Firaxis to Include Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro in Next XP?!

[Robert]

The difference between Hitler and Mao/Stalin is that Hitler was a blatant rascist, a fascist. Mao/Stalin were huge dictators. Hitler is a known aggressor. Mao/Stalin are more known for being dictators once again.

That's the difference. You can't compare Hitler with other leaders only based on the deathtoll.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The difference between Hitler and Mao/Stalin is that Hitler was a blatant rascist, a fascist. Mao/Stalin were huge dictators. Hitler is a known aggressor. Mao/Stalin are more known for being dictators once again.

That's the difference. You can't compare Hitler with other leaders only based on the deathtoll.

Both Mao and Stalin persecuted specific ethnic groups. Stalin deported many specific ethnic groups (including Jews) to Siberia to face near-certain death. Mao used ethnic cleansing as well, though it does not seem to be motivated by personal racism - if a certain ethnic group had a lot of rebels, the civilians of that ethnic group were killed or relocated en-masse.

So Mao probably doesn't qualify for the 'racist' label any more than any Chinese person of the era, but Stalin was definitely motivated by personal dislike of many ethnic groups. I think the only reason he's not seen as being as bad as Hitler by many people today is that he was on our side in WWII. He certainly killed a lot more people than Hitler, for no better reasons.

[Leuenberg]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The difference between Hitler and Mao/Stalin is that Hitler was a blatant rascist, a fascist. Mao/Stalin were huge dictators. Hitler is a known aggressor. Mao/Stalin are more known for being dictators once again.
That's the difference. You can't compare Hitler with other leaders only based on the deathtoll.

I don't understand how, knowingly sending millions of innocent people to death because of their opinion or social class should be more acceptable than doing the same because of their religion or ethnicity.

This warped assessment is typical of western culture were most of the suffering has been brough by Hitler but should be no excuse to deprecate the sorrow of eastern european and chinese who still have the memory of parents murdered by those "huge dictators".

To paraphrase Tattila the Hun: Of course, those are not potential customers, so nobody (esp. Firaxis) cares.

[Thedrin]

Actually, the most prominent difference is that the Soviet Union and PRC survived the deaths of Stalin and Mao. That condition should be enough to rule out Hitler (and any other leaders whos policies ruined their civs) from the game.

That Hitler is famous is not a sufficient reason to include him. That he did great things (by the Ollivander definition of great) is not sufficient to include him. If the Third Reich had, on the whole, prospered from his rule - hell, even if it broke even - that could be enough to include him.

[Leuenberg]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Actually, the most prominent difference is that the Soviet Union and PRC survived the deaths of Stalin and Mao. That condition should be enough to rule out Hitler (and any other leaders whos policies ruined their civs) from the game.

That Hitler is famous is not a sufficient reason to include him. That he did great things (by the Ollivander definition of great) is not sufficient to include him. If the Third Reich had, on the whole, prospered from his rule - hell, even if it broke even - that could be enough to include him.

Your point could have been a good rationale but it's clearly not the rule used by Firaxis. Out of my mind I can tell that at least two leaders (Shaka and Napoleon) both ended miserably although they did great things during their leadership. And I'm sure there are some others in this situation.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Leuenberg


Your point could have been a good rationale but it's clearly not the rule used by Firaxis. Out of my mind I can tell that at least two leaders (Shaka and Napoleon) both ended miserably although they did great things during their leadership. And I'm sure there are some others in this situation.

Don't forget Huayna Capac and Montezuma - ESPECIALLY Montezuma. The Aztecs would have had a good chance of driving away the Spanish if it wasn't for his horrible leadership.

[One_more_turn]

Hitler was a loser. - End of story.

Ghengis Khan killed more (on a percentage wise for certain), but his empires lasted quite some time (until the 18th century when the Brits replaced Mogul in India, Cathy subdued the Crim Tartars, and Emperor Qianlong exterminated the Dzungars).

Stalin's empire still exists in some forms today: Russia is largely ruled by the FSB(KGB, NKVD).

Mao's picture is still hanging on the Tiananmen.

[One_more_turn]

Napoleon's legacy was very powerful:
He was interred honorably in the Invalides;

His legal code (Code Napoleon)still provides fundamental legal basis in France (or even Europe);

His education reform led to today's public school system.

His grandson became emperor of France;

He was still revered by most of the French population.

[One_more_turn]

Criteria for being a great leader:

1. Have they won in their life times?

2. Have their legacies survived?

3. How great were their legacies?

4. How long have their legacies lasted?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Criteria for being a great leader:

1. Has he/she won in their life times?

2. Have their legacies survived?

3. How great was their legacies?

4. How long have their legacies lasted?

I'd say number 2 above is the most important.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Vince278
I'd say number 2 above is the most important.

Huayna Capac would beg to differ

So would Hatshepsut, Montezuma, and Mansa Musa.

[Leuenberg]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Criteria for being a great leader:
1. Has he/she won in their life times?
2. Have their legacies survived?
3. How great was their legacies?
4. How long have their legacies lasted?

Good criterias but again there are many other leaders included in the game that would have been dismissed on those.

Besides, the legacy-based criterias are extremely questionable to assess leaders who ruled at most 60 years ago !

BTW for this very reason I would not only remove Stalin and Mao but also Churchill and Roosevelt, damn this game is named Civilization !

[Vince278]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Huayna Capac would beg to differ

So would Hatshepsut, Montezuma, and Mansa Musa.

Firaxis needed someone to represent civs they wanted to include.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Leuenberg
Besides, the legacy-based criterias are extremely questionable to assess leaders who ruled at most 60 years ago !

BTW for this very reason I would not only remove Stalin and Mao but also Churchill and Roosevelt, damn this game is named Civilization !

For the same reasons a civ barely over 230 years old (America) should be excluded. I guess having many of your customers (and company) there helps.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Vince278


For the same reasons a civ barely over 230 years old (America) should be excluded. I guess having many of your customers (and company) there helps.

Germany is only 135 years old, and it's in the game. The Aztec empire lasted less than 100 years, it's only playable ruler accomplished nothing more than the empire's destruction, and it's in the game. The USA has been a major power for the last 90 years or so, which is quite an accomplishment.