Why are the leaders of East Asia all protective?

[endless power]

Mao Zedong.QIn Shi Huang .Wang Kon .Tokugawa

 

[joanne]

I think it's to reflect the common perception of East Asians being socially conservative: they value family and community above self, are very critical of attempts to change their way of life, and are highly suspicious of foreigners - this translates to military unit effectiveness by inspiring fierce nationalism, rigid discipline and a strong sense of camaraderie and honor in soldiers who are tasked to fight against the "foreign devils" in order to "protect" their way of life.

 

[Farm Boy]

Depending on how strictly you want to classify East Asia, Suryavarman II is EXP/CRE, Genghis Khan is AGG/IMP, Kublai Khan is AGG/CRE, and stretching it... Asoka is SPI/ORG and Gandhi is SPI/PHI.

Tokugawa kind of makes sense with the whole he won the kingdom by by retreating bit. I am going to assume Qin Shi Huang comes from the first version of The Great Wall. I am not going to speculate on Mao Zedong. I still think choosing leaders from living memory(or near enough) is in poor taste. Yes, I would punt FDR, Stalin, Churchill, De Gaulle, and Gandhi while I was at it.

 

[theskibum]

I still think choosing leaders from living memory(or near enough) is in poor taste. Yes, I would punt FDR, Stalin, Churchill, De Gaulle, and Gandhi while I was at it.

Why? None of them currently live and all were great leaders for thier country. History has had enough time to note the fairly long term effects of thier contributions. Gandhi obviously was not a political leader, but certainly an incredibly important spiritual leader of the 20th century as well as being very important to India's eventual independance. The others are obviously the WW2 leaders and very influential to the present state of the world.

Chrichill and DeGaulle may arguably not belong other than being instrumental to allied success in WW2, but FDR and Stalin (add Mao to the list) defninately belong. Both made great economic and social contributions to thier respective nations (although Stalin's contributions are certainly skewed by his atrocities). The two of them certainly belong in the ranks of folks like Augustus Caesar, Asoka and Lincoln (to name a few from the game) in terms of social, political, and economic contributions to thier nations.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have known enough men(many of whom are now gone), that suffered greatly in conflicts spawned during the years these men lead. It's rare for me to take the sensitive or "PC" route, but it is a bit hard to stomach Mao or Stalin from where I sit when you have known enough veterans of the Korean War.

I understand this is only one side. There are always two or more. Maybe I'll give Gandhi a pass, but wartime leaders? Still too new. Screw that. Leave them farther in history.

 

[nfw]

Mongols?

 

[Kid R]

Well, it's a poor trait. Perhaps allocating it to certain leaders was a subtle historical insult from the developers! Clearly not something they did systematically though - some of the bad guys have been given rather nice trait combos

But as an alternative to letting these guys die quietly in the history books, putting them in a popular game and setting it up so they hardly ever win, could perhaps be seen as a gentle form of tribute to their victims. But I'm too young to remember any large wars so I don't know really.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Firaxis obviously thought protective was a godly trait and plastered it everywhere. Then again, they thought the AP diplo victory was a good idea too... I'm quite sure they thought the best strategy was to hide in your cities with mass archers while the enemy pillages you to death.

I mean Qin used to be Fin/IND, but they changed it for no good reason, because they thought those traits would be too much. OH WAIT NO... they just gave it to the Incans. Inca would be crap without IND, amirite? (Short answer: NO) I love Civ, but Firaxis would find a way to screw up balancing Pong.

Then again, Mao's real traits would give him negative population growth, so what are you gonna do?

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

Like Suryavarman and the two Khans?

 

[endless power]

I think Ind/Org is more suitable for Qin's merits and achievements.I konw it's FDR's trait.But why CIV forbids the same trait for diffrent leaders.CIV must try its best to respect the history.Before Qin integrated China,the characters currencies and measures were various.Qin unified them to boom economy and decrease the expenditure for government administration.
Besides,I don't think Pro is a trait bad enough.When you are not playing with ai,you'll find that your archer is so strong.It makes your cities more safe ,especially cities on mountain.There is no best trait,but the bst player.

 

[Higher Game]

Gandhi obviously was not a political leader, but certainly an incredibly important spiritual leader of the 20th century as well as being very important to India's eventual independance.

Gandhi is garbage. Giving away ancient Hindu lands to Muslim extremists, gutting the nobility castes by discriminatory affirmative action movements, and embracing an extreme-left mutilation of a "democracy" do not make for a great leader. India will curse his name in a few generations, when the real effects of his ideas start to manifest.

Granted, Pakistan by then will call him their national hero.

Chrichill and DeGaulle may arguably not belong other than being instrumental to allied success in WW2, but FDR and Stalin (add Mao to the list) defninately belong. Both made great economic and social contributions to thier respective nations (although Stalin's contributions are certainly skewed by his atrocities). The two of them certainly belong in the ranks of folks like Augustus Caesar, Asoka and Lincoln (to name a few from the game) in terms of social, political, and economic contributions to thier nations.

It's in exceptionally bad taste to have the great WWII winners, but no Tojo, Hitler, or Mussolini (hell, no Italians for that matter). They're all lower-tier in the grand sense of history, except Hitler being about average. The WWI era leaders on all sides were vastly superior, except the fool Woodrow Wilson.

I think Ind/Org is more suitable for Qin's merits and achievements.I konw it's FDR's trait.But why CIV forbids the same trait for diffrent leaders.CIV must try its best to respect the history.Before Qin integrated China,the characters currencies and measures were various.Qin unified them to boom economy and decrease the expenditure for government administration.
Besides,I don't think Pro is a trait bad enough.When you are not playing with ai,you'll find that your archer is so strong.It makes your cities more safe ,especially cities on mountain.There is no best trait,but the bst player.

Ind/Org is very strong. I think it's just given to America because it has bad uniques.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Depending on how strictly you want to classify East Asia, Suryavarman II is EXP/CRE, Genghis Khan is AGG/IMP, Kublai Khan is AGG/CRE, and stretching it... Asoka is SPI/ORG and Gandhi is SPI/PHI.

Tokugawa kind of makes sense with the whole he won the kingdom by by retreating bit. I am going to assume Qin Shi Huang comes from the first version of The Great Wall. I am not going to speculate on Mao Zedong. I still think choosing leaders from living memory(or near enough) is in poor taste. Yes, I would punt FDR, Stalin, Churchill, De Gaulle, and Gandhi while I was at it.

Qin Shi Huang is not at all "protective". I think he is most famous for his very strict application of legalism and standardization of culture. If it were up to me, Ind/Org is much more descriptive of his nature.

I don't think Mao's protective at all. He is certainly charismatic but I don't really see him fitting any other trait (maybe imperialistic?).

 

[Higher Game]

For what it's worth, Ind/Org is the strongest combination if you want to get the great lighthouse, China is mostly a land power, and the American UU is the Navy SEAL. It's fitting for FDR for many other reasons too.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Higher Game did you seriously just call dismantling the caste system "affirmative action" and tag it with all kinds of insinuations?

 

[Optical]

Two reasons Hitler isn't in IMO:

1. It'd never sell in Germany. Or Austria for that matter. Or Israel, or Poland. If they'd even let it on the shelves.
2. There are kids who play Civ4. (I disagree with letting young children play R-rated games such as those where Nazis might be included. Seriously, think about it.)

I can see there are two sides to the argument though. Just my 2 .

 

[Optical]

Good point, I suppose. But the point is it'd seem offensive to a lot of people.

 

[Optical]

Oh, the game with two rules? That game is awesome!

I can see where you're coming from, though.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Two reasons Hitler isn't in IMO:

1. It'd never sell in Germany. Or Austria for that matter. Or Israel, or Poland. If they'd even let it on the shelves.
2. There are kids who play Civ4. (I disagree with letting young children play R-rated games such as those where Nazis might be included. Seriously, think about it.)

I can see there are two sides to the argument though. Just my 2 .

Even in other countries it'd generate negative publicity for the game and lead to a lot of complaints. Firaxis doesn't want those kind of problems. I actually wouldn't have included Stalin, but that's just me.

How do these threads constantly get Hitler in them? We got from East Asia to Hitler in ten posts. Is this some kind of record?

 

[nfw]

Kind of funny in a game where you can commit genocide and lob nukes left and right.

 

[FlyingSwan]

How do these threads constantly get Hitler in them? We got from East Asia to Hitler in ten posts. Is this some kind of record?

You,ve heard of Godwins law right?I agree though even by his calculations that was pretty quick.