Which leaders you'd change

[Sonic]

Which leaders do you think aren't worthy to be in game? (please check)

[Sonic]

I'd change Joan of Arc (to some middle ages France king, Joan of Arc option as leader is funny because she never ruled a state), President Lincoln (to George Washington or Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and Bismarck (to Adolf Hitler).

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Sonic
I'd change Joan of Arc (to some middle ages France king, Joan of Arc option as leader is funny because she never ruled a state), President Lincoln (to George Washington or Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and Bismarck (to Adolf Hitler).

Sorry, but proposing Hitler shall be taken as an offence by anyone knowing at least a sh*t about history and WW2. That figure has absolutely no right to appear in a game like Civ. How do you think German players would feel about the game? How could anyone play as Germans, not feeling uneasy? I mean to sound harsh.

[phunny_pharmer]

Bismarck (to Adolf Hitler)

Please don't be inflammatory...do you think Firaxis could get away with this?

Anyway, change Egypt, Russia, France, and possibly China. I think the most necessary changes are the first three.

[zulu9812]

I changed Bismark to Hitler. Caterina to Stalin as well. Not to mention Joan of Arc to Napoleon.

[SpencerH]

Bismarck-> Frederick the Great
Cleopatra-> Almost any of the early Pharoes would be better
Lincoln-> Washington
Ghandi-> A number of choices
Mao-> Qin Shi Huang Di

[frostycreep]

Id rather have Henry VIII as English king, instead of that virgin queen.

[frostycreep]

I personally would also like to go against Hitler and really kick his arse! But realistically it shouldnt be allowed. The man was just too evil!

[Carver]

Joan d'Ark has to be the oddest choice by the developers. She was more of a nationalist icon than anything else. She wasn't a political leader, an economic leader or a true military leader. Joan was there at the battles, but did she really know what she was doing?

[Sonic]

So Hitler was bad and Mao wasn't? Stalin for example killed more people than Hitler and even if people calls him bad, there wouldn't have been such reaction here if I named him (however, I think Catherine is better choice than Stalin, because Catherine also expanded Empire and Stalin didn't created his ideology - Lenin/Marx did. Lenin maybe would be a good choice but he didn't expanded Union as much as Stalin and Catherine did). Hitler was bad, but there were much worse, and after all Hitler was a strong leader. People thinks he was the worst man only because all the prejustice everyone is given at school etc. And this is only because he lost the war (look at quoute at my signature). Stalin was worse. And beyond Truman order also many civilians were killed. Yes, putting Hitler wouldn't help sell the game and he was bad, but he wasn't the worst and he was strong leader. Even if Hitler would have killed 100 times more people than he did, he still should been here (and then he should be here even more). Leaders could be good or bad, but if the does impact for nation/world, then they are strong leadres. And Hitler did that impact.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I changed Bismark to Hitler. Caterina to Stalin as well. Not to mention Joan of Arc to Napoleon.

You must have a very negative view of the world.

[monkspider]

I would definitely change Joan to Napoleon, making her the French leader always bugged the heck out of me. I would also advise changing Cleo to Ramses II and Catherine to good ol' Vlad Lenin.

[Adagio]

Chancelor Bismarck => I have no clue who he is
Queen Elisabeth => She's walking death...and have no clue who she is...
Czar Chaterina => Got no idea who she is

The rest are perfect, nobody fits in more perfect than those who are there now...

[Incan_Warrior]

I'm going to have to back Sonic up on his choices - they aren't necessarily mine, but if you think of the way Civilization is designed, Hitler & Stalin are not inappropriate choices. Many of us play Civilization as warmongerers, literally killing the population of the other civs. Even those that aren't all that into war want to dominate the rest of the civ-world. Strategies can involve espionage and culture bombing, neither of which are pleasant for the involved civilizations.

Civ 3 isn't about peace and harmony. If anyone is going to get up-in-arms over a leader choice, we should be really pissed off about Ghandi as a selection. He lived a life of peace, and I quote him with this: "Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." And yet Firaxis has the gall to place his visage in a game that revolves around WAR. Anyone that wishes to play their political-correctness card should start here.

With the exception of Ghandi, I believe EVERY other leader in the game has either killed a man with his/her own hands OR authorized an army to do so. It is true, Hitler was devious, overzealous and fundamentally evil. But the same could be said for Montezuma, a man who daily sacrificed his own people for religious reasons. Hitler's 'Aryan Nation' was effectively a religion in itself.

My point is that Sonic's propositions are not out of line. You can't play a game of Civilization without seeing death and destruction, even if they are cartoon-ified. Take off your rose-colored glasses and see the game for what it is. Hitler, if anything, would be the MOST appropriate leader for this game.

[The Templar]

I'd go with Lenin over Cathrine, and Napoleon over Joan of Arc.

While Hitler would be fun to play against, I suppose Hitler IS, after all, as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans. Then again, a WWII scenario featuring Hitler and a cold war scenario featuring Reagan would both be fun.