Predict Who Gets the New Traits!

[Will9]

Okay then. Stalin banned Christianity therefor destroying the growth of Russian culture. That was easy.

[Thedrin]

Creative Trait bonuses:

1) Continuously expanding borders
2) Buildings which reduce the effects of angry citizens (and increase the rate of border expansion)

Do I need to go on? If you have no intention of questioning the traits I have selected based on the criteria I use for selecting them then why bother? Question the criteria? Fine. Or wether I have accurately used the criteria? Grand. Questioning my choices without taking account of the way I arrive at them? Pointless exercise.

Incidentally, anyone else think that a creative and charismatic leader would be very powerful? They both reduce the effects of unhappiness and they both increase the spread of borders. Creative focusing more on border expansion and charismatic focusing more on reducing the effects of unhappiness - yet they both have secondary effects increasing the primary effect of the other. A lot of synergy in this combination (with the added bonus of quick promotions).

[Will9]

Yea the borders were constatly expanding, but militarily not with culture. Sure he made theaters, for his propaganda not for cutural works. Infact Stalin killed many Russian wrighters. I also wonder why Stalin is in this game Lenin deserves to be in the game more (mabye Charismatic and organized). Also, because there is a powerful trait combo deosn't mean it will be used

[Louis XXIV]

Stalin wasn't a creative person. Even if the benefits fit the game, they need to fit the person. Don't always look at the effects, also look at who they are going to.

I think Imperialistic fits Stalin, so does industrious. I could see him getting protective, organized, aggressive, or expansive as well.

He worked well in diplomacy among the big three, but he also had a good hand. It wasn't his charisma that was his only determining factor. He certainly didn't have the charisma of Churchill. I probably wouldn't go for charismatic or creative for Stalin (or Spiritual, financial, or philosophical).

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
Stalin wasn't a creative person. Even if the benefits fit the game, they need to fit the person. Don't always look at the effects, also look at who they are going to.

Assuming Stalin has been programmed in a similar manner to every other leader that is already in the game then he already has been given a personality. I say that if you give each leader a distinct personality then it is redundant to base the traits on the personality also. I also say that Creative or any other trait name is just a label and not a definiton.

[wardhali]

Hey Thedren, you seem to be getting alot of flack, i just wanted to say that i support your Idea, but creative is goin a little far, while he did rapidly expand his borders, it was through the alure of communism, and his effective propaganda, and his ability to hide the horrors of his regieme, i think stalin should get charismatic, because he was so good at manipulating and controling people, just because he did it with a gun instead of a podium doesent make it any less efective.

also, just look at what happy faces do, they get unhappy people to work, its on the opposite side of the same coin as the roman "bread and circuses"(luxury resources)

[Urban Ranger]

Mao: charismatic/philosophical. Definitely interesting.

The Chinese could use a third leader: Tang Taizong.

[LordShiva]

They should have an "A**hole" trait; then, leaders like Stalin and Mao can be depicted accurately.

[One_more_turn]

Mao was definitely charismatic, as was Stalin and Hitler. Those three guys had fooled millions into sacrificing themselves for them, and millions still worship them today despite knowing all the atrocities. If that's not charisma, then I don't know what it is.

[Vaniver]

Stalin banned Christianity therefor destroying the growth of Russian culture. That was easy.

Because not following the old ways isn't creative? One would think that creating a new culture (a poor one, most will admit) would be creative.

Thedrin- I agree with your arguments, but am not sure you're looking at it from the right viewpoint. The designers want their game to be intuitive- people shouldn't look at Stalin and see Charismatic and look at Napoleon (or whoever deserves it that doesn't have it, ignore if Napoleon actually does have Charismatic :P) and not see Charismatic and wonder, "What's up?" If the designers have to explain to people "well, Stalin built a lot more broadcasting towers than Napoleon", then they've failed in making a properly named trait. That's probably hard to fix at this point, but it seems like they'd be better off giving him traits that fit in name than fit in gameplay. Presentation is just as important as content.

[Louis XXIV]

It was a poor culture. The Soviet Union was considered by many to be culturally barren. While certainly an exaggeration, there was probably less cultural works during Stalin's time compared to before (not counting pictures and statues of Lennin and Stalin).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordShiva
They should have an "A**hole" trait; then, leaders like Stalin and Mao can be depicted accurately.

Strangely enough, great leaders in history tend to have a rather nasty side.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
It was a poor culture. The Soviet Union was considered by many to be culturally barren. While certainly an exaggeration, there was probably less cultural works during Stalin's time compared to before (not counting pictures and statues of Lennin and Stalin).

It's easy to make such broad claims, but rather less easy to support them with facts.


Even if it were true that during Stalin's time there were fewer 'cultural works' produced, this isn't to say that his rule was responsible for that; I do seem to recall a little thing called the Second World War interrupting, for instance.

Having said that, it is true that as with many autocrats, Stalin favoured a bland official sentimental style of art- none of that 'experimental nonsense' that was produced by the revolutionary film makers, poets and artists of the early revolutionary period.

So we had dreary approved 'social realism' full of noble, striving workers all looking as though they not only worked on a production line, but were also created on one. And we had the official vision of Stalin- the icon to replace the Orthodox Church ones, the one that showed Stalin as tall and fit and hale and hearty, instead of possessed of a withered arm and grimly paranoiac.

Pretty much the same was true of Nazi Germany, except there of course they had to make a big show of decadent art with their state organised 'Entartete Kunst' exhibition- in which art described as 'Jewish' or (hilariously and ironically) 'Bolshevistic' was displayed to be derided and lampooned.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Strangely enough, great leaders in history tend to have a rather nasty side.

That's true. We could have more leaders with that trait.

[Autotropx Sox]

[q=Molly Bloom]this isn't to say that his rule was responsible for that;[/q]

Are you honestly contending that Stalin did not oppress any of the liberal arts which did not quallify as his vision of 'social realism'?

[q=Molly Bloom]Stalin favoured a bland official sentimental style of art[/q]

Also known as propaganda?

Honestly, to say that Stalinist Russia was anything more than a brutal, toltalitarian regime ruled by a despot masquerading as a god is worthy of any piece of "art" produced in that time period in Russia.