is Joan of Arc politically correct? I want Clemencau

[Fiil]

Louis XIV, Le Roi du Soleil = the Sun King, is everything a leader should be in civ. (Well, maybe not nice - but this doesn't seem to be a issue in civ)

Napoleon wasn't even French (I know he was officially - but not otherwise). If Corse had been under another country he would have fought under their flag but with the same mission.
Napoleon wanted to rule the world and have all other men kiss his feet, these were his own goals - not the goals of France.
Of course he was popular - any victorious general is!

Do not choose these strange characters: Hitler, Napoleon, Akhenaton/Cleopatra (I know she's in ), Cromwell, Alexander (I know he's in too ) and Sulla/Nero.


Joan of Arc is suited for the job even less... too little is known about her and intensions. OK she probably was a good general - then make her a GL, not the ruler of France.

IMHO Civilization rulers should of course be great rulers who people know. But they should also be a good representative of their nation, someone who matches the civ specific abilities.
Choose the founder, or the ruler when the civ was at the peek of it's power (I know this is hard to define).

For the French Charles Magne, Louis le XIV or maybe even General de Gaulle should have been chosen!

[JellyDonut]

Double post. Thought I caught the typo before it processed...Damn!

[JellyDonut]

François Mitterrand doit être le chef français!

Sérieusement, à moi ça n'importe. Et probablement, ça n'importe aux gens qui ne peuvent pas lire ce message!

[Sarxis]

Re: is Joan of Arc politically correct? I want Clemencau

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Joan of Arc (jeanne d'arc for you frenchies) seems to be included rather than such leaders as Charles De Gaulle, Napoleon, Louis XIV, St. Louis, Charlemagne at least in part with the idea that the game should be "politically correct" ie that it should include female leaders. This is seen by some as concession to the "left" This is profoundly ironic, as the cult of Jeanne d'arc was created in the late 19th c by catholic, royalist (ie RIGHT WING) frenchmen looking for a national symbol that was not associated the secular, democratic (ie Left wing) third Republic - as were the tricolor, the Marseillase, the 14th of July (instituted as a holiday for the first time by the third republic) It is both ironic, and a sign of how identity politics has distorted the left that this icon for the most backward and reactionary elements in French politics is considered "left wing"

Moi, I want Clemencau(sp?) for the French leader.

LOTM

Isn't Firaxis based in the USA?
How do you expect us stoopid Americans to know, let alone, care about that stuff?

[jdd2007]

How do you expect us stoopid Americans to know, let alone, care about that stuff?

PEOPLE, PEOPLE!!! ITS TOO LATE!!! JOAN IS ALREADY THE FRENCH LEADER!!!!!

[Fiil]

Originally posted by JellyDonut
François Mitterrand doit être le chef français!

Sérieusement, à moi ça n'importe. Et probablement, ça n'importe aux gens qui ne peuvent pas lire ce message!

Of course it doesn't matter a great deal, but when you can choose anyone why not make a good choice.
I know why they chose Jeanne - because they needed more female leaders... I just don't think this should justify choosing someone who never ruled anything. Mitterand would be a better choice by far.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Algeria. Perhaps "Genocidal" is a little strong.

De Gaulle regained power in 1958, and the French were out by 1962, IIRC. I can do a little research on French activity in Algeria from 1958 to 1962. I suspect it will show that genocidal is not "a little strong" but quite simply incorrect. Should it show this a more complete apology to the memory of the great man will be in order.

Charges of genocide should not be made lightly.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: is Joan of Arc politically correct? I want Clemencau

Originally posted by Anunikoba


Isn't Firaxis based in the USA?
How do you expect us stoopid Americans to know, let alone, care about that stuff?

Uh, perhaps because some of us Americans aren't so stupid. Firaxis is based in Baltimore, home of Johns Hopkins University, the Enoch Pratt library, and Bolton Hill intellectual snobs. They could find out all this without leaving the confines of crabtown.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snapcase
that's true, but find someone who is not a history freak

I keep forgetting, Civ is not a game for history freaks, its about FUN

[Fiil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I keep forgetting, Civ is not a game for history freaks, its about FUN

Is Joan of Arc fun??

[Phutnote]

I agree with Lord of the Mark.

I think Napoleon would be, from a historical perspective, a much better choice than Joan of Arc. From a marketing point of view, Joan's the way to go.

Why?

Napoleon was actually was the ruler of France. He implemented the Napoleonic Code. He was a military genius, conquered most of Europe, and spread the revolutionary ideas of France.

Compare with Joan of Arc: she was never ruler of France (the King was), she had no formal military training, her ability as a general was severely limited, she had no political role in the French government at any time, did not make any foreign or domestic policies, and was really little more than an overglorified mascot for the troops to rally behind. Lets not even go into her direct lne to god.

The argument that Nappie had to be rotated out because he was in Civ I doesn't hold: Elizabeth, Gandhi, Montezuma, Alexander, Abraham, Hammurabi, and Shaka were all in Civ I and are all in Civ III.

Both Joan and Nappie are famous French icons. But Napoleon I would say is both more famous and more influential: joan influenced France, Nappie influenced all of europe.

Dismissing the 'politically correct' or marketing factors in influencing the leader choice as outright 'bull****' I think is close minded. there is simply too much that ways in Napoleon's favour.

Civ is one of those rare games that appeals outside the gamer market and to the mass public (how many games are mentioned in TIME mag favourably? ie. not articles about mindless shooters that cause teenage violence) .

By adding in the cultural elements and allowing for peaceful avenues of progress, Firaxis has the chance to broaden their market, which is why chosing Joan makes so much sense from a marketing perspective.

personally, I'm gonna miss Nappie and his pinched face look when I turn down his peace offers. Joan just doesn't have the character that the short little Emperor does.

Phutnote

[Inverse Icarus]

hey im just a dumb american ( ) but i dont remember joan ruling france!

oh yea. 5 on AP European History. ::victory dance::

[Rasbelin]

How about Petain?

My suggestions are Charles de Gaule, Raymond Poincare,
Georges Clemenceau and Louis XIV.

Pick yours!

[Rakki]

Atrix !

[Sun Zi 36]

I don't know what the "equal number of male and female leaders" is meant to reflect. I mean surely everyone would accept it as fact that at least in the past 5000 years men influenced history much more than women. So on a historical perspective, there is no reason why there should be equal male and female leaders. Why would u want to alter history just to be politically correct? I mean, giving the player the choice to play as male/female is already pretty fair.

On a second point, I think the English having Eliz I as their leader makes it a bit too much to have a female leader again in France. Maybe switch the female leader to somewhere else further away is a good idea.