Why no Hitler?

[blitzkrieg1980]

Uh...how was Teddy an aggresive leader?

Application of the Mahan Naval buildup, aquisition of the Panama Canal, Rough Riders storming San Juan Hill (Spanish American War) and the fanatical way in which Roosevelt sought war with Spain. Roosevelt was a big time proponent of expansion through military. His domestic policy was very progressive and therefore (for the time) quite liberal, however his foreign policy revolved around expansion with force ("Speak softly and carry a big stick." - TR).

He also had a very high approval rating, and is one of the best Presidents in US history. He even has his face on a mountain => Charismatic .

Not the end-all-be-all IMO, just a suggestion. I'm sure that we could find other combinations that would also fit TR very well (ORG/CHM) but that's taken by Washington.

 

[Crighton]

Aggressive personality perhaps, i think he was around for the spanish/american war . . . . ah hell I don't know somebody hit up wiki

 

[eric_]

i think he was around for the spanish/american war . . . . ah hell I don't know somebody hit up wiki

He fought in it, but he wasn't president until almost a decade after it happened.

He also won the nobel for brokering peace between Russia and Japan.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^This does not preclude a peaceful presidency. He brokered a peace treaty between two powers, however, the history shows a tendancy towards aggression to obtain the ends. The sending of warships and troops to support a rebellion in Panama against the ruling Columbian government, for example.

EDIT: Also, why judge a leader's traits only by what they did during their (in this case) short time in power? Teddy was a figure in US politics long before he was President.

 

[Thedrin]

I couldn't give the aggresive/charismatic trait combination to a leader whose military victories were based on a massive build up (relative to regional contemporaries) prior to war breaking out but made rapid losses once they faced up to nations in the field with similar levels of military productivity.

I'd only give one of them. I choose charismatic. Populist with a well trained army (quickly gained promotions).

I would definetly pick industrious (ahead of either aggresive or charismatic) for the same reason as I would pick it for Stalin. Succesful, large-scale, government-sanctioned projects.

 

[eric_]

Everything I've cited is pre-Presidency.

The fact that he waged no wars during his Presidency only adds to the case that industrial would be better than aggressive. IMO.

[EDIT]A non-aggressive leader doesn't abstain entirely from aggressive posturing, it just doesn't rely on it exclusively. His role in the Panama canal situation doesn't undermine my sense that he was generally non-aggressive as a leader (as opposed to as a person).

 

[Thedrin]

Also, why judge a leader's traits only by what they did during their (in this case) short time in power? Teddy was a figure in US politics long before he was President.

Because that's the time which leads to their inclusion in the game.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Because that's the time which leads to their inclusion in the game.

Good point.

@ Eric_: I see what you are saying. Good point as well.


EDIT: I guess I just really want to see the AGG/CHM trait combo without using Hitler...

 

[Thedrin]

I don't really see the aggresive/charismatic combination as being super powerful - certainly not as powerful as financial/organised. It does have the advantage of cheap barracks combined with cheap promotions but that's not a major improvement on top of Churchills protective/charismatic.

 

[Bast]

Good point.

@ Eric_: I see what you are saying. Good point as well.


EDIT: I guess I just really want to see the AGG/CHM trait combo without using Hitler...

As much as I want to see Philosophical/Imperialistic?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I don't really see the aggresive/charismatic combination as being super powerful - certainly not as powerful as financial/organised. It does have the advantage of cheap barracks combined with cheap promotions but that's not a major improvement on top of Churchills protective/charismatic.

Disagreed. If you are playing a mainly military game (why else would you use an AGG/CHM leader), you only need 13 experience points for a GunPowder or Melee unit to have 5 promotions. I modded my own AGG/CHM leader, and believe me, no one really stood much of a chance.

EDIT: I would also really like to see a PHI/IND leader (yay for wonders/GPP!)

 

[Thedrin]

Churchill's gunpowder units get 6 promotions with 13 experience points. His melee units with 13 XP can have any promotion a charismatic/aggresive leader's melee units can (with the exception of combat V and commando).

Edit: The only real synergy with a philosophical/imperialistic is if you settle all of your great generals in your Oxford University city while running representation. I can't think of a single good reason to do this.

 

[bovinespy]

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.

I don't usually get involved in these "Where's Adolf?" threads, but I get so tired with seeing all the distortion of historical fact as represented by this statement and others. Whatever you want to believe, Hitler was not simply an evil politician - he was actually a hands-on military leader as well, and not always to Germany's detriment. Indeed, he (along with Erich von Manstein) was the driving force behind the revised Case Yellow which caused the Fall of France in 6 weeks. He even personally planned the seizure by airborne glider troops of Belgium's Eben Emael fortress which guarded the approaches to the Albert Canal. Fortunately for us, his overwhelming successes early in the war, nearly always against the advice of his senior generals, along with his growing methamphetamine addiction, led to extreme overconfidence and his two biggest strategical mistakes: declaring war on the USSR and the USA.

Back to the game - I don't mind him not being in the game, although it does seem a little odd that both Germany's UU and UB belong properly to the 20th Century (maybe a little spillover into the late 19th Century for the UB), but neither of Germany's leaders come from that time. As far as traits go, though, if Adolf were included, he should definitely be Agg/Chm. There seems to be little argument over the Charismatic trait, but I don't get the people who say Ind would be a better 2nd trait than Agg. Other than the Autobahn, what projects did he build? Unlike the case with Stalin's Russia, Germany was already highly industrialised when Hitler came to power. As far as Aggressive goes - come on people! Does the point really need to be made about Adolf's aggressive instincts?

 

[bovinespy]

I couldn't give the aggresive/charismatic trait combination to a leader whose military victories were based on a massive build up (relative to regional contemporaries) prior to war breaking out but made rapid losses once they faced up to nations in the field with similar levels of military productivity.

You mean like Napoleon? But seriously, German forces were outnumbered and outgunned when they smashed the British and French in 6 weeks - due largely to superior training, organization, and planning. As far as 'massive build-ups' go, check out the history of Operation Marita (invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece) sometime. The German General Staff carried out the planning, logistics, and pre-positioning of troops and supplies for actions stretching over fronts of hundreds of miles in ten days !!

I'd only give one of them. I choose charismatic. Populist with a well trained army (quickly gained promotions).

I would definetly pick industrious (ahead of either aggresive or charismatic) for the same reason as I would pick it for Stalin. Succesful, large-scale, government-sanctioned projects.

Again, other than the Autobahn, what large-scale government projects are you refferring to? Stalin deserves Ind (I might even give him Chm or Imp instead of Agg), while Hitler would not.

 

[CivDude86]

HIlter is right here.

 

[jray]

I bet it's just a pure marketing decision.

# people who would get offended and boycott the game >
# people who would buy the game because Hitler is in it

 

[Technocactus]

What exactly did Hitler do to deserve inclusion? He left Germany a crippled nation, thanks to his aggressive tendencies.

 

[Barney's_Soul]

What exactly did Hitler do to deserve inclusion? He left Germany a crippled nation, thanks to his aggressive tendencies.

Actually they were already crippled because of the depression - Hitler lead them out of the depression and gave them hope.

Germany benifitted from Hitler's guidence, though they would be even better off if the Axis won the war...lol.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^They were much more crippled by the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. The country was beaten into submission! They had to pay England/France back for the war, couldn't build up a defensive force, gave up all colonies and much of their "homeland".

 

[Crighton]

And if Hitler had died in 1939 or 1941 this really wouldn't be much of a discussion. It would probably resemble the arguments about Mao being included (few and far between). But that's neither here nor there, we spent a lot in lives and material to beat down that sob I doubt it'd play real well for Firaxis to dredge him back up.