Tweet
Does anyone think that Civ 3 is a little too Politically Correct? I know that we've had many discussions about the fact that there are better French leaders than Joan of Arc (a decision that still baffles me), better Russian leaders than Catherine ( Peter the Great, anyone?), better Egyptian leaders than Cleopatra, etc. Many people think that those particular characters were selected due to the fact that they are women, and a sign of Firaxian P.C. ness. However, something that really bothers me are the choices for German great leaders.
I play as Germany all of the time. As a militaristic civ, I generate many GLs. Germany's selection of GLs is terrible. First of all, Germany only has 4: Barbarossa, Richtoffen, Hengest, ad Horsa.
Barbarossa is a good choice. The others are very crappy indeed. German history is full of military and political legends, and these are the leaders that are given? Lets examine them.
Richtoffen, the Red Baron, isn't all that bad, he just isn't as good as many others that could have been selected. Hengest and Horsa are terrible selections. Though both were Saxons, they figure far more in English history than German history, and may not have even existed. Why include them when there is such a rich history of German leaders to choose from?
I can understand if Firaxis was squemish about using Hitler as a Great leader. However, they saw no qualms about using Lenin and Stalin as Russian great leaders. What, weren't their bloodbaths as evil as Hitler's? Why not use Rommel as a leader? He wasn't nearly as atrocious of a figure as Stalin.
If Firaxis wants to avoid using Nazis (but still uses Totalitarian Communists? Seems hypocritical to me), then why not use some early, 2nd Reich German figures. Besides Bismarck, who I think was the PERFECT choice as the main leader of Germany, Firaxis seems to ignore these figures all together. Why not Hindenburg and Ludendorff? Wasn't the 1914 Battle of Tannenburg remarkable enough to earn them a spot on the Great Leader roster? How about the elder von Moltke? Wasn't his brilliant leadership during the Franco-Prussian, especially the crushing defeat of France at the 1870 Battle of Sedan greater than anything that Richtoffen, (let alone Hengest and Horsa) ever did? Even more inexcusable is ignoring Frederick the Great, one of history's all-time greatest generals. What about Napoleonic War generals von Clausewitz or von Blücher? All of these men were great leaders, and all deserved to be included over Richtoffen, Hengest, and Horsa.
Does the fact that Inforgrames is French have anything to do with the choices that Firaxis made on which leaders Germany should have? Is the fact that most of these great German leaders fought against the French the reason that they were ignored? If so, then that seems to me to be an insultingly stupid piece of P.C.ness. I know that this is a minor detail, and that it can be fixed through the editor, but it is something that annoys me and I wanted to see if anyone else was annoyed by a particularly P.C. move on the part of Firaxis. Am I the only person who notices/ gives a **** about these kinds of things?
I play as Germany all of the time. As a militaristic civ, I generate many GLs. Germany's selection of GLs is terrible. First of all, Germany only has 4: Barbarossa, Richtoffen, Hengest, ad Horsa.
Barbarossa is a good choice. The others are very crappy indeed. German history is full of military and political legends, and these are the leaders that are given? Lets examine them.
Richtoffen, the Red Baron, isn't all that bad, he just isn't as good as many others that could have been selected. Hengest and Horsa are terrible selections. Though both were Saxons, they figure far more in English history than German history, and may not have even existed. Why include them when there is such a rich history of German leaders to choose from?
I can understand if Firaxis was squemish about using Hitler as a Great leader. However, they saw no qualms about using Lenin and Stalin as Russian great leaders. What, weren't their bloodbaths as evil as Hitler's? Why not use Rommel as a leader? He wasn't nearly as atrocious of a figure as Stalin.
If Firaxis wants to avoid using Nazis (but still uses Totalitarian Communists? Seems hypocritical to me), then why not use some early, 2nd Reich German figures. Besides Bismarck, who I think was the PERFECT choice as the main leader of Germany, Firaxis seems to ignore these figures all together. Why not Hindenburg and Ludendorff? Wasn't the 1914 Battle of Tannenburg remarkable enough to earn them a spot on the Great Leader roster? How about the elder von Moltke? Wasn't his brilliant leadership during the Franco-Prussian, especially the crushing defeat of France at the 1870 Battle of Sedan greater than anything that Richtoffen, (let alone Hengest and Horsa) ever did? Even more inexcusable is ignoring Frederick the Great, one of history's all-time greatest generals. What about Napoleonic War generals von Clausewitz or von Blücher? All of these men were great leaders, and all deserved to be included over Richtoffen, Hengest, and Horsa.
Does the fact that Inforgrames is French have anything to do with the choices that Firaxis made on which leaders Germany should have? Is the fact that most of these great German leaders fought against the French the reason that they were ignored? If so, then that seems to me to be an insultingly stupid piece of P.C.ness. I know that this is a minor detail, and that it can be fixed through the editor, but it is something that annoys me and I wanted to see if anyone else was annoyed by a particularly P.C. move on the part of Firaxis. Am I the only person who notices/ gives a **** about these kinds of things?
Comment