Oppositions to Arabs

[Bautou]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

caesar is definetly the better choice. after all, out of caesar came caisar and like that the german word "kaiser", which means emperor. noone else in history had a such a title named after him

Yes, I think the only option other than Caesar would be Augustus. Caesar was the catalyst for the destruction of the republic and the beginning of the empire, while Augustus was the one who shaped the form of the empire that people think of when they think of Rome.

Trajan and the other warrior-emperors would be better represented as great leaders than as THE leader.

[Zero]

Civ I had napoleon bonaparte and josef Stalin instead of leader you currently have now. In civ II, depending on the gender, you got napoleon or joan of arc, but since civ III adopted the leader portrait concept instead portryal of some shmuck clown that acts as diplomat, you couldnt change gender without having extra portrait for each civ... and like kramerman aid, they wanted some female leader in game.

IMO, Civ I's Stalin-Russia was political incoret because Russia is not a Soviet Union.. It's a different government and a country ur talking about.

American civ is screwy cause since abe lincoln is the leader and they have F-15, in which period of our golden civilization did we have abe lincoln leading our country in the time of crisis w/ a F-15?

Germany is fine, Bismarck was a great diplomat and a powerful leader. It's just that he commands panzers.... thats a bit whacked. btw should they have chosen third reich germany, would you have preferred expansionistic trait over the existing sci and mil?)

Joan and musketeer isnt really accurate either... I'm guessing firaxis didnt try fitting the leaders and units into same civilization time period. which i think would have been better...

[Zero]

Napoleon does suit France better IMO, France domination of europe was the first since the days of Roman empire that Europe had been under control of one empire. Un fourtunately, the reign didnt last after his rule, in fact it ended while he was ruling, which kinda makes it controversial for me when calling it civilization (I visualize like an Incan civ, flourishing for hundreds of years kinda thing)

Same goes for third reich, it was too short and from marketing point of view you want to avoid any controversy when taking a controversial issue doesnt see much reward for game anyway.

(which is a shame, I still can't believe taking out things related to WTC from games and pic can make some kinda difference... People get fussy for no logical reason... We should live in a world where we can freely express ourself, sigh after all thats wat democracy is about... Ever wondered why you never get a WWII SP game where you are playing a german hero instead of same ol' allie heros? That game will be shot down so fast by public outrage...)

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Calc II
btw should they have chosen third reich germany, would you have preferred expansionistic trait over the existing sci and mil?)

I prefer industrious-scientific for Germany in "normal" games, but Hitler's Germany should really be expansionist and militaristic.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Caliban
I prefer industrious-scientific for Germany in "normal" games, but Hitler's Germany should really be expansionist and militaristic.

caliban: i agree with you in "normal" games, however with hitler i believe mil/sci is the more precise combination.

why? because germany were technically far ahead of the others until about 3/4 way through the war, when USA and in that way the allies had caught up. don't forget: hitler ruled from 1933 to 1945... so in about 10 of 12 years there was a science lead.

expansionist isn't wrong either ("wir wollen auch einen platz an der sonne"). but his ideas in "mein kampf" only meant expanding a little bit east. in the beginning he didn't plan going so far in both directions (that happend, because the russians and the french weren't strong enough).

so all together: exp and sci both have good reasons to choose, but IMO throughout the whole dictatorship sci is more accurate.

[Zero]

Saberwolf how about trying Through out the war instead of 3/4 of the war. IMO, third reich was far ahead of anyone up until their demise. Sure US beat them in Nuclear race and later reports indicated that Germany probably wouldnt have goten a nuke before we did, but let's not forget we sacked alot of their techs, like jet engines after the war. In fact, its almost scary to see US modern infantries because they resemble German wermacht infantries, down to the clothing to the funky shaped helmets that stick out to cover your necks...

about expansion part, I agree, Hitler prolly expanded as far as he did west to sue for peace, and end the western front. But I disagree about East. According to my memory, Hitler hated the slavs and Germanic and slavic relationship wasn't too good back then. So History would have been interesting if Stalin sued for peace during when moscow was near grasp of Hitler.

[Zero]

Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

[sabrewolf]

ok, so we agree about science and the west.

it's a long time since those history lessons, so i might have gotten some things a little bit mixed up.

hitler hated anything non-arian, especially jews, roma (and other gypsies) and nubyan. of course he also hated slavs, but he didn't extinguish them as much as he did the other ethnicities.

in 1925 he wrote "mein kampf" and before his election in 1933 he talked about "Eroberung neuen Lebensraumes im Osten und dessen rücksichtslose Germanisierung" (Quote: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/inn...tik/meinkampf/ ) which means approx. "conquest of new habitat in the east and ruthless germanisation"
i interpret this mainly as getting new living space to the east for the germans... while performing ethnic cleansing.
i just don't know, HOW far he planned to go.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Calc II
Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

"panzer" is actually the german word for "tank" but also means "armour". in the 1st world war german tanks where a lot stronger, more effective and had superior armour. i think the UU is meant to be from that time.
also, in civ3 tanks/panzers come with motorized transport which in real life started towards the end of the 19th century...

[Zero]

nobody really know his long term plan to this day, or even if he HAD a long term plan for his ethnic superiority idea. His views on ethnicity is quite ambiguous and vague and often books refer to hitler not knowing wat to make of Western Europeans like Anglo, Saxon types, since most of them had along the lines shared the same germanic blood. He was unsure whether to take them as one race whole or treat them as outsiders.

so we can play a game and argue for long, but I'll just accpet that this can be left to mostly interpretation.

My World War II history class professor was so stubborn about this germanic-slavic relationship I guess it kinda influenced me. He was also so goddamn stubborn about Japan's decision to attack America and philliphines and not Russia had to do with oil issues and that Japan did share interest w/ germany in attacking Russia. Then again he also notes stubbornly that it was Russian preparation to invade Japanes empire that gave way to surrender. I wonder if he was Russian.... should have figured that out first.

[Zero]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


"panzer" is actually the german word for "tank" but also means "armour". in the 1st world war german tanks where a lot stronger, more effective and had superior armour. i think the UU is meant to be from that time.
also, in civ3 tanks/panzers come with motorized transport which in real life started towards the end of the 19th century...

Yes panzer is tank in german. But observe how panzer is portrayed... it has an extra move. and desciption of the panzer in game almost seems to explain how wermacht used panzers in WWII.. Note German tanks were not notorious in WWI nor during bismarck's time, so I'd have to argue that tanks shouldnt be their UU then.

its just my opinion that firaxis wanted third reich in game but didnt want controversy. Nothing wrong wit it, but if u cant see that its ok too cause its just my interpretation.

[LionQ]

This thread call "Opposition to Arabs", but now were talking about Bismarck, Dritten Reich, Hitler en antisemitism. But all right: continue. I'm just finding it kind of funny.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Cidifer


Are you completly forgetting the economic situation the US was in when he too office? also the US needed time to build up troops and if the US had gone to war right away with much fewer ships and planes (especially air craft carriers) the US might have been fighting the Japanese until the creation of the A bomb anyway, though could have maybe saved a few french and english civilians, and maybe some people in Africa, but there's no way the US would have had any troops in France in enough time to make any difference there anyway. Also there's no way you were going to see US troops in Russia.

That being said I still think the US leader should be Washington, and probably Lincoln and Jefferson before FDR.

Don't feel attacked: you did right!

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Calc II
Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.

I think they've placed Civ III-Germany in the period 1870/1871 - 1914 or 1918.

[Sonic]

No, they meant WHOLE Germany. XIX age, XX age and XXI age. The same as USA means whole USA, not just civil war USA. Every civ represents whole development of that nation. I am pretty sure Russia also represents Soviet Union for example.

And by Panzers they surely meant WW2 Panzers. Because WW2 Panzers were named so, and other if translated from German would be just "tanks". Also, Panzers were really infront of avarage development by time (one Panzer could win against about 11 Shermans). Also, Panzers in civ3 looks like ones from WW2, in WW1 tanks were much different...