Which leaders you'd change

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Incan_Warrior
Vondrack -

Please check out my earlier post. I still think those opposing Hitler/Stalin/Napoleon are approaching the topic from the wrong angle. Civilization is not a game for peace-lovers, and, to be honest, many many many players use strategies that resemble the strategies Hitler implemented during WW2: He made his own population suffer, terrorized/enslaved/killed anyone that stood in his way and made no excuses for it. How many times have you, while playing Civ 3, broken a peace treaty, killed off your own population to rush a city improvement, razed a city, destroyed an entire civilization? It isn't a stretch to say that playing Civ 3 is vicariously carrying out the very plans Hitler dreamed of. THUS, you and others shouldn't be disgusted by a proposition that Hitler be a leader, you should instead be disgusted when real-life peaceful leaders, like Ghandi, are thrust into a game that revolves around war.

Well, I do not know if my angle is wrong or not. However, it is mine and as I have said before, I am 100% sure I am not going to change it. While your reasoning may seem ok to you, it seems just insane to me. Civ3 is a game and even if I sometimes resort to playing techniques that would be reflected in the real world as those that Hitler used, I do so only because it is a game. I am not killing anyone, I just remove units from the map. No blood spilt. Hitler reminds me of atrocities so appaling that I would consider even playing a game featuring him as disgusting.

Most of the leaders featured in Civ3 did something positive for their nation:

Caesar - expanded and united the Roman empire, improved and strenghtened its military, did a number of important administrative, tax, and social reforms.
Cleopatra - managed to diplomatically maintain Egypt's independence for many years, when the whole rest of the Mediterranean was conquered by Romans.
Alexander - defeated the longtime Greece's enemy, the Persians, created a huge empire under his/Greek rule (although it crumbled shortly after his death).
Hammurabi - gave the world the very first set of laws surviving to our times (it was under his rule that Babylon started using this set of laws).
Bismarck - through wars and diplomacy, he united the most of individual German states into one single country, forming the basics of what we today know as Germany.
Catherine - expanded the Russian empire on the expense of Turkey and Poland, did a lot to improve the education system in Russia.
Montezuma - greatly expanded the Aztec empire in the first two decades of the 16th century (although later failed to save his nation from the Spanish, mostly for religion related reasons).
Shaka - effectively founded the Zulu empire; created a fighting force that dominated the area.
Hiawatha - more of a legendary figure, tho, but attributed to be the founder if Iroquois Confederacy and an incarnation of human progress and civilization.
Elizabeth - under her rule, England thrived, successfully defended against Spain, expanded all over the globe.
Xerxes - although he managed to improve Persia's domestic stability, he failed to subdue Greece, which he attempted... this leader seems to be a candidate for replacement as under his rule, the decline of the Persian empire started.
Gandhi - lead India to independence, showing extraordinarily strong will while never resorting to violence.
Joan - become an icon, or a catalyser of the French resistance against England in the 15th century. Although her historical importance may be doubted, there is no doubt that she is associated with a period that saw things improving for France. I do agree that she would be a good candidate for a replacement tho...
Tokugawa - this one is rather interesting, as Tokugawa was a ruling dynasty, not a single ruler... however, under the Tokugawa rule, Japan enjoyed a long period of prosperity, rising to a local superpower (even if voluntarily ending in a bit isolated position eventually).
Lincoln - although associated with the period of Civil War, he contributed greatly to the abolishion of slavery and managed to keep the United States united (though at a cost...).
Mao - a good candidate for a replacement, tho even he did help his country by fighting the Japanese invaders during WW2 (and not fighting his foremost foe, the Kuomintang, that was the most important force fighting the Japanese) and later creating (by force) the united China as we know it nowadays.

What good did Hitler do to Germany???
He brought a total destruction to the whole country in just about ten years, ruining it both militarily and economically. You should ask some Germans how they feel about including Hitler in Civ3, I guess.

Guys, do not tell me there are good reasons to make Hitler a member of this club. There are none. Period.

P.S.: I am not that much of a history freak, I had to look several of the leaders in books... but my feeling was correct, most of them may at least controversially be attributed contributing to their nation's glory. Unlike Hitler.

[N. Machiavelli]

Bismark: Fine by me. While I would, personally, enjoy seeing Hitler in the game for entertainment value only, I understand that many are offended.

Elisabeth: Would prefer Henry V or VIII.

Xerxes: Darius would have been preferable.

Alexander: Not technically Greek, but easily the most recognisible and worthy for Greek leader.

Cleopatra: Is decent enough to be included if Firaxis was particularly eager to try to balance the genders. Ramses wold be preferable.

Hammurabi: Is a fine choice. Nebuccadrezzer also good, but less recognizable.

Joan of Arc: Napoleon all the way. Heck put in Louis XIV before Joan. She was indeed a cultural and 'military' leader, but it would be like placing Montgomery or Sherman as leader of Britain or America, respectively.

Lincoln: Is, arguably, the president who got America through it's toughest time and was more a saviour to the US than even FDR. Washington is a close second, but his greatest contribution was as a general, not president.

Caesar: Personal favorite. Augustus, Hadrien, or even Publious are also excellent political leaders for Rome.

Mao: Not the most savory of fellows, but like Hitler was (controversially) the 'right' person at the right time and took his country far. Unlike Hitler, we have yet to see if where he's taking it down the toilet.

Kathy the Great: Would prefer Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great rather than Katherine. A good leader in her own right, but unlikely the best.

[Jon Shafer]

Napoleon, Washington, and maybe someone different for Russia.

Everything else is fine, and what I would have done.

[Jon Shafer]

Seperate thought:

I feel that Lincoln's importance is overrated. His main significance is the time when he got into office, not what he did. The Emancipation Proclamation was mainly a diplomatic and morale contribution for the war, not something heroic. There's no doubt that he was against slavery, but that wasn't what he was aiming for.

[wervdon]

I personally would change:
America -> Washington or Jefferson, probally washington though
Russia -> Peter the Great
Egypt -> One of the Ramses
France -> Louis XIV

But the only one that is really incomprehensible to me like so many of you is Joan as she wasn't even a leader in the sense the others were.

The only problem with Cleopatra IMO was she wasnt leader during a time could exactly be considered Egypt's golden age

Hopefully one day (several expansion packs down the road most likely) we'll have a scripting language that will allow changing a civs leader on the fly with certain events like game year or randomly along with aspects of the civs ai to reflect the change.

[Artifex]

Hitler was an IDIOT. Bismarck united germany, Hitler got his ass kicked and is in the same league as pol pot. I don't have any respect for Hitler as a leader. I think he is a Moron. He had the most brilliant military forces and generals the world had ever seen(which had nothing to do with him). Anyone with HALF a BRAIN could of won World War 2 with those German generals and that fighting force. Hitler was a great POLITICIAN. A horrible leader. His assnine decisions on invading russia and micromanaging the war and "stand and die" orders along with all his other crackpot decisions and medling insured Germanies defeat. This isn't a moral question for example I think Stalin was just as bad if not worse, but shoudl be in the game..I just think Hitler was an idiot..

Cazrina Catherine-> Peter the Great, Stalin or Lenin (close call)

Stalin was a great leader, A mean evil SOB who killed his own people but he created an Empire (All of East Europe and many Sattelite states along with Huge Soviet Union and Massive Military Force never seen since). Lenin would be a close second for the russian leader (created the Soviet Union). Peter was great also any one oif these would be useful.

France-> Naploleon Hands Down (a great general but Russia is what did him in, but he conquered all of europe). Louis XIV was a fat narcasistic slob.

USA-> I like Washington. He was also a General.

[SpencerH]

I'm surprised so many are against Joanie. It might be argued that without Joan, France would have eventually become part of England.

[dojoboy]

I'd change Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth to their younger images.

[Boris Godunov]

Bismarck is indeed the epitome of a world-class statesman and is utterly perfect to represent Germany. He was brilliant, cunning and ruthless.

Hitler's choice wouldn't just be bad taste, it would be rather stupid. He brought about the destruction of Germany, not greatness. It would be like making Caligula the leader for the Romans.

I'd agree with swapping Joan for Napoleon, but that's really the only change I would make. Yeah, you'd lose a woman, but let's face it--history has been a man's world for the most part.

Lincoln was the greatest American president, so his being in the game is fine. Trip, I'd suggest you read up more on him, especially some of the new biographies that have come out lately. Revisionists like to start trashing him, but you can't discount what he did. It was NOT a case of the times making the man. Lincoln was great in his own right.

[Jon Shafer]

Lincoln was a great man. I simply feel that he was not the greatest in American history. I'm not bashing him, I simply feel that Washington has had the greatest impact.

Artifex, I agree 100% with everything you said.

[Palleon]

I think most of the civ leaders are ok, but I don't like the fact that many of the leaders never lead the country, and I think that should be a prerequiste. Gandhi and Joan of Arc never led their countries in a political sense, and Cleopatra led her country into occupation for a thousand and some odd years. I wouldn't mind seeing Ramses or King Tut or something thats associated a bit more with Egypts golden age, and Napoleon or Louis for France.

Edit: And while Lincoln was a good man, I don't think he was the best choice for the American leader. Washington, Jefferson or FDR would make much better leaders in my estimation.

[phunny_pharmer]

for those of us who don't know Bismark...

Gee, I hope I don't get on your ignore or ban list, but...

Ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? That is the first Reich. Hitler planned to build the Third Reich, and was defeated in 1945? What happened in between the first and third? Bismark.

This was pulled up by a simple web search. I can't bring up EB right now, otherwise I'd post that. However, this is from the German Embassy...

***

Otto von Bismarck, born on April 1, 1815 at Schönhausen, is considered the founder of the German Empire. For nearly three decades he shaped the fortunes of Germany, from 1862 to 1873 as prime minister of Prussia and from 1871 to 1890 as Germany’s first Chancellor. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his death on July 30, 1898, German News remembers the great German statesman.

After reading law at the Universities of Göttingen and Berlin, Otto von Bismarck entered Prussian service and became a judicial administrator at Aachen. Bismarck gained prominence in 1851 when he was chosen to represent Prussia in the Federal diet. In 1859 he was sent as ambassador to Russia, from where he was recalled in March 1862 to become ambassador to France. However, already after 6 months in September 1862, Bismarck returned to Berlin as prime minister of Prussia when he devoted himself to the task of uniting Germany. In the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success.

This victory instigated the kingdoms of Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden and Hesse to join the North German Alliance, an alliance of Prussia and 17 northern German states created by Bismarck in 1866, which led to the declaration of the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) in 1870 and the proclamation of King William I of Prussia as German Emperor in Versailles in 1871. The imperial constitution was declared in April 1871. Bismarck was appointed imperial chancellor. The chancellor of the Reich was not responsible to parliament but to the Emperor. The Reichstag, the imperial parliament, was convened by universal, equal, direct and secret elections. Next to the Emperor, it was the second most important institution. However, its political influence was limited to the area of legislation. It exerted only a very small influence over the formation of governments and government policy. Characteristic of the Reich was the „government over the parties" and the restriction of the peoples’ representation to a position in which it was only able to express a non-binding opinion on important political questions. The system was described at the time as a „chancellor dictatorship". It was Bismarck as Imperial Chancellor who decided upon policy outlines and who proposed the appointment and dismissal of state secretaries who were in turn responsible for the administration of the ministries of the Reich.

Bismarck’s greatest achievements, however, were the administrative reforms, developing a common currency, a central bank, and a single code of commercial and civil law for Germany. Bismarck also became the first statesman in Europe to devise a comprehensive scheme of social security to counter the Social Democrats, offering workers insurance against accident, sickness and old age. In foreign affairs, he, as a master of alliances and counter-alliances, presided over the Congress of Berlin (1872) and this seemed to symbolize his paramount position as mediator between the then great powers such as Russia, Austria, France, Great Britain. An alliance with Austria-Hungary (1879) marked a new period of conservatism in Bismarck’s foreign policy.

But by 1890 his policies began to come under attack. On March 18, 1890 two years after Emperor William II’s accession, Bismarck was forced to resign. His last years were devoted to composing his memoirs.

***

My use of bold print. Care to read more? There are a number of great books about this time period where Bismark took a country and made it a first class power.

Check it out at http://www.germanembassy-india.org/news/98july/gn07.htm

[Jon Shafer]

To summarize: There would be no Germany if it weren't for Bismarck. He did what very few others in all of history could have done: United dozens of fragmented states into what quickly becamse the most powerful country in the world. Firaxis made the correct choice.

[Elagabalus]

What criteria should apply when selecting a National Leader?

Some here object to Hitler/Mao/Stalin because they were *evil* and murdered a lot of people including many of their own countrymen. However, how many players have not done
* pop-rushing - crifying our own countrymen to complete something fast.
* razed a city - to clear the space of foreign nationals making the room for our own ethnic guys.
* declared war on your neighbor with no or little provocation?
I certainly have, all or soem of the above in every single game I have played.

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

[Palleon]

Yes. While Hitler forced Germany to be split in two, and not remilitarize for 50 years. Not to mention the fact that he was a bastard lunatic, even the Germans are ashamed to call him a leader of theres. Of course, you'll still find people who don't think the Holocaust happened, and it was all a big misunderstanding...meh. I don't get it.