2K Games Announces Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Warlords.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by padillah


It's either Sun-Tzu or Machiavelli was exactlly that - a farmer that had an amazing knack for strategy.

And you are discounting things like Chess and Civ. Unless you are trying to say that Civ and Chess aren't heavy on strategy?

Tom P.

Stalin and many future Red Army officers during the Russian Civil War, Marshall Josef Tito, Fidel Castro and Napoleon are other examples, but I tend to agree with Willem; these are the exceptions to the rule. Most military "Great Leaders" become that way being battle-tested in a hierarchial military system or products of an academy system, or both.

And I hope you're not saying one can become a military expert by playing abstract games. I played more realistic simulations in the Sixties and Seventies, for all eras of warfare and am something of an expert on military minutiae as a result, but I wouldn't pit myself against Gen. Schwartzkopf, or any of the past military greats of history!

[Zoid]

Come on, you can´t possibly claim that Stalin was a great military leader? He was an organizer, not a military strategist. if he hadn´t had brilliant military minds at his service like Zhukov, Timoshenko and Meretskov the USSR would never have defeated Nazi-Germany.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Zoid
Come on, you can´t possibly claim that Stalin was a great military leader? He was an organizer, not a military strategist. if he hadn´t had brilliant military minds at his service like Zhukov, Timoshenko and Meretskov the USSR would never have defeated Nazi-Germany.

Okay, I'm easy, maybe so. Bottom line is he was boss of the guys that won. It appears, just like his evil counterpart on the other side, or Churchill for that matter, (somebody else whose military acumen is overrated,) that he got an occasional flash of brilliance to get his people to stick to something, when they were vacillating. (Of course that was often at the point of a gun, but... ) Oh, and Timoshenko had his bad days, especially early in the war.

[Solver]

I do indeed think it's doubtful whether the method of putting people at gunpoint can be called a "flash of brilliance". When you force people to do something, yes, they do it. But you can not expect their morale or performance to be as good as if they were doing that of their own accord.

[Generaldoktor]

Okay, we can leave Stalin out of it. The original discussion was whether you could have a military "Great Leader" from a non-traditional background (i.e. non-military.) All the Russian generals who did win WWII were potato peelers of some sort or another prior to 1917. Most were in the pre-Soviet "Czarist" Army at some point, but only at low levels and the proto-Soviet regime, which was constantly at war 1917-22 (as well as being involved in principle, in WWI prior) and in considerable civil strife thereafter, had no "formal" military training for officers, so these guys did learn by the seat of their pants.

Stalin may not deserve the credit, but he ran the government essentially from 1924-53; a period of great Soviet military success.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
The original discussion was whether you could have a military "Great Leader" from a non-traditional background (i.e. non-military.) All the Russian generals who did win WWII were potato peelers of some sort or another prior to 1917. Most were in the pre-Soviet "Czarist" Army at some point, but only at low levels and the proto-Soviet regime, which was constantly at war 1917-22 (as well as being involved in principle, in WWI prior) and in considerable civil strife thereafter, had no "formal" military training for officers, so these guys did learn by the seat of their pants.

But the thing is that they learned their lessons on the battlefield. Every great General has to start out as a private, or other low ranking grunt. But by learning military tactics and strategy well, they eventually rise to the top. It would be completely unrealistic just to pull some yokel off the land and have him/her immediately become a military specialist. At least with the current specialists, a citizen can learn the required skills within the city itself, but not so a military specialist.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
or Churchill for that matter, (somebody else whose military acumen is overrated,) that he got an occasional flash of brilliance to get his people to stick to something, when they were vacillating.

You obviously, know very little about Churchill, and still belief the political tirade that was aimed at him. (poor you).

He had his faults that is true - but he inspired a nation and helped save the world.

He was involved in many military conflicts from the Boar war onwards. Sometimes as a correspondant - but that did not stop him from fighting.

Do not be fooled - if England had fallen, though a lot of blood would have been shed - we would not just give in like the Liberals wanted.

You would have been next - eventually.

Because the Nazi's had rockets and - almost nucluer weapons.

Things you did not know about.

[waab]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Stalin and many future Red Army officers during the Russian Civil War, Marshall Josef Tito, Fidel Castro and Napoleon are other examples, but I tend to agree with Willem; these are the exceptions to the rule. Most military "Great Leaders" become that way being battle-tested in a hierarchial military system or products of an academy system, or both.

And I hope you're not saying one can become a military expert by playing abstract games. I played more realistic simulations in the Sixties and Seventies, for all eras of warfare and am something of an expert on military minutiae as a result, but I wouldn't pit myself against Gen. Schwartzkopf, or any of the past military greats of history!

Fidel Castro wasn't a farmer...he was a lawyer student. Actuly a son of a pretty rich family.

But back to topic...any more news about specific building or civ traits? Or which leaders that will be included.

[Martinus]

Any speculations on how the Warlord Great Person will be created? Will it be done the same way as other great people (coupled with adding a military gpp to some wonders and buildings) or like in Civ3 (random chance to get him spawn whenever a unit is promoted)?

Also, what will be the special ability of the great person (in addition to becoming a super specialist and helping speed up a military tech)? A leader of units (giving a bonus to a stack) or an ability to found a military academy (sort of super-barracks?), or something else altogether?

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Willem


But the thing is that they learned their lessons on the battlefield. Every great General has to start out as a private, or other low ranking grunt. But by learning military tactics and strategy well, they eventually rise to the top. It would be completely unrealistic just to pull some yokel off the land and have him/her immediately become a military specialist. At least with the current specialists, a citizen can learn the required skills within the city itself, but not so a military specialist.

Soviet generals did not follow normal military hierarchy, i.e. they were not promoted on merit, over time. In the 1917-22 period; someone who had any military experience and the right "Red" ideology won very "quick" promotion, depending on the needs of the theater. (The Russian Civil War with its associated conflicts with Poland, Finland, various "Whites," the Czech Legion and the western Allies, was fought over a very large area on several "fronts.") I don't want to get into capsule biographies of a bunch of people here, but a guy who was a private in 1917 in the Czarist Army could end up as a field-grade commander in the Red Army by 1921. There were some rapid promotions in WWII in the Red Army also, due to the catastrophic losses in the period 1941-43.

However, I'm not saying by this that we should have overly quick or profligate creation of military "Great Leaders" in the game. Remember, my original premise was to agree with Willem and treat these guys who did achieve military prowess out of nowhere as flukes and support adoption of a consistent system for Civ4.

Originally posted by Harrier UK

You obviously, know very little about Churchill, and still belief the political tirade that was aimed at him. (poor you).

He had his faults that is true - but he inspired a nation and helped save the world...

The issue is his military ability and whether he was competent to interfere with the generals. In the case of Gallipoli in World War I and Dieppe and various rushed offensives in North Africa in World War II; (I think he had something to do with those two capital ships being sent to Malaysia without air cover also, where they were bombed into watery oblivion,) he clearly should have been told to go home and play with his toy soldiers. The "Balkan Front" idea of lancing through Yugoslavia to anticipate the Red Army would have been a critical waste of resources needed in France also and probably would have brought early conflict with both the Russians and Tito. It's good the generals and Roosevelt, talked him out of that one.

My politics here in the U.S. are Libertarian, not "liberal." In general, U.S. liberals and conservatives do not know of or care about the "Liberal-Conservative" rivalries in Britain.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Soviet generals did not follow normal military hierarchy, i.e. they were not promoted on merit, over time. In the 1917-22 period; someone who had any military experience and the right "Red" ideology won very "quick" promotion, depending on the needs of the theater. (The Russian Civil War with its associated conflicts with Poland, Finland, various "Whites," the Czech Legion and the western Allies, was fought over a very large area on several "fronts.") I don't want to get into capsule biographies of a bunch of people here, but a guy who was a private in 1917 in the Czarist Army could end up as a field-grade commander in the Red Army by 1921. There were some rapid promotions in WWII in the Red Army also, due to the catastrophic losses in the period 1941-43.

That is true. Voroshilov come to mind as a typical apparatchik who was a complete catastrophe as commander. He survived the Great Purge in the 30´s because he was a close friend of Stalin. This also saved him when he botched the Soviet invasion of Finland AND failed to stop the germans surrounding Leningrad...

And there was some rapid promotions in the early stages of the war, but mostly because there wasn´t anyone alive in the upper ranks of the military. Stalin had them all killed in the Great Purge. Zhukov was the only Army Commander to survive, and that was only because he was stationed in Mongolia...

[Generaldoktor]

Well I wasn't thinking so much of "apparatchiks" as guys who might be genuine role models for "Great Leaders". Zhukov and Rokossovsky went from non-coms under the Czar to regimental commanders in just the couple years of the Russian Civil War; Budenny and Tuchachevsky went from lieutenants to army commanders. These guys had real ability, but little training other than the basics given to non-coms. Their brilliance was acquired in the field.

But yeah, same idea.

In any case, it is unlikely military "Great Leaders" are going to be easy to come by, or spring from cities in the manner of other GP; due to play balance considerations, if nothing else.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Well I wasn't thinking so much of "apparatchiks" as guys who might be genuine role models for "Great Leaders". Zhukov and Rokossovsky went from non-coms under the Czar to regimental commanders in just the couple years of the Russian Civil War; Budenny and Tuchachevsky went from lieutenants to army commanders. These guys had real ability, but little training other than the basics given to non-coms. Their brilliance was acquired in the field.

But yeah, same idea.

In any case, it is unlikely military "Great Leaders" are going to be easy to come by, or spring from cities in the manner of other GP; due to play balance considerations, if nothing else.

Well, since there aren't going to be any Soviet military officer leaderheads (correct me if I'm wrong, Solver), we may wish to steer this thread back to its original topic.

[Generaldoktor]

The discussion digressed because we were talking about whether "great" military leaders could spring from the general populace, evidently related to how and how commonly they would appear in the game. I was trying to cite examples (originally including Napoleon and Castro) where such leaders did spring from nowhere and some of us kind of got mired in it. There was (originally) an "on-topic" purpose to it.

Sorry.

[murphy54]

good point of view man