Oppositions to Arabs

[FlakJacket]

Agreed. Bismarck unified all of the smaller German principalities and states with Prussia to form the beginnings of what we consider modern day Germany.

Personally, I'm seriously considering changing the Celts to the Incas. Western Europe is already pretty full whilst the Aztecs need to be balanced. Toggle the terrain so that you can build on mountain tiles and it's hello Andes.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Caliban
Bismarck, as you maybe know, was not really a man of peace, but he was not mad!

If madness is a disqualifier for leadership in Civ3, how do you explain Mao?

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Caliban


Are you crazy??? Things like this suggestion really make me angry!
I like playing my own country and I want a leader I can identify with!! Hitler was a godforsaken warmonger and the most disgusting creature in human history!!!!! I would NEVER play a Hitler-led Germany!

Caliban, I hope you didn't take offense to my post too. I was just brainstorming/surmising about the *possibility* of using other leaderheads. I guess since I'm American, the main one I'd like to see change is Lincoln. Of course he was important to our history, that's undeniable. But your point about Bismarck is kinda my point about wanting to use someone like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. I'd like to see one of the Founding Fathers as our leaderhead. (Again I'm biased toward Jefferson because my father went to UVA, but still... )

[Sonic]

No, no madness is the disqualifier. Influence is (and should be). However there is such a problem with several leaders that they did almost about the same influence. This could be said about Bismarck and Hitler (Hitler done much more influence to the world, but Bismarck (arguably) did more good for his country), Catherine and Stalin (both expanded their empires about the same, Catherine by settling far east Siberia and Stalin by annexing nations), Washington and Lincoln, etc. Such situation comes that you can't statisfy everyone by choosing leaders. So they then decides to choose the more pollitical correct one.

However, with some nations you just can't choose other leader. For example, what other leader would you imagine for Mongols if not Genghis Khan? I am not saying Mao was such leader, but actually most of early Chinese emperors, ussually offered as alternatives did much smaller actual influence for China and world. Remember, Mao rebuilt country from anarchy, also, unlike Third Reich and Soviet Union, People's Republic of China is still standing today.

Anyway, I'll choose the following leaders for nations (those I would change in bold):
Queen Victoria and England
Pharaoh Ramses and Egypt
King Hammurabi and Babylon
Emperor Xerxes and Persia
Emperor Ceasar and Roman Empire
Alexander the Great and Greece
Chief Shaka and Zululand
Chief Hiawata and Iroquis
King Montezuma and Aztec Empire
Mahatma Ghandi and India
President Washington and USA
Emperor Napoleon and France
Shogun Tokugawa and Japan
Fuhrer Hitler and Germany
Czarine Catherine and Russia
Chairman Mao and China

For new civs:
Messiah Mahomet and Arab Caliphate
Don't know any Celtic leaders
Don't know any Vikings leaders
President Kim Il Sung and Korea
Khan Genghis and Mongol Empire
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire
Francisco Franco and Spain
Don't know any Carthaginian leaders

[FlakJacket]

Originally posted by Sonic
I am not saying Mao was such leader, but actually most of early Chinese emperors, ussually offered as alternatives did much smaller actual influence for China and world. Remember, Mao rebuilt country from anarchy, also, unlike Third Reich and Soviet Union, People's Republic of China is still standing today.

He also made a complete bloody mess out of the whole affair. The 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Hundred Flowers' programs lead to idiotic economic centralisation and collectivisation. Indsutry nearly collapsed and tens of millions, if not a lot more, starved to death. Any ham-fisted dictator could have done as well, if not better.

Anyway, I'll choose the following leaders for nations (those I would change in bold):
Queen Victoria and England
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire
Francisco Franco and Spain

Why Victoria? Yes she was the queen at the height of the British Empire but she had little to nothing to do with it. By that time British Kings and Queens weren't absolute monarchs, but constitutional monarchs. They had no serious say in running the the country, power rested with the elected government in Parliament. She was simply a figure head for the most part.

Ata Turk? Yes he founded the modern Turkish Republic but by that point they'd lost most of the old Ottoman territories and were reduced to modern day Turkey. If you use him, you'd be better off just changing the civilization to the Turks. Introducing the republic was nice but they weren't a great civilization by that point, they'd declined completely. Since the whole point of the game is building your empire the Ottomans seem like the best choice to me personally. That and I like Osman.

Likewise with Franco. He was just another military dictator. Honestly didn't really do much apart from repress the population and stay out of the Second World War. Compared to the days of Spain's conquering and colonisation of the New World he's inconsequential.

[Sonic]

FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did. Some for example came to power only because of their parents and did nothing good, although empire was biggest at their time. It is always easier to get a huge empire when to actually build/reform it. Ata Turk was political genius in my opinion, just because he born at bad time we can write him off. Franco's staying out of WW2 was also very important in my opinion. SUrely, we could just add some imperial times Spanish leader who did nothing. In my opinion, every leader should be worked hard. Thus I propose Napoleon (who became emperor from almost nothing), Hitler (the same), etc.

[FlakJacket]

Originally posted by Sonic
FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did.

Ah, gotcha. Still not sure about Vicky though then since she basically just sat there and looked nicely Queen-ish and being morally uptight for her reign. *Shrug*

[LionQ]

I would say this:
Queen Victoria or King Henry VIII and England.
Pharaoh Ramses or Tuthmozes III and Egypt.
King Hammurabi or King Nebukadnessar and Babylon.
King Xerxes or King Darius I and Persia.
Consul Ceasar or Emperor Traianus and Roman Empire.
Alexander the Great and Greece.
Chief Shaka and Zululand.
Chief Hiawatha and Iroquis.
King Montezuma and Aztec Empire.
Mahatma Ghandi and India.
President Washington or President Wilson or President Roosevelt and USA.
Emperor Napoleon and France
Shogun Tokugawa and Japan
Führer Hitler or Cancelor Bismarck and Germany
Czarine Catherine or Czar Peter the Great and Russia.
Chairman Mao or Emperor Tsj'in Hwang Ti and China

For new civs:
Messiah Mahomet and Arab Caliphate
King Vercingetorix or King Brennus and Celtic Kingdom.
Erik the Red and Viking Kingdom (Kingdom=?)
President Kim Il Sung and Korea
Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan and Mongol Empire.
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire.
King Philip II or King Ferdinand of Aragón and Spain.
General Hannibal and Carthaginian TradeRepublic/Kingdom.

Critic is welcome!

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
I would say this:
Consul Ceasar or Emperor Traianus and Roman Empire.

caesar is definetly the better choice. after all, out of caesar came caisar and like that the german word "kaiser", which means emperor. noone else in history had a such a title named after him

Mahatma Ghandi and India.

there must be a better candidate...

President Washington or President Wilson or President Roosevelt and USA.

wilson happened to be around at the right moment and helped founding the UN. but that doesn't make him a worthy leader.
roosevelt reacted way to slow before helping in the world war. if the US had come a few years earlier, the war would have been a lot shorter and not as severe... imho fdr doesn't deserve to be the leader.
washington of jefferson as a founder is probably the best choice...

Emperor Napoleon and France

no question, jeanne d'arc just got in to have the female contingent

Führer Hitler or Cancelor Bismarck and Germany

i'd take bismark. germany had it's peak with bismark. hitler might be more famous, but except being a brilliant but sickminded leader and very convincing populist, he didn't achieve anything to be proud of.

Czarine Catherine or Czar Peter the Great and Russia.

again female contingent

Chairman Mao or Emperor Tsj'in Hwang Ti and China

i don't know enough about chinese history, but i do know that there have been dozens of leaders more worthy the mao.

For new civs:
Messiah Mahomet and Arab Caliphate

i don't agree. religious leaders don't belong in... or would you want to see buddha as leader of the chinese?

Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire.

as someone said before, atatürk should be leader of the TURKS, and a ottoman leader of the ottomans. (immagine benito mussolini leader of the romans )

Critic is welcome!

[LionQ]

All right! Then Osman I for the Ottomans!

[Caliban]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
If madness is a disqualifier for leadership in Civ3, how do you explain Mao?

Agreed! Mao is another example of how much an unpleasant person can influence a nation's history... I would prefer a Chinese emperor as their leader...

But, let's not forget one thing: Mao was the founder of modern China, which is still ruled by the party he created. Hitler's party today is banned in Germany and he is definitely not the founder of modern Germany (that was Konrad Adenauer - among others...)!

[Cidifer]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
roosevelt reacted way to slow before helping in the world war. if the US had come a few years earlier, the war would have been a lot shorter and not as severe... imho fdr doesn't deserve to be the leader.
washington of jefferson as a founder is probably the best choice...

Are you completly forgetting the economic situation the US was in when he too office? also the US needed time to build up troops and if the US had gone to war right away with much fewer ships and planes (especially air craft carriers) the US might have been fighting the Japanese until the creation of the A bomb anyway, though could have maybe saved a few french and english civilians, and maybe some people in Africa, but there's no way the US would have had any troops in France in enough time to make any difference there anyway. Also there's no way you were going to see US troops in Russia.

That being said I still think the US leader should be Washington, and probably Lincoln and Jefferson before FDR.

[Sonic]

Caliban, Adenauer was creator of modern Germany? Definitely not true. Adenauer was just man put by allies. He even didn't wanted to remilitarize Germany, which just says he was happy enough having undefendable country dependent on allies. Adenauer was a very poor politician in my opinion. Germany was already very modern under third reich. Maybe one of the most modern countries in fact. So saying Adenauer modernised it is very incorrect.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Sonic
Caliban, Adenauer was creator of modern Germany? Definitely not true. Adenauer was just man put by allies. He even didn't wanted to remilitarize Germany, which just says he was happy enough having undefendable country dependent on allies. Adenauer was a very poor politician in my opinion. Germany was already very modern under third reich. Maybe one of the most modern countries in fact. So saying Adenauer modernised it is very incorrect.

No, you misunderstood that. When I talk about modern Germany, I do not mean industry or technical progress, but our DEMOCRACY, our government! Adenauer was one of the fathers of the "Grundgesetz", our constitution, which helped to overcome years of oppression and dictatorship... (Before this, we already had a democratic constitution, yes, but it was thrown over by Hitler - the new one is better...)
And, talking about allies: After WWII, not only Adenauer, but many Germans were against remilitarizing our country. Given our past, this is an opinion I can understand...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sonic
FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did. Some for example came to power only because of their parents and did nothing good, although empire was biggest at their time. It is always easier to get a huge empire when to actually build/reform it. Ata Turk was political genius in my opinion, just because he born at bad time we can write him off. Franco's staying out of WW2 was also very important in my opinion. SUrely, we could just add some imperial times Spanish leader who did nothing. In my opinion, every leader should be worked hard. Thus I propose Napoleon (who became emperor from almost nothing), Hitler (the same), etc.

I like this idea, and in my perfect civ game this would probably be how it would work. But in reality, I can understand why they have leaders like Joan d' Arc and Cleopatra, and Bismarck instead of Hitler, because of politics. They had to represent females in the game so as not to exclude a female buying market for the game, adn it is very easy to see why Hitler may offend some potential buyers from purchasing the game or smething. How Firaxis has handled it is satisfactory to me, but like most of the rest of yall, I do wish for a perfect game made up of my favorite civs/leaders. I guess ill be spending a few hours in the editor after PtW comes out, heh...

Kman

[Bautou]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

caesar is definetly the better choice. after all, out of caesar came caisar and like that the german word "kaiser", which means emperor. noone else in history had a such a title named after him

Yes, I think the only option other than Caesar would be Augustus. Caesar was the catalyst for the destruction of the republic and the beginning of the empire, while Augustus was the one who shaped the form of the empire that people think of when they think of Rome.

Trajan and the other warrior-emperors would be better represented as great leaders than as THE leader.

[Zero]

Civ I had napoleon bonaparte and josef Stalin instead of leader you currently have now. In civ II, depending on the gender, you got napoleon or joan of arc, but since civ III adopted the leader portrait concept instead portryal of some shmuck clown that acts as diplomat, you couldnt change gender without having extra portrait for each civ... and like kramerman aid, they wanted some female leader in game.

IMO, Civ I's Stalin-Russia was political incoret because Russia is not a Soviet Union.. It's a different government and a country ur talking about.

American civ is screwy cause since abe lincoln is the leader and they have F-15, in which period of our golden civilization did we have abe lincoln leading our country in the time of crisis w/ a F-15?

Germany is fine, Bismarck was a great diplomat and a powerful leader. It's just that he commands panzers.... thats a bit whacked. btw should they have chosen third reich germany, would you have preferred expansionistic trait over the existing sci and mil?)

Joan and musketeer isnt really accurate either... I'm guessing firaxis didnt try fitting the leaders and units into same civilization time period. which i think would have been better...

[Zero]

Napoleon does suit France better IMO, France domination of europe was the first since the days of Roman empire that Europe had been under control of one empire. Un fourtunately, the reign didnt last after his rule, in fact it ended while he was ruling, which kinda makes it controversial for me when calling it civilization (I visualize like an Incan civ, flourishing for hundreds of years kinda thing)

Same goes for third reich, it was too short and from marketing point of view you want to avoid any controversy when taking a controversial issue doesnt see much reward for game anyway.

(which is a shame, I still can't believe taking out things related to WTC from games and pic can make some kinda difference... People get fussy for no logical reason... We should live in a world where we can freely express ourself, sigh after all thats wat democracy is about... Ever wondered why you never get a WWII SP game where you are playing a german hero instead of same ol' allie heros? That game will be shot down so fast by public outrage...)

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Calc II
btw should they have chosen third reich germany, would you have preferred expansionistic trait over the existing sci and mil?)

I prefer industrious-scientific for Germany in "normal" games, but Hitler's Germany should really be expansionist and militaristic.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Caliban
I prefer industrious-scientific for Germany in "normal" games, but Hitler's Germany should really be expansionist and militaristic.

caliban: i agree with you in "normal" games, however with hitler i believe mil/sci is the more precise combination.

why? because germany were technically far ahead of the others until about 3/4 way through the war, when USA and in that way the allies had caught up. don't forget: hitler ruled from 1933 to 1945... so in about 10 of 12 years there was a science lead.

expansionist isn't wrong either ("wir wollen auch einen platz an der sonne"). but his ideas in "mein kampf" only meant expanding a little bit east. in the beginning he didn't plan going so far in both directions (that happend, because the russians and the french weren't strong enough).

so all together: exp and sci both have good reasons to choose, but IMO throughout the whole dictatorship sci is more accurate.

[Zero]

Saberwolf how about trying Through out the war instead of 3/4 of the war. IMO, third reich was far ahead of anyone up until their demise. Sure US beat them in Nuclear race and later reports indicated that Germany probably wouldnt have goten a nuke before we did, but let's not forget we sacked alot of their techs, like jet engines after the war. In fact, its almost scary to see US modern infantries because they resemble German wermacht infantries, down to the clothing to the funky shaped helmets that stick out to cover your necks...

about expansion part, I agree, Hitler prolly expanded as far as he did west to sue for peace, and end the western front. But I disagree about East. According to my memory, Hitler hated the slavs and Germanic and slavic relationship wasn't too good back then. So History would have been interesting if Stalin sued for peace during when moscow was near grasp of Hitler.

[Zero]

Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

[sabrewolf]

ok, so we agree about science and the west.

it's a long time since those history lessons, so i might have gotten some things a little bit mixed up.

hitler hated anything non-arian, especially jews, roma (and other gypsies) and nubyan. of course he also hated slavs, but he didn't extinguish them as much as he did the other ethnicities.

in 1925 he wrote "mein kampf" and before his election in 1933 he talked about "Eroberung neuen Lebensraumes im Osten und dessen rücksichtslose Germanisierung" (Quote: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/inn...tik/meinkampf/ ) which means approx. "conquest of new habitat in the east and ruthless germanisation"
i interpret this mainly as getting new living space to the east for the germans... while performing ethnic cleansing.
i just don't know, HOW far he planned to go.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Calc II
Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

"panzer" is actually the german word for "tank" but also means "armour". in the 1st world war german tanks where a lot stronger, more effective and had superior armour. i think the UU is meant to be from that time.
also, in civ3 tanks/panzers come with motorized transport which in real life started towards the end of the 19th century...

[Zero]

nobody really know his long term plan to this day, or even if he HAD a long term plan for his ethnic superiority idea. His views on ethnicity is quite ambiguous and vague and often books refer to hitler not knowing wat to make of Western Europeans like Anglo, Saxon types, since most of them had along the lines shared the same germanic blood. He was unsure whether to take them as one race whole or treat them as outsiders.

so we can play a game and argue for long, but I'll just accpet that this can be left to mostly interpretation.

My World War II history class professor was so stubborn about this germanic-slavic relationship I guess it kinda influenced me. He was also so goddamn stubborn about Japan's decision to attack America and philliphines and not Russia had to do with oil issues and that Japan did share interest w/ germany in attacking Russia. Then again he also notes stubbornly that it was Russian preparation to invade Japanes empire that gave way to surrender. I wonder if he was Russian.... should have figured that out first.

[Zero]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


"panzer" is actually the german word for "tank" but also means "armour". in the 1st world war german tanks where a lot stronger, more effective and had superior armour. i think the UU is meant to be from that time.
also, in civ3 tanks/panzers come with motorized transport which in real life started towards the end of the 19th century...

Yes panzer is tank in german. But observe how panzer is portrayed... it has an extra move. and desciption of the panzer in game almost seems to explain how wermacht used panzers in WWII.. Note German tanks were not notorious in WWI nor during bismarck's time, so I'd have to argue that tanks shouldnt be their UU then.

its just my opinion that firaxis wanted third reich in game but didnt want controversy. Nothing wrong wit it, but if u cant see that its ok too cause its just my interpretation.

[LionQ]

This thread call "Opposition to Arabs", but now were talking about Bismarck, Dritten Reich, Hitler en antisemitism. But all right: continue. I'm just finding it kind of funny.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Cidifer


Are you completly forgetting the economic situation the US was in when he too office? also the US needed time to build up troops and if the US had gone to war right away with much fewer ships and planes (especially air craft carriers) the US might have been fighting the Japanese until the creation of the A bomb anyway, though could have maybe saved a few french and english civilians, and maybe some people in Africa, but there's no way the US would have had any troops in France in enough time to make any difference there anyway. Also there's no way you were going to see US troops in Russia.

That being said I still think the US leader should be Washington, and probably Lincoln and Jefferson before FDR.

Don't feel attacked: you did right!

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Calc II
Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

I think they've placed Civ III-Germany in the period 1870/1871 - 1914 or 1918.

[Sonic]

No, they meant WHOLE Germany. XIX age, XX age and XXI age. The same as USA means whole USA, not just civil war USA. Every civ represents whole development of that nation. I am pretty sure Russia also represents Soviet Union for example.

And by Panzers they surely meant WW2 Panzers. Because WW2 Panzers were named so, and other if translated from German would be just "tanks". Also, Panzers were really infront of avarage development by time (one Panzer could win against about 11 Shermans). Also, Panzers in civ3 looks like ones from WW2, in WW1 tanks were much different...