One quick point about the Chinese Civ

chocoballs · November 13, 2001, 03:33

Most modern/current Chinese people define themselves as Tang or Han people...citing their preference to be associated with the merits of those dynasties

It's odd that in all 3 CIVs, the chosen Chinese leader is Mao. Just off the top, doesn't that make him the most contemporary leader in the game...running one of the most ancient civs in the world?

Chinese civ started around 4000BC around the Yellow river with the first political identities forming around 2700 BC (Yellow Emperor (part man, mostly myth)).

I think a more representative Civ leader should have been Qin ShiHuangdi - the First Emperor of China (united the Great Wall around 250 BC)

My point and query is, how were these leaders chosen? By modern recognizability? (Why not Hitler instead of Bizmarck or Lenin instead of Catherine) Or by virtue of achievement for their particular Civ (Chandragupta (Mauryan empire) instead of Gandhi) Or by general likability (Joan of Arc over Napoleon. But Alexander was pretty unlikable (for anybody but the Greeks) in his day too)

In fact, with the exception of a few (Hammurabi, Caesar, Elizabeth, Alexander and Xerxes) how many of the others were really into Empire building. True, most were all significant during their time and advanced the cause of mankind in general (Ganghi and Lincoln), but this is a Civ building game. Where are all the folks who truly fought to expand their borders or to spread their culture? That said, where the heck is Cortes or whoever it was who sent him (Isabella?)?!

I think, though of course arguable, the leaders shoud be:

montezuma - aztec
hammurabi - babylonians
Frances i or Napolean - france
qin shihuang - china
ramses or ptolemy - egypt
liz - english
alex - greeks
chandragupta - indians
Should the iroquois even be here. where are the spanish?!!
yorimoto - japanese
xerxes i - persian
caesar - roman
Peter i - russia
shaka - zulu (50 year empire a little short though)
washington - americans

by the selection of the leaders and even civs, looks like there was more effort to include a wider demographic (politically inclusive) appeal than selection based on merit.

where are the Spanish?

Solmyr · November 13, 2001, 04:34

Just as a note, Catherine the Great of Russia was most definitely into empire building, with her extensive wars against Turkey that among other things resulted in annexation of Crimea; as well as the partition of Poland which she engineered along with Prussia and Austria.

Martinus · November 13, 2001, 05:46

chocoballs,

I agree with your proposals save one: Persians. Xerxes was as much a great leader of Persia as Cleopatra was of Egypt.

Darius would be much better choice.

cavebear · November 13, 2001, 15:01

Chocoballs - Two quick thoughts about Mao as the Chinese Leader. First, might he developers have been specifically trying to avoid offending either of the two main Chinese groups by chosing someone of neither group? Second, they were probably trying to chose a Leader (in all the civs) known to most of the people who would be playing the game.

At least they didn't make the Chinese Leader Fu Manchu or Ming the Merciless.

chocoballs · November 13, 2001, 18:40

good point. just a quick one. which 2 groups were you referring to? the nationalists on taiwan and the communists?

fu manchu would have been killer. or even kane from kung fu the legend.

PMLF · November 13, 2001, 21:51

Maybe Charles Magne should be the French leader. Even if he was a Frank rather than a French, but these peoples (Frank and French) were almost the same.

squeeze truck · November 14, 2001, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by chocoballs

I think, though of course arguable, the leaders shoud be:

montezuma - aztec
hammurabi - babylonians
Frances i or Napolean - france
qin shihuang - china
ramses or ptolemy - egypt
liz - english
alex - greeks
chandragupta - indians
Should the iroquois even be here. where are the spanish?!!
yorimoto - japanese
xerxes i - persian
caesar - roman
Peter i - russia
shaka - zulu (50 year empire a little short though)
washington - americans

Ptolemy is not a good choice for Egypt, because he was a greek.

I agree about China. Mao is a horrible choice. At least it wasn't Generalissimo Chiang.

I think you mean "Yoritomo" of the Japanese. I think most Japanese would select Nobunaga as the greatest classical leader though. Certainly the greatest conqueror.

Thinking about the Zulu thing... Why are the Zulu even here? I'll tell you why, because they wanted to include a black guy, and Shaka is a tad famous for wiping out a British regiment once. Why not include a real African empire, like the Songhai Empire, or Mali? Or maybe the Nigerians?

And I think Jimmy Carter should lead the Americans. Thank you, and good night.

conquistadore · November 14, 2001, 09:39

chocoball, i agree that Mao is a horrible chioce. Aside from founding the PRC, he did nothing. Deng, at least, could be credited for bringing the cultural revolution and modernising China...

Anyway, i feel that the leader should be the one in power during the country's golden era, which makes Tang Taizong the most suitable candidate or at the least, Han Wudi.

IncreduloDriver · November 14, 2001, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by conquistadore
chocoball, i agree that Mao is a horrible chioce. Aside from founding the PRC, he did nothing. Deng, at least, could be credited for bringing the cultural revolution and modernising China...

Mao did plenty of stuff for China aside from founding the PRC, almost all of it very, very bad. If you mean "cultural revolution" as in THE Cultural Revolution, that was purely Mao, and purely disastrous.

I think either Deng or Sun Yat-sen would've made absolutely superb leaders of China in Civ3, both of them being infinitely better than Mao the killing machine. In response to somebody earlier in this forum, Chiang Kai-Shek would've been totally awesome for a leader of the Chinese. And it would've been a bold political statement for Firaxis, too.

Still, if anybody else thinks Mao is a terrible, terrible choice for China, perhaps we should do something about it?

chocoballs · November 15, 2001, 00:22

Yeah, i thought Mao was a odd choice too.

Sun Yat Sen would have made a cool leader. founder of modern china. But he over threw the imperialism that china is most recognized for.

I still prefer qin shihuang though.

Han Wudi! good call!

I don't know about Chiang kai-shek though. more skeletons than clinton. but then again, we probably know more than we wanted to about clinton.

I totally agree about the Zulu. that's why I made the quip about demographic inclusion. What about the Bantu? Is it not accurate that most modern day Africans are Bantu descendants?
please correct me if I'm wrong.

J10 · November 17, 2001, 13:36

For the Chinese leader, I would vote for Wang Di, THE king who started it all. Wang Di basically just mean "King". He's a king named king because he's the first king (well more like a leader) of the Chinese people, that's why he wasn't named "King - name -" but just King.

Anyway it's the our first "official leader"; And I wouldn't blame any non-Chinese for not knowing it, so I'm not upset or surprised at all that he wasn't our leader in Civ3. I like Qin Shi Huang too, the first person who officially (once again) united China for the first time.

Personally, Mao doesn't bother me too much, not to say that I like him for what he did, I mean com'on he totally sucked (understatement) at ruling a country; But without him no one would show any respect to China and the Chinese people today. It's true.

J10.

Alinestra Covelia · November 17, 2001, 22:03

From my (admittedly limited) grasp of Chinese history, the choice of Mao as leader has a few things going for it. Firstly, he was the leader to take China on the long road to modernization, after the inadequate rulership of the final dynasty. Of course, Mao was not the one to oversee the real economic transformation that China enjoyed (which was largely begun by Deng Xiaoping and has been carried through to its later stages by the current president Jiang Zemin), but he was nonetheless the one who began the program of dragging China from being a backwards country to something resembling a modernized one.

Secondly, and this I think is probably the most convincing argument for the purposes of this debate, he was a very motivating revolutionary. His policies, once in power, led to many very difficult times for the Chinese nation, but the country overcame these in his later years and through the work of his successors. Mao the Revolutionary was his best role, not Mao the Domestic Leader, and I believe that without his initial move to mobilize the poor of China, China's history would be very different. Today, China's power is in its vast economic potential, but this is dependent on its present internal stability and the relationship of equals that it maintains with neighboring nations and the US. How much of this would still be the case if Mao (or some other leader) had not reunified the nation?

I don't intend to become an apologist for Mao, and I don't have any intention of defending the disastrous plans that he initiated, but I also believe that he wasn't entirely bereft of his good points. Whilst he's not the unilaterally best of China's rulers, he does deserve to be considered as one of the most influential. Add to that the fact that everybody in the West has at least heard of him, and you have probably the best candidate for inclusion in a game.

Qin Shi Huang Di is a very good choice as far as historical accuracy goes, but the big problem is that you'd get English speakers mispronouncing his name and thinking it's "Queen She" instead

MustPost · November 17, 2001, 23:30

Quote:

Anyway it's the our first "official leader"; And I wouldn't blame any non-Chinese for not knowing it, so I'm not upset or surprised at all that he wasn't our leader in Civ3. I like Qin Shi Huang too, the first person who officially (once again) united China for the first time.

Wasn't Qin(or Chin) Shi Hungdi pretty much the Mao of Ancient China. Shi Hungdi had books burned and itellectuals percecuted. Yes, He started the Great Wall, but were the labor tactics used to build it better then the stuff Mao did.

Grandpa Troll · November 18, 2001, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
Chocoballs - Two quick thoughts about Mao as the Chinese Leader. First, might he developers have been specifically trying to avoid offending either of the two main Chinese groups by chosing someone of neither group? Second, they were probably trying to chose a Leader (in all the civs) known to most of the people who would be playing the game.

At least they didn't make the Chinese Leader Fu Manchu or Ming the Merciless.

Isn't Ming the Merciless

a modererator here?

I believe Fu Manchu was a member of the CHIN-Chin Dynasty...

Yours In Civin

Troll

Grandpa Troll · November 18, 2001, 00:50

One point to ponder, shouldn't the Chinese Civ have a small wonder, say the Chinese Food Buffet, for like twenty turns they fight like heck or even build railroads like mad before heading over to the Pagoda for a long rest?

Yours in Civin

Troll

Taktaal · November 18, 2001, 09:48

I found Mao a little bit strange too. This comes pretty close to choosing Hitler to be the german leader.

I mean, they were both important for their people, but their "merits" shouldn't give them a place in a computer game...

conquistadore · November 18, 2001, 10:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll
One point to ponder, shouldn't the Chinese Civ have a small wonder, say the Chinese Food Buffet, for like twenty turns they fight like heck or even build railroads like mad before heading over to the Pagoda for a long rest?

lol...are you referring to the 200++ course Royal Buffet that was served in the Imperial/Forbidden Palace during the Manchu dynasty? Great idea!!

Improve worker efficiency by 200% and all combat units gain 100% defence bonus for 20 turns..

ranskaldan · November 18, 2001, 12:30

It is totally disgusting to have Mao as the Chinese leader. However, he is the first person that springs to mind if you say 'Chinese Leader'. There were leaders who were equally important and much more benevolent (Like Tang Taizong for example) but they just aren't well known enough.

J10, I think you meant 'Huang Di', not 'Wang Di'. 'Huang Di' was the legendary first king of the Chinese in prehistory. However he was only a legendary figure. We might as well have Romulus as the leader of Rome if that's the case.

Out of the 13 emperors of the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty, I believe not a single one was known as 'Fu Manchu'.

As for the Imperial Buffet, well well, now that's an idea

HolyWarrior · November 30, 2001, 22:10

Lessee--Mao as leader of China, Stalin as leader of Russia, but NOOOOOOO, can't have Hitler as leader of Germany.

Political correctness runs amok.

Gromit · November 30, 2001, 22:20

Heh heh.

Alinestra Covelia · December 1, 2001, 05:44

HolyWarrior - don't forget the fact that Stalin and Mao were never defeated, but Hitler was. So he couldn't count as a ruthless-but-strong ruler, since he was quite evidently not quite strong enough.

Urban Ranger · December 1, 2001, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by J10
For the Chinese leader, I would vote for Wang Di, THE king who started it all. Wang Di basically just mean "King". He's a king named king because he's the first king (well more like a leader) of the Chinese people, that's why he wasn't named "King - name -" but just King.

Huang Di doesn't mean "king" or "emperor, but "Yellow Emperor." You must have confused two Chinese characters that sound similar.

Urban Ranger · December 1, 2001, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
J10, I think you meant 'Huang Di', not 'Wang Di'. 'Huang Di' was the legendary first king of the Chinese in prehistory. However he was only a legendary figure. We might as well have Romulus as the leader of Rome if that's the case.

Nope, he's real. As real as you can get with what's left of archeological evidence.

Urban Ranger · December 1, 2001, 12:28

Apparently most of the posters in this thread don't have much of an understanding of China. Especially the person who suggested Chiang.

I recommend some John King Fairbank for starters.

ranskaldan · December 1, 2001, 12:29

Quote:

Nope, he's real. As real as you can get with what's left of archeological evidence.

Real? How real?
The first Chinese writing appeared during the Shang dynasty, which is about one thousand years later than the life of Huang-di. The only archeological evidence that's contemporary to Huang-di are neolithic remains, and there is no way anyone can prove from these ruins that 5000 years ago the Chinese were led by Huang-di, or whether there was a Huang-di, or whether there was a Chinese race 5000 years ago.

Huang-di is in the same league with Romulus, Rama, and Odysseus. A legendary figure.

Quote:

Huang Di doesn't mean "king" or "emperor, but "Yellow Emperor." You must have confused two Chinese characters that sound similar.

they sound exactly the same. The Chinese word for emperor is Huang Di.

alskdj80 · December 1, 2001, 13:48

Yeah, the choices for the leaders of some civs are completely stupid. And the choices for civs are sometimes completely stupid too... so are the 'great leaders'... but I think I'll stop there, lol.

And what about those 'great leaders'? Kublai Khan being a great leader of China? He was Mongolian... I remember the first great leader I got in battle was him, and I checked to see if I was actually playing China.... I was. Great leader, yes... but of China? as far as my knowledge goes, he isn't.

If I were to choose leaders for China, I'd probably have to pick Qin Shi-Huang or Han Wudi, or Tang Tai-Zong. Even though it is said that Qin Shi-Huang was brutal, it was for a reason. After I-don't-know-how-many years, he (and others of course) finally unified China into one nation... needless to say, the other factions aren't thrilled. You need someone with an iron fist to rule during those times. Even though his lineage didn't continue (due to a complicated internal power struggle, which I won't mention), he did unify China. Han Wudi... he kicked the Huns' asses, so definitely a great leader, but he couldn't have done it if the treasury and food storages weren't stocked up by two emperors before him, although their names escape me at the moment. But, I guess war speaks louder than peace... oh well. And of course, Tang Tai-Zong... I mean, how can you vote against him?

The problem with choosing a leader for the ancient civs, or civs that are farther away from the Western culture is that less people know about it. Most people know about Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Ramses, etc. but very few know about the Eastern leaders. So, the problem is choosing a leader that everyone knows... it may not be fair to the people who do know, but I guess Firaxis isn't designing the game only for us anyways. And also, whenever they can, they always pop in a couple of women rulers, which is good, but some of those rulers are sub-par to others. I mean, seriously... Cleopatra?? Joan of Arc?? In the vast (well... sort of... Egypt, anyways) history of the two civs, I'm sure you could have done better (although in history, those two and Catherine were possibly the best choices). I'm just afraid that they will actually consult their Eastern history books and find that queen in the latter stages of the Chin dynasty ... *sigh*, but Mao is a terrible choice... but I guess thats the only leader that most people today know, so we don't have a choice. I still think that they should add two leaders, one male, one female (or another male, if there are no good female candidates)... and actually consult their history books this time...

My final rant... why in the world is China a 'militaristic civ'? I would have thought that 'scientific' would have suited it better... I mean, no doubt, recently it has been rather militaristic, but over the years, I don't think you would find a more peaceful civilization.

But I gotta admit, despite bashing Western ignorance on the Eastern world in my post (no offense meant at all, since it IS hard to know other civs' history), I'm pleasantly surprised that the people (that are clearly non-Chinese, since if you're Chinese, you should know this stuff anyways, so that's not surprising) posting in this thread actually know something about China and are posting intelligently too. That is something rarely seen

.

Caesar2760 · December 2, 2001, 02:38

I have to agree with you about making China militaristic. It's not as bad as having Greece not be militaristic (Well my lord, we've defeated the Persians; you know what that means... Time to fight each other!), but it's bad.

Reptilicus · December 2, 2001, 03:52

Kublai Khan was an important Chinese figure. He formed, I think the Tang dynasty, but I'm not sure if that is exactly correct.

EDIT: I do understand, though, as he basically made the Chinese a conquered peoples.

ranskaldan · December 2, 2001, 20:02

Kublai Khan was a Mongol.

He founded the Yuan Dynasty, the first non-Chinese dynasty to conquer all of China.

So I strongly object to him being a Chinese leader.

Dr. Nick · December 3, 2001, 01:10

Emperor Meiji Mutsuhito For Japan!