 |
| |
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaxisDugan85
While Hitler would be fun to play against, I suppose Hitler IS, after all, as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans. Then again, a WWII scenario featuring Hitler and a cold war scenario featuring Reagan would both be fun.
How can anyone compare Reagan to Hitler in any shape form or stretch of the imagination? Please , disagree with Ronnie's politics if you must but he wasn't an insane dictator with dreams of genocide and world domination. |
Uhh! Are all conservatives this bone-headed?
It's called hyperbole, maybe you remember it from high school english. I realize that about a third to half of Americans actually like Reagan. I am making the point that citizens of a nation can be offended (imagine that! paople get offended) when certain people are used to represent a nation. Germans tend not to like Hitler, Russians (at least the ones in my neighborhood, the East Village in Manhattan) aren't too nostalgic for Stalin, and most Americans I know around here (again, the east villiage) would be offended if foriegn tourists called this "the land of Reagan.
I in no way wish to draw an equivalence between an evil dictator and a moron.
Hitler = kill 6M Jews for being Jews = Big Time Evil
Reagan = Catsup is a vegetable = moron
or course Reagan did apoint Scalia to the Supreme Court:
Scalia = "actual innocence is no bar to upholding a jury conviction" = evil.
Now, all conservatives please remember hyperbole = exaggeration for dramatic effect. Like when Bush II says Saddam is a serious threat to the US, or calls the Saudis are allies. All sheer hyperbole. Not every statement is to be taken literally.
But, my original point that some leader choices would be offensive stands. Nonetheless, a Reagan leaderhead for a cold war scenario would be cool (to blow up).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Signa
King Hammurabi => You could flip a coin between him and Nebucenzzer II (i mispelled that...).
|
As an Israeli and Jew I would'nt like to see the destroyer of our capital Jerusalem and the destroyer of the temple in the game but that's better than having hitler's (yes, no capital letter for him...) face in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
 |
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:20
|
|
Why not capital H? It's just missspelling... As a finn, I tend to view Adolf more positively (don't know if that's very common in our populace), because he's scientists provided our infantry the tools (PanzerShrecks and Fausts) to fight back the Russian wave of t-34's and inf. In fact, had it not been for his Wehrmacht, taking the brunt of the Russian Red Army, our national, cultural and, infact, ethnical existence would have been snuffed like a candle in a storm. I tend to have the view, that had there been not him, the world would have turned out the way it is portrayed in Westwoods Red Alert...
Also, the western states were as much to blame for WW: Part Deux, because of the insane amounts of war "payments" (you broke, you pay) fined to them in the treaty of Versaille. (They would have been payed in 1984...) Which lead to the mass unemployment, inflation (a bread would cost billion DM), which in turn lead to NSDAP's growing support. (Adolf didn't form the party) His views had too good growing ground in disgruntled German populace.
Some also say that WW I began when Gavrilo Princip shot Franz Ferdinand, to tone down in 1919, when regrouping and rearming began, and to blaze on in 1939 (or 1937 in Spain), and finally end in 1945, as Imperial Japan surrendered.
On the side, how does Hindenburg as the German leader sound? Haven't too much knowledge of him... Was he great in any sense? He happened to die, thus letting A seize the power...
Romulus for Rome?
Will come back...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Why not capital H? It's just missspelling... As a finn, I tend to view Adolf more positively (don't know if that's very common in our populace), because he's scientists provided our infantry the tools (PanzerShrecks and Fausts) to fight back the Russian wave of t-34's and inf. In fact, had it not been for his Wehrmacht, taking the brunt of the Russian Red Army, our national, cultural and, infact, ethnical existence would have been snuffed like a candle in a storm. I tend to have the view, that had there been not him, the world would have turned out the way it is portrayed in Westwoods Red Alert...
Also, the western states were as much to blame for WW: Part Deux, because of the insane amounts of war "payments" (you broke, you pay) fined to them in the treaty of Versaille. (They would have been payed in 1984...) Which lead to the mass unemployment, inflation (a bread would cost billion DM), which in turn lead to NSDAP's growing support. (Adolf didn't form the party) His views had too good growing ground in disgruntled German populace. |
I know this is speculation, but You don't have many Jews in finland, do you? How about slavs? Gypsies? Homosexuals? Mentally Challenged? I do not doubt that Finns have a higher value of hitler than most of Europe does. Finland was largely insulated from the evils of the Nazi Regime, unfortuntely the rest of Europe was not. hitler was an evil man and should not be included in a game made for entertainment.
As for the Versailles treaty, it was certainly a mistake, one that was not repeated after WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
|
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:20
|
|
I suppose we have the usual amount of said people in Finland, not particularily high numbers, not particularily low... It was either comrades-in-arms with the Nazis, or most certain occupation, like the Baltics, by the red army. Lesser of two evils...
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe your leader would be valued/changed by your behaviour in the game. Peaceful builder would be Adenauer (hope I'm talking about the right fellow), middle man, builder, who'd go the way of the warrior if it were as good option as peaceful, and Der Führer for the bloodthirsty congueror, warmonger.
BTW, in Wolfenstein 3D, Adolf was also included, in wierd combat suit with two gatlings. It was still an entertaining game.
Damn, still couln't finish this post...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solomwi
|
 |
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
Dec 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Brutus:
As for the Civil War, that monstrocity was started by the South, not the North with the firing on Ft. Sumpter. |
Finally, a motivation to register and post. Mad Bomber, Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina, a state which no longer belonged to the Union. Lincoln started the war by refusing to remove Union troops from South Carolina soil, and the South responded in the only way it could. Union troops left every other fort in the South, so why not Sumter? Simply because Lincoln made a conscious decision to go to war, and used them as his provocation. Once seceded, the Confederate States had no reason to want war. With war forced upon them, however, there was no choice but to prosecute it.
To avoid a complete threadjacking, Jefferson would by my first choice for America, as I feel Washington works better as a GL. Jefferson was the philosophical and literal architect of his nation, doubled its size as president, and created the American navy.
Mao is a mistake, imo, except for previously mentioned RQ, and France could've been handled better, perhaps with Jerry Lewis? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raptress
|
|
Mad Bomber, Darlin' it's time for y'all to go back to your book learning for a spell.
It seems your education on the Civil War is a little on the lax side.
It never ceases to amaze me how the victors of wars always write the history books to their own satisfaction.
It doesn't really matter what the truth is, does it?
I, too, live in Virginia.
quote:
Virginia IMO got exactly what they deserved |
I dare you to come down here and say that, sugar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Solomwi;
I will say one last thing on the Civil War. If Lincoln was so hell bent on war then why were all of the other forts abandoned that belonged in Confederate hands, it seems to me that a bit of diplomacy would have seen Sumter evacuated as well. But you Southerners, impatient as always, decided that they had to leave Now. So you decided that war was the answer, and that is what you got. The issue over Seccession should have been handled by The Supreme Court and not by arms, but the Confederacy failed to exhaust all diplomatic means available to them.
Raptress:
Nothin wrong with my schoolin' honey, just got a different point of view is all, I have lived in both Virginia and Maryland, doesn't change the facts that the South was in the wrong when they fired on Sumpter. Why don't y'all come up here and wave the Confederate battle flag around?
Personally Lincoln is not my choice as the American leader but to compare him with hitler is incomprehensable and immoral, hence my comments regarding the Civil War.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solomwi
|
|
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
Dec 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
Bomber, Lincoln was hellbent on not going down as the president under whom the Union was split. The Buchanan Administration had actually left the Sumter problem to Lincoln, with all other facilities, save Pickens in Pensacola and two in Key West, in Confederate hands. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, with the Sumter crisis immediately falling into his lap. The bombardment did not begin until April 12. This is impatience? No, as I said before, this is a conscious decision on Lincoln's part to resupply federal troops on Confederate soil, an act of war. Diplomacy was ongoing, and Lincoln made his decision. Judging by your initial staement, it had its desired effect. Very similar to fortifying an MA just inside the Zulu borders. Sure, Shaka declared the war, but who first made the decision to go to war?
As for your assertion of where the matter should have been resolved, the SCOTUS no longer had jurisdiction over states which had seceded, and, incidentally, right of secession had never been questioned in the past. In fact, the New England states had threatened secession several times (1803, 1811, 1815, and 1845) before the Southern states carried it out. It was considered revolutionary, but a right nonetheless. The Lincoln Administration had made clear that an accepted right of states was now to be denied the Southern states, so what use was diplomacy? Had the right to secession been respected by Lincoln, the war would have been avoided.
I, too, will let this drop now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FNBrown
|
 |
of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Dec 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
I'd like to see a few options for the leaders, namely for the following Civs:
America:
Washington - His presence in his own time was positively overwhelming. He could have been president for as long as he wanted, and no one would have protested. Definately far more significant a leader than Lincoln.
FDR - I think history made him more than he made history, but his contribution was substantial, nonetheless.
Grant - His administration of the southern "reconstruction" was infamous, but he ushered America into the industrial age, and oversaw some of the most rapid expansion in the nation's history.
England:
Churchill - Quite possibly the single greatest leader of the 20th century. Without him, Great Britain would have likely succumbed to Germany long before America got involved.
Henry V - Probably the finest warrior-monarch England ever had.
Richard III - Last of the great Plantagenet kings (and the last one to die in battle).
Victoria - Oversaw the apex of the British Empire. It was pretty much all downhill following her death.
France:
I think the consensus is that Joan of Arc is a mistake. Napoleon would be a better choice - or maybe Louis XIV
Germany:
Bismark is a pretty good choice... Hitler isn't very PC, but he was the most infamous despot in history.
Rome:
There are a TON of likely candidates to choose from. I can't keep them all straight enough to provide summaries right now... but there's a lot of room for expansion of this Civ.
Russia:
Lenin and Stalin certainly had a significant impact... but, again, not very politically correct. I personally think a Mikhail Gorbachev leaderhed would be rather amusing. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chairmanmeow
|
 |
Redneckland, People's Republic of Maryland
Aug 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Since Civ III is mainly about expanding one's empire and conquering other empires, I think each ruler should be someone who did that in some way. This is what I think some of them should be:
Germany: I have to admit I don't know much about Bismarck, but I think he should be kept, because he did establish Germany, and he did conquer Alcase-Lorraine from the French.
Britain: Elizabeth is a good choice, but the leaderhead definately needs work. Perhaps a younger portrait of Elizabeth. If Elizabeth must be replaced, I would probably suggest either Victoria or Winston Churchill.
Persia: Perhaps Darius would be a better choice than Xerxes.
Greece: I think Alexander is the right choice. Under his command, Greece expanded greatly, with Greek culture spreading as far as India and Egypt.
Egypt: Cleopatra is definately the wrong choice. Under her rule, Egypt suffered, and was taken over by the Romans. Ramses II would be a much better choice, but he would change the male/female ratio, risking the "political correctness factor." Hatshepsut as Egypian leader would maintain the male/female ratio, but she lacks name recognition.
France: Joan of Arc is the wrong choice. She would make a good GL, but she never actually ruled France, so she should not be the leader. Napoleon would be a better choice than Joan of Arc.
Rome: I think Caesar is the right choice. As a general, he conquered Gaul, and contributed greatly to the expansion of Rome.
America: Lincoln was a very important leader in U.S. history, but he did not contribute to a very large extent in expansion of the United States. There are several potential replacements. I know this would not be a very popular choice, but James Polk contributed to expansion by, among other things, pushing for the annexation of Texas, settling the border dispute over Oregon, and he was president during the Mexican War, which was initiated in order to conquer the territory that is now the southwestern U.S. However, he lacks name recognition, so other potential choices could be Jefferson, who doubled the area of the U.S. with the Louisiana Purchase, or T. Roosevelt, who increased the power of the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andreiguy
|
|
quote:
Hitler attacked Soviets but he was the winning side. His only bad move (as a leader) was alliance with Japans but who was able to thing that they would attack USA? |
Many Americans like to think of the USA as the saviour of Europe. I know this has been addressed before, I just want to make it clear - the USA's help was invaluble in the war, especially in drawing away Japan's attention - but Russia, and Russia alone (though with an incredible price) drove the Nazis out of their country, and out of most of Eastern Europe, including Berlin. (though what replaced nazism was not very much better).
Also, someone said Stalin's accomplishments pale before theirs?
Do you often murder twenty million of your own people through artificial famine and political punishment?
Do you often send an entire generation to die in a fight that was ultimately successful, but at a price that had never before, and hopefully never again, been paid?
Russia- For anyone who says Stalin - being Russian, I take about as much national pride in him as I do in communism. (not a lot). Catherine? Again Firaxis is trying to create a sex ratio that does not exist in the real world. Peter the Great made far more contributions to Russia, and set it on the path to become a superpower.
America - Washington was a great leader who set many fine precedents for the USA, but I think that the best leader America has ever had - FDR should be in Civ instead. Serving four terms, Roosevelt led America through what was possibly its most trying time.
It's often said that the Civil War and Depression were the most difficult times for America -
The only reason I would not choose Lincoln is that for most of his presidency, he ruled over only half of his country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andreiguy
Many Americans like to think of the USA as the saviour of Europe. I know this has been addressed before, I just want to make it clear - the USA's help was invaluble in the war, especially in drawing away Japan's attention - but Russia, and Russia alone (though with an incredible price) drove the Nazis out of their country, and out of most of Eastern Europe, including Berlin. (though what replaced nazism was not very much better).
Also, someone said Stalin's accomplishments pale before theirs?
Do you often murder twenty million of your own people through artificial famine and political punishment?
Do you often send an entire generation to die in a fight that was ultimately successful, but at a price that had never before, and hopefully never again, been paid?
Russia- For anyone who says Stalin - being Russian, I take about as much national pride in him as I do in communism. (not a lot). Catherine? Again Firaxis is trying to create a sex ratio that does not exist in the real world. Peter the Great made far more contributions to Russia, and set it on the path to become a superpower.
America - Washington was a great leader who set many fine precedents for the USA, but I think that the best leader America has ever had - FDR should be in Civ instead. Serving four terms, Roosevelt led America through what was possibly its most trying time.
It's often said that the Civil War and Depression were the most difficult times for America -
The only reason I would not choose Lincoln is that for most of his presidency, he ruled over only half of his country. |
I agree with you that Stalin should not be a leader for Russia, but I do think that Catherine has got to go, so who should be the leader of Russia? Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Lennin? The choice is not clear cut and these are fairly disreputable as well. As for American help in WW2, do not forget that America supplied Russia with lend lease equipment and also with resources that Russia did not have at the time (for example, the US suppied over 80% of Russias supplies of aviation gasoline) They did much more than keep Japan preoccupied (esp considering that the Japanese army could not have taken on the Russian army even if they had decided to go in that direction, one could argue that Japan's failure in 1939-1940 in Manchuria indirectly resulted in the decision to attack Pearl Harbour)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CTPFAN
|
|
Did someone write that Hitler was as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans??? Wow, where did that come from.....which Americans....Not me or millions of others
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
Hitler is a source of Humiliation to the Germans. Most people agree he would be fun to play against,but come on , Germany has experienced enough Humiliation in the last century, we coudnt include him. And Bismaark is a good choice of leader anyway.
I would definatly like to see Stalin or Lenin in place for the Russians though. Stalin's shrewd tactics were crucial in WW1.
As for our Mighty Country, Churchill should be the leader, he was one of the greatest ever leaders in world history for certain. No offense to the great Queen Elizibeth tho.
Cheers
Matt
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-11-2002 03:38
, but the glasses began...), and end up sounding like neo-nazi...
|