Political Correctness in Civ 3

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 01:39

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?

Lord Merciless · April 1, 2003, 01:48

Nah, I don't think so. If you can raze enemy cities(killing millions) without repercussions in year 2003, there is no PC involved.

Tattila the Hun · April 1, 2003, 01:49

Don't compare Lenin to Stalin. And many of Third Reich's greatest generals were so anti-Nazi, that only thing that kept them alive was the fact that they were great generals.

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
And many of Third Reich's greatest generals were so anti-Nazi, that only thing that kept them alive was the fact that they were great generals.

I know this. That makes their ommission even more baffling.

BTW, even though Lenin was no Stalin, he certainly was no Santa Claus.

Nubclear · April 1, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by nationalist
Am I the only person who notices/ gives a **** about these kinds of things?

Hmm......Yeah, you are.

CASE CLOSED!

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Nah, I don't think so. If you can raze enemy cities(killing millions) without repercussions in year 2003, there is no PC involved.

You're certainly correct in that respect. However, some of their choices for historical figures smacks of P.C. to me.

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Hmm......Yeah, you are.

CASE CLOSED!

Oh well

Lord Merciless · April 1, 2003, 02:00

Some of their leader selections go beyong being too PC, they are just silly.

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Some of their leader selections go beyong being too PC, they are just silly.

Yeah, you think that they could have picked up a history reference book or something. Come on, I mean Hengest and Horsa

Reinhard-Baer · April 1, 2003, 07:34

Well Hitler wasn't really a great leader. Ok he was an administrative genius and a wiz in running his country but far, far away in being a leader. We all know what happened when he personally takes over the command whooom good by Germany. But Rommel would be a good choice-the desert fox-I would also vote for Model and Jodel, two very good Generals in the German army. Hmm perhaps the same code of "political correctness" that prevented Paradox from showing the Nazi-flag in HoI hit Firaxis and they left out any German leader in this time period but we all know that the German Wehrmacht Generals had nothing to do with this madness in fact Rommel took part in an attempt to kill the Fuehrer but it really looks like companies are quite sensitive when they tackle this period of time and tend to ignore it completely I call this ignorance of reality

Alex · April 1, 2003, 08:20

I'd say that Firaxis chose the most obvious historical figures as leaders (not GLs, of course). When you think about Egypt, you think about Cleopatra. When you think about France, Joan of Arc is one of the first names that come to your mind. Same goes for India (Gandhi), Rome (Julius Caesar) and China (Mao).

As for the great leaders, I think that they could have made a deeper research. Yes, the German great leaders are not that important as Frederick the Great or Von Clausewitz, and even if Firaxis did not want to include any nazi leaders (for the sake of political correctness), they could not have overlooked those two leaders I mentioned.

Fatalis2 · April 1, 2003, 09:37

I agree with you, Nationalism... Clausewitz and F II should be german GL's. And even Rommel : why is Hiro Hito a japanese GL and not Rommel a german one ?

About the leaders... of course Jeanne d'Arc is a very bad choice ! Louis XIV (as in civ2... and is reign is the real french GA !) or Napoleon (as in civ1) would be much better choices. And Jeanne is a perfect example of GL !!
Victoria, IMO, should be the leader of the english (the legendary "British empire" !), as Ramsès should be (and was...) for Egypt (Cleopatra's reign was the burial of the independant Egypt !).
I think the other leaders are acceptable...

TheStinger · April 1, 2003, 09:54

Elizabeth 1 had far more power than Vicky, she is an ok choice. Churchill would have been better but he is British.

Fatalis2 · April 1, 2003, 11:33

If Churchill had been thir leader, I'd love to play the english, even if they're one of the worst civs in civ3... and even if I'm french ! I love Churchill !!
Yes, Elizabth I had more power than Victoria, but Victoria's empire was much more powerfull, isn't it ?

Lucarse · April 1, 2003, 11:40

I totally Agree!

How can you over look Kesselring, Guderian, Kliest!

The russians to no Yeremenko or Zuhkov?

And the English No Monty!

Its like the 2nd world war never happened.

Ich weise nicht!

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
When you think about France, Joan of Arc is one of the first names that come to your mind.

I think that the first French leader that comes to mind is Napoleon. However, with Napoleon being Corsican, I think that Louis XIV or Charles DeGaulle would have made much better leaders for the French civilization than Joan of Arc. That was the most terrible choice for a leader, IMO

MrDictator · April 1, 2003, 14:12

maybe they picked Catherine for the Russians because she brought a lot of culture to Russia, and didnt kill that many people unlike Peter,Stalin etc- most of the other leaders in civ 3 were complete gits

Alex · April 1, 2003, 16:27

nationalist: but you have to agree that they needed someone to play the part of "sexy babe", just like the Foreign Advisor in Civ2.

Jarvin · April 2, 2003, 01:47

I think a great choice for a Russian main leader would be Peter the Great, he's the one who gave Russia most of its power. He's the reason why Russia became a powerul nation, before him Russia was dependent of German mercenaries for defence.

One leader that really smacks of PCness is Lincoln, aside from freeing the slaves, he wasn't a very good president, the American Civil War started largely because of him, and not just because of abolition, many economic matters pissed of the South to the extent of causing a war. Washington, Jefferson, or one of the Roosevelts would have been much better IMO.

Mao pisses me off because he crippled China with his Great Leap Forward. I can undertsand how his notoriety put him above the other options, but Sun Yat Sen and that "First Emperor" (whos name i cant recall) seem much better choices.

I'll lay off Joan of Arc because everyone else has said everything there is to say about her, and I'll lay of Cleopatra because i dont know jack about Egyptian history (other than the fact that she didnt really do much).

I WILL say that Napoleon being a corsican shouldnt bar him from being the main leader of france. After all, Alexander the Great wasnt Greek, he was from Macedon.

On a more positive note: most of the other civs have very good choices of main leaders.

Jarvin · April 2, 2003, 01:48

Shi Huangdi

Thats the chinese guy i couldnt remember!

TheStinger · April 2, 2003, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatalis2
If Churchill had been thir leader, I'd love to play the english, even if they're one of the worst civs in civ3... and even if I'm french ! I love Churchill !!
Yes, Elizabth I had more power than Victoria, but Victoria's empire was much more powerfull, isn't it ?

Very true, but it had nothing to with vicky, by the 19th century parliamnet and the prime minister were running the show. Disraelli would be more accurate(amongst others)

BTW there was a good doccumentary about churchil the other day, it said he was far happier when britain was on its own and in danger of losing.

Wazell · April 2, 2003, 09:11

Well the Chinese leader thingy is kinda obvious. After all most civ players really can't name other leader than Mao and a few others, like Deng, Chiang Kai-shek, Sun Yat-sen or Shi Huagdi, even less spell their names right

. So they had to choose him, despite all his regime's atrocities and misdoings over years.

Master Zen · April 2, 2003, 13:16

Well, I think you've all been skipping the two most obvious omissions:

Abu Bakr instead of MOHAMMED!!!

Osman instead of SULEIMAN

I might understand the religious implications of having chosen Mohammed, but not Suleiman!

nationalist · April 2, 2003, 14:19

Elizabeth was a good choice for a female leader. I think that she is the most approprate female in the game. She actually ruled England, and actually did a good job of it. I don't object to her being the leader. I think that Cleopatra and Joan were horrible choices. Joan never actually led France. Cleopatra was a Greek descendent who ruled thousands of years after Egypt had reached the peek of its power. Catherine was alright, but they could have made a better choice. I'm undecided about Isabella, but I feel about the same way towards her as I do towards Cat. I think that they should have made Louis XIV the leader of France, and made Boudicca the leader of the Celts. It would have kept the gender balance, made France less ridiculous, and Boudicca could have played the role of "sexy babe".

David Murray · April 2, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
If you can raze enemy cities(killing millions)

Think so? Have you ever noticed all those workers that suddenly appear whenever you raise a city?

In the cuddly world of Civ 3, forced labour doesn't even result in people dying from the harsh conditions. Oh no--the people decide to 'emigrate'! (See Civ manual)

MrDictator · April 2, 2003, 15:46

its not THAT cuddly - you can kill millions of people by bombarding cities . If that dosnt satisfy your bloodlust, you can allways resort to good old nukes

Rommel2D · April 2, 2003, 15:51

Perhaps the fact that Rommel and some other third-riechers struggled against Hitler is precisely why they were not made Great Leaders here. Not to say they weren't great men or generals, but they didn't exactly bring a lot of glory to ol Deutchland.

I think some of the choices for Civ figureheads are due to the fact they were looking for more of an achetypal representation of the overall culture than a demogogue who rallied the population for a brief term. I mean, either of the Roosevelts over Lincoln?

Jarvin · April 2, 2003, 19:07

I believe Rommel was more loyal to Germany than he was to the nazis, thats why he tried to kill Hitler when the war turned bad. He was never a member of the nazi party, he just sided with them because they were making Germany stronger, and when Hitler started screwing things up, Rommel tried to kill him. I think he's a perfect choice.

GePap · April 2, 2003, 20:20

Bismarck is an excellent leader for Germany: he made the modern state of Germany. What more would be needed?

nationalist · April 2, 2003, 20:23

I agree 100% GePap.