Why no Hitler?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Datian said:
Although I hate this inept argument, I invite you to consider that nazism is a crazy, nonsensical ideology built on hate, ridiculous myths and mass hysteria. Communism is an economical theory, a political system, and a philosophic stream. Comparing them is like comparing olive oil and car oil, it's ridiculous, despite what the non-historian Annah Arendt may have said.

Considering Stalin, he was not only a paranoid dictator but he was also a great war leader, and built a huge industry in a mostly rural country. The country did not crumble after him. Putting Pol-Pot as a civ leader would indeed be inappropriate, but for Stalin, obviously, there are good reasons, although good taste may not be the primary one.
Click to expand...

This is about the most ignorant comment I've read here masquerading as intelligence.
 
Dagenham Dave said:
The fact that communism is still alive to a degree has more to do with its viability rather than the fact that the Soviets won the war. Nazism is just ridiculous in every aspect.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha. :rolleyes:
 
mostly_harmless said:
I find Communism every bit as disgusting as Fascism so see no reason why they shouldn't put in Hitler other than the fact the far left is still seen as more socially acceptbale than the far right. Putting Stalin and Mao in isn't going to get half the protest that Hitler would so why should they do it, their primary concern is getting people to buy the game after all.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about putting in Communism vs. putting in Facism. I'm not saying a left-wing totalitarian dictator is better than a right-wing totalitarian dictator. I am saying that Stalin was far better for Russia than Hitler was for Germany. I'd argue that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler and probably worse (Soviet purges, the NKVD, halting before entering Poland so German troops could crush Polish resistance, the treatment of prisoners by both sides on the Eastern front, etc). Stalin gives me the creeps if I think about him. He was still a better leader than Hitler because of what ended up happening with his country.
 
It's interesting that on the Warlords official website the bio of Stalin ends with his rise to power not including WWII.
Really though could you imagine Firaxis having a Hitler leaderhead, imagine him in diplomacy smiling and everything. The first thing I would think is what kind of sick mind Firaxis has.
 
Hitler's inclusion in the game would just be too bizarre and bad taste. Imagine Hitler with judaism as state religion.
 
If I said the name Ragnar to people, they might not know who he is....but if I said Adolf Hitler....you get the point....everyone knows the guy, he had a HUGE impact on moden society, he started WWII, and what....he's NOT in CivIV????

Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt "The Big 3" are here, who all were in WWII era, but why isn't Hitler in CivIV?

Is it becuse people would want him to hold a potentially deadly Agg/Chrismatic combo? Is it because he is possibly too offensive to some people, and seeing a cartoon version of him stareing at them make them **** their pants?
 
Great, not another one of these posts. Search up Adolf Hitler mod in the search bar. You'll find a good efforted mod with Adolf Hitler (but it's not that good, the character model is off Napoleon, and he has crappy lines)
 
Because quite frankly, while he was a better than average leader, he was a poor warlord. His constant meddling and unreasonable goals probably was the biggest handicap to the Nazi war machine. But if you were to put him into the game (besides losing out on the ENTIRE European market) you'd also just HAVE to put Hirohito and Mussolini in the game as well, that way all the major players in the Second World War would be in there. And while I can see a case being made for Hirohito...Mussolini is stretching it, you really can't create a new civ just for him, and while he was trying to re-create the Roman Empire, he just wouldn't make a good Roman...not when far better Roman leaders still exist.
 
We can have Adolf Hitler as he was a major power in WWII. Mussolini was an Italian dictator who kept relying on the Germans to get his fat out of the fire. We could have the Japanese Emperor of WWII, but we all know Stalin killed more than Hitler, but Stalin was on the good side, so he was added while Hitler was the evil one and left out. End of story.
 
@ Thedrin : You don't think Hitler was aggressive? I think the Agg/Chm fits better, plus the industrious trait is really more-so for Wonder building, and Hitler really didn't instigate the building of many Wonders, per-se. He may not have been a good strategist (warlord), but the trait Aggressive still fits as his troops had excellent training, and he did take over just about all of Western Europe. He had the whole of Germany behind him (therefore, CHM fits). Just MHO tho.
 
Barney's_Soul said:
If I said the name Ragnar to people, they might not know who he is....but if I said Adolf Hitler....you get the point....everyone knows the guy, he had a HUGE impact on moden society, he started WWII, and what....he's NOT in CivIV????
Click to expand...

No, I've heard rumors he's not in CIV because he insisted that Firaxis developers make him look herioc, put him on top of the list of CIV leaders and develop superweapons for him that even if he was on the brink of defeat, he would be able to turn the tide in his favour and come out on top. That, and his demand that all music in CIV had to be composed by Wagner, made the developers so annoyed they left him out, out of spite.

General Failure

PS. Learn to use the forum search, please...
 
Whilst he was undoubtably aggressive (which could be levelled at most of the leaders) I would of thought Charismatic/Organised might be apt.

Also, it does seem odd to have Panzers as the German UU, but then to omit Hitler (esp with Churchill, Stalin etc.. all in).
 
TM Moot said:
Whilst he was undoubtably aggressive (which could be levelled at most of the leaders) I would of thought Charismatic/Organised might be apt.

Also, it does seem odd to have Panzers as the German UU, but then to omit Hitler (esp with Churchill, Stalin etc.. all in).
Click to expand...
That's hilarious, because Washington (Americans) is Chm/Org! LOL. What a comparison! Seriously, though, the game needs the AGG/CHM combination. I already modded it in myself, but I'd rather have a stock copy of the game with a leader head and everything (maybe not Hitler per-se, but someone - Teddy Roosevelt?).
 
Hitler is aggressive/charismatic for sure. It fits him like a glove like Victoria's traits.

But as it is, that combination is too powerful. Who would be silly enough to let him survive to the modern age with panzers and assembly plants?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Raging Barbarians setting: impact on AI Survivor
Replies
6
Views
1K
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
F
The Eternal Peace
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Fins
F
A
Why Ada Lovelace is not a good choice to lead Great Britain
21 22 23
Replies
445
Views
27K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
K
About possible DLC monetization plans
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Ryansinbela
Ryansinbela
O
Tool - Civ4 Map-Editor V3 - 4. pre-release
Replies
16
Views
1K
onkelm
O
Back
Top Bottom