I am some sort of cookie monster that is only concerned with cookies. That would be ridiculous.

 

TR just represents the US in the game. He was the US leader for a very short period of time in a particular context. His particular attitudes should not be forced on the US nation for the entire game. Any AI policies or agendas should be looked at separate from the personality of the actual TR. It's a game and the goal is to provide interesting angles for the AI to play, to create a lively environment for the human players.

Leader figures are mostly flavor; the agendas and policies of nations should reflect the role that the developer has in mind for that nation when put into the context of all the other nations. There is no reason to try and force the individual attitudes of a person on a nation for all of its history. that makes no sense at all.

 

I see there aren't many left from the 1930's. I started with CivI the day it came out and have played every edition up until now. I need to get on VI.

 

You from the 30's?