Take a guess , discuss the Leaders and their traits, show your preferences .

I Feel like this thread was needed by the civfanatics population and it would be opened sooner or later. Better to do it myself.


(This is different to the 19 unused Trait combinations topic because it comes at a different time where we have more knowledge about the new leaders , there are several different parameters to think like new traits or Firaxis giving old trait combinations to new leaders etc. Again it must be said that it is opened on a time that the matter is very popular)


Here are my 3 picks.

Japan - Meiji : Organized - Industrious
France- Charlemagne : Spiritual- Aggressive
Greece Pericles :Creative - Philosophical



American: Lincoln - Charismatic, Philosophical
Celtic: Boudica - Aggressive, Charismatic
French: De Gaulle - Charismatic, Industrious
Greek: Pericles - Creative, Philosophical
Ottoman: Suleiman - Imperialistic, Philosophical
Persia: Darius I - Financial, Organized

Boudica for the Celts?
Maybe Aggressive and Charismatic?

Charlamagne for the Germans? (a stretch, I know... but Germany considers itself the offspring of the HRE). Charismatic and Organized. Or Imperial.

Bill Clinton for America (ha, just kidding). Charismatic and Amorous. :lol:

I've thought of Boadicea myself, as a safe bet. Reasons:

- the Celts have only one leader, and making it two won't hurt;
- Warlords added no female leaders, so they'll probably put in at least one.

Lincoln - America (confirmed) Charasmatic/Industrious (traits not confirmed)
Charles de Gaulle - France (Pictures have been seen from Firaxis, not confirmed but a safe bet) no idea on the traits

Axayacatl - Aztecs, Aggressive/Expansive (he subjugated the city of Tlatelolco, expanding the influence of Tenochtitlan and eliminating Tlatelolco's say in Aztec policy, allowing Tenochtitlan to gain autocratic power, the great stone of the sun was also carved during his rule, going out of my way on this one because Aztec leaders are less known than old world ones)
Percicles - Greece, Philisophical/Creative
Abu Bakr - Arabs, Expansive/Financial
Timur - Persia, Imperialistic/somthing, don't really know a good second trait for him.

If there were more possibilities, i'd like to see Meji (org/ind), Boudica (cha/pro, yes churchill's traits fit her :/), Trajan (pro/cre, his greatest accomplishments are his wall and column, Rome hit its top size during his rule), and a spanish leader, don't know who would be the most worthy.

I'm most strongly pulling for Pericles - the Greeks really need a #2. After that, any of Meiji/Japan, Darius/Persia, Sundiata/Mali, Abu Bakr/Arabia, or, as mentioned, Boadicea/Celts would be nice.

Well, the xpack is called 'Beyond the Sword' so maybe Boudicca isn't a likely new leader. Although I would like to see her in.

Don't know about traits, but:

America - Abraham Lincoln (we already know this one)
Greece - Pericles
Mali - Sundiata Keita
Japan - Meiji
China - Empress Wu
Inca - Pachacuti

We know two

de Gaulle
Lincoln

For the rest, I'm hoping:

Robert The Bruce
Adolf Hitler
Hirohito

Dunno who could be the sixth.
We need Hirohito. C'mon.

I'm almost sure there will be a new Persian leader.A lot of them are very well know (Darius,Xerxes) and Persia was among the most powerful empires in the past.I would bet also for a new leader for Greece (Pericles) and Japan.
Other 2 leaders probably will be a choice between France,China,Germany,Spain,Arabia

I'm almost sure there will be a new Persian leader.A lot of them are very well know (Darius,Xerxes) and Persia was among the most powerful empires in the past.I would bet also for a new leader for Greece (Pericles) and Japan.
Other 2 leaders probably will be a choice between France,China,Germany,Spain,Arabia

Well i think that neither Xerxes or Darius where successful Leaders ... Are there any other Persian Leaders that are famous through the world ?

So Charlemagne and Lincoln are confirmed . I guess that leaves Japan , Greece, Germany,Ottoman Empire , China as the most possible candidates.

We know two

de Gaulle
Lincoln

For the rest, I'm hoping:

Robert The Bruce
Adolf Hitler
Hirohito

Dunno who could be the sixth.
We need Hirohito. C'mon.

I'm not sure de Gaulle has been confirmed.

We know two

de Gaulle

So Charlemagne and Lincoln are confirmed

Where are either Charlemagne or de Gaulle confirmed?

It seems that repeating it over and over makes it true. Bleh. Oh, btw did i mention that there is already thread about this?

Well i think that neither Xerxes or Darius where successful Leaders ... Are there any other Persian Leaders that are famous through the world ?

Shapur? Akbar? Ayatolla Khomeini? Mahmud Ahmadinejad? (joking on the last one ;))

There are enough great Persian ones. But I do really think that the civs that are at the moment most stereotyped into one gameplay style should come first: Japan (I do think a successfull Japan AI would be nice once or two), Spain (non-religious madness please) and Arabia (I have never seen Saladin coping well in any of my games, too protective perhaps?). Together with the obvious Greeks and the known Abe Lincoln, we have got 6 new ones then.

I don't think neither Charlemagne (just a scenario?) nor de Gaulle (Railroads - the game - perhaps?) are confirmed so far...

mick

So Charlemagne and Lincoln are confirmed.
1. There is a Charlemagne UNIT (probably from a scenario), not a LEADER.

2. De Gaulle's screenshot that people get excited about is from Railroads, not Civ4.

Stop spreading misinformation. :rolleyes:

Since the expansion is about the post-gunpowder age, I'd suspect Meiji, Lincoln for sure. Ataturk for the Ottomans (possibly). DeGaulle possibly - traits Useless and Arrogant would fit. ;)

Thank you, I was wondering why there has been a de Gaulle craze.

The scenario image that I have seen entitled Charlemagne, I assumed, was an offshoot of the Middle Ages scenario that I loved so very much in Civ3. I haven't seen a Charlemagne leader yet.

I'm wanting the following list, myself:

Lincoln for the US (confirmed)
Pericles for Greece
Meiji for Japan
Abu Bakr for Arabia
Pachachuti for the Inca
Philip Augustus for France
Barbarossa for Germany
Suleiman for the Ottomans
Darius for the Persians
Charles V for Spain (could also run Austria, if they add him, but Austria would need two leaders)

There are other good leaders as well, but I picked these to go on my list. I know there are more than 6, but I'll be happy with any combination of these.


Why can't anyone understand that Hirohito and Hitler were not good leaders? Villians and infamous, maybe, but not the kind of leaders that Civ is reflecting. Look at the before and after shot of Japan and Germany of their administrations. Hitler turned a poor country suffering from internal revolutions into a...pair of puppet states for two other superpowers. Wow, that was an incredible feat! How about Japan? Meiji is the figurehead for the modernization of Japan from that feudal system of ages ago into a modern country, and beat the stuffing out of the Russian navy. Then, you get Hirohito--overreached his grasp, got himself into a war with the US, and then lost horribly, being the one leader to suffer the dubious honor of being nuked. The only guy to be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike.

Even as mass-murderers go, Hitler wasn't that bad. 6 million Jews? Hah, even the Belgians beat him in the Congo (they killed 10 million under King Leopold)! I don't get the craze, I just don't. I guess it's just because everybody pays attention to their World War II history and automatically assumes those names are the best ones around. We've already got rid of Xerxes, why mess up the trend?

1. There is a Charlemagne UNIT (probably from a scenario), not a LEADER.

2. De Gaulle's screenshot that people get excited about is from Railroads, not Civ4.

Stop spreading misinformation. :rolleyes:


IMHO
My comment was a response to the above comments claiming that those Leaders are known. By all means you are free to disprove those claims . However you are not the one to judge on who is spreading misinformation or not. This thread is created in the virtue that all ideas , thoughts claims about the possible inclusion of a Leader is encouraged. If something proves to be wrong along the road so be it . Doesn't mean we should spread lies and checking your sources is a good advice but it is not always practical or feasible. We should keep an open mind and good manners to the people that may suggest something that can afterwards be proved wrong since the point of the topic is above all discussion . I don't see the topic to be in that bad direction and i really wish it doesn't start to.
Don't respond to the above.




Lincoln for the US (confirmed)
Pericles for Greece
Meiji for Japan
Abu Bakr for Arabia
Pachachuti for the Inca
Philip Augustus for France
Barbarossa for Germany
Suleiman for the Ottomans
Darius for the Persians
Charles V for Spain (could also run Austria, if they add him, but Austria would need two leaders)

There are other good leaders as well, but I picked these to go on my list. I know there are more than 6, but I'll be happy with any combination of these.


I really like your list , most of the choices seem realistic to have a good chance to be included in a generic Civilization 4 game but i am wondering about the "Gunpowder factor" and how important it will be to the inclusion of new leaders.


Why can't anyone understand that Hirohito and Hitler were not good leaders? Villians and infamous, maybe, but not the kind of leaders that Civ is reflecting. Look at the before and after shot of Japan and Germany of their administrations. Hitler turned a poor country suffering from internal revolutions into a...pair of puppet states for two other superpowers. Wow, that was an incredible feat! How about Japan? Meiji is the figurehead for the modernization of Japan from that feudal system of ages ago into a modern country, and beat the stuffing out of the Russian navy. Then, you get Hirohito--overreached his grasp, got himself into a war with the US, and then lost horribly, being the one leader to suffer the dubious honor of being nuked. The only guy to be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike.





I have a more mixed opinion about Hitler. The way he used his Charisma to rise from the Lower ranks of the Nazi Party to the top and subsequently transforming a small party into his own Ideals is amazing . Then after several years of planned political and violent movements he seized power . Many of that plans were a reality due to the thousands Persons he brought to his side by his charisma.

After seizing power he created the biggest war machine in the world but then he thought , he could rule it (the world) .... His actions prior the war was the best strategy for going into war , his actions into the war proved to be disastrous .

Like many before him his ambition and arrogance was the biggest flaw one could have.

But then it is a positive he was all that because he was also a genocidal madman that would leave the world into chaos.

I think he could be included.

I think they should add another leader for the Ottomans and possibly the Celts also but I believe I remember reading that beyond the sword would be a stand alone xpack. That being the case I doubt they would add any leaders for the xpansion civs from warlords.
I would assume the new leaders would be for the new civs from beyond the sword and the original vanilla.

by SCY12- "But then it is a positive he was all that because he was also a genocidal madman that would leave the world into chaos.

I think he could be included."

what the hell? you WANT a genocidal madman???

by SCY12- "But then it is a positive he was all that because he was also a genocidal madman that would leave the world into chaos.

I think he could be included."

what the hell? you WANT a genocidal madman???
:scan: :scan: :scan:

Yes i want a genocidal madman for a Leader if i believe he was a good leader (which is arguable in the above case).

I think including Vercingetorix for the Celts would be cool; he would have good "chemistry" with Julius Caesar. Although I guess he led a very specific tribe of Celts.

well, anything is arguable but that doesn't mean its true... Hitler was crazy who took over country racked by deperssion. He killed himslef and left a country torn up by war and genocide...Yeah, a great leader....

by SCY12- "But then it is a positive he was all that because he was also a genocidal madman that would leave the world into chaos.

I think he could be included."

what the hell? you WANT a genocidal madman???
Because I mean, Stalin and Mao never whiped out 80 million people, right?

well, anything is arguable but that doesn't mean its true... Hitler was crazy who took over country racked by deperssion. He killed himslef and left a country torn up by war and genocide...Yeah, a great leader....
I would remind you that Civ also has people who left there country in worse conditions then they started...Napoleon, Hannibal, Mao...

Saying that about Hannibal is just flat wrong. Hannibal is the sole reason why Carthage wasn't taken out in the first Punic War. It was only after his forced exile was Carthage defeated.

Napoleon is a sticky one...but I'm certain you can draw a line between him and Hitler (as for where, that line is quite fuzzy, but I'm sure its there). As for Mao, that's more of one's political philosophy (ignoring the death count, which was truly prodigious)--China right now is growing by leaps and bounds despite being descended from that Maoist doctrine.

At least we can agree that there is no way Hirohito is a better choice than Meiji. I'll stick with that as my main thrust right now, and I may have to compromise on the Hitler point. I don't think he's that great, but whatever. It just seems to me that too many people focus on WW2 leaders and don't look around for other leaders in history...I think Otto I or Barbarossa would be preferable German leaders over Hitler, even if they aren't the most recognized German names.

It just seems to me that too many people focus on WW2 leaders and don't look around for other leaders in history.

I'm wondering if the history channel has much to do with it. It seems to be the 24hr NAZI channel.

Barbarossa is a great choice for a third German leader. If they do get another, I'd like it to be him (also because the 'why not Hitler' crowd would have an apoplexy).

I would not want Charles V as a Spanish leader. Mainly because it removes any chance of Austria being added to the game. Also because I've given up all hope of the Hapsburgs being added as a civ replacing Spain.

I am hoping for relatively "new" leaders for a change. So post WW2-leaders. Franco for Spain? Charles de Gaulle for France? Adenauer for Germany? And if you want to add a female, you can give Greece Nana Mouskouri! ;-)

Saying that about Hannibal is just flat wrong. Hannibal is the sole reason why Carthage wasn't taken out in the first Punic War. It was only after his forced exile was Carthage defeated.

Bright day
Ahem, that's his father Hamilcar you are talking about...

On Hitler- many economists argue that by the time he ascended to power the crisis was on the wane without his "help" and that his meddling in industry would have lead to bankrupcy by 1941 had he not declared war.

I'm thinking we are probably going to end up seeing:

America: Lincoln (confirmed)

France: Charles de Gaulle (would fit in the more modern direction BtS seems to be going)

Japan: If we are going for modern leaders we would probably see Hirohito or Tojo (either would work will in a WWII Pacific scenario). Although I would rather see Oda Nobunaga.

Persia: Darius or Xerxes would be a given (maybe Xerxes due to 300 being popular).

Greece: Pericles would be a good choice but we might end up seeing Leonidas (once again thanks to 300).

Egypt: Cleopatra, I could see them adding another female leader to the game.

Egypt: Nasser
Persia: Reza Palavi
Spain: Franco
Japan: Hirohito

Bright day
Ahem, that's his father Hamilcar you are talking about...

On Hitler- many economists argue that by the time he ascended to power the crisis was on the wane without his "help" and that his meddling in industry would have lead to bankrupcy by 1941 had he not declared war.

Actually the economic crisis that would have lead to bankrupsy was more due to his help . Hitler showed false evidence , cheated the currency and used an economy with money he didn't even have . His scheme would fail eventually but then he went to war.

On Rome : Claudius would be a very good choice even if not as famous as the other two.

France: Charles de Gaulle, for the hopefully included WW2 Europe scenario.. :)

Charlemagne is a tough choice. Though he was King of the France, his official title was Holy Roman Emperor, which was over Germanic territories. If anything, the Holy Roman Empire should be its own civilization, even though it wasn't too successful in comparison to Byzantium or the Second Reich.

My opinion: we need Hernan Cortés for Spain.

Charlemagne is a tough choice. Though he was King of the France, his official title was Holy Roman Emperor, which was over Germanic territories. If anything, the Holy Roman Empire should be its own civilization, even though it wasn't too successful in comparison to Byzantium or the Second Reich.


That might be why Charlemagne has never been included in the game, and I doubt that he will be this time around, after all, the focus is said to be on the later parts of the game. Therefore I think De Gaulle is the most likely candidate put forward in this thread. As for the rest, I really wouldn't know, I'll just wait 'till the expansion is released.

Bright day
Ahem, that's his father Hamilcar you are talking about...

I misspoke there--I meant Second Punic War and wrote the first for some reason. In any case, Hannibal became a politician ("soffet" or "suffet") following the conflict, and then the Romans forced his exile to the East. Following that, the third Punic War occurred and the Carthaginians were wiped out.

Sorry for that confusion.



@Thedrin: The History Channel lineup: "Hitler's Things" followed by "Nazis and Stuff" followed by "When Nazis Attack" and so on. It's been better recently, but not by much. I don't so much want to see Spain replaced, but rather I had a little cunning idea for Charles V and Spain/Austria (each would have two leaders). For Spain, you could pick from Charles V or Isabella as a leader. Then, you would only have the other Austrian leader to pick from, say Maximilian I (maybe not the best choice, but a good one). Or, you could pick from Charles V or Maximilian I for Austria, then Spain would have to pick Isabella. Essentially, he's one leader that can lead two different countries. It's historically valid, I think, as well as a neat little feature.

@Tavenier: I'm actually betting against modern leaders. Their impact on the world hasn't fully been recognized, and I would put this as the test: if history majors study the person, it can be included. If international affairs majors study the person, then it's out. On female leaders, I have a nasty feeling they will include Theodora again for the Byzantines.

@Virulent: Am I the only person that thinks "Beyond the Sword" means they will be focusing more on peace and building and not just gunpowder scenarios? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this pack would be the antithesis of Warlords.

It seems bizarre I just posted against certain WW2 leaders not too long ago (yesterday) in several threads, and then it pops up again. If they do a modern scenario with WW2, I can see them just using flags or stills as leader heads and not using animations. For picking in the main game, please don't advocate a relative loser just because he was the leader of the opposition in a major war: Hirohito, Hitler, Xerxes. Pick somebody who influenced the country positively. Darius, therefore, is my safe bet for Persia (although they have gone against that in the past). I would personally support Meiji for Japan, although your mentioning of Nobunaga deserves some merit (unlike Hirohito/Tojo, which should be thrown out the window).

On France: If we are seriously looking for a new French leader, I agree that Charlemagne is just too strange and too early to really fit as a French leader. They may do it, but I'd probably guess they won't. Again, why de Gaulle? Has anyone looked at French medieval history? Phillip Augustus, I think, is quite deserving of a slot. What about Henri IV? It shocks me that no other names are being considered besides de Gaulle--there are more Frenchmen who did something useful in French history!

On Spain: I'm against Hernan Cortez on the sole reason he never led Spain. He was a conquistador, and a mighty successful one at that, but he was never a monarch. For Spain, we need to build a list of names to consider, and I would put Charles V on that list (under the stipulation he can also lead Austria, if that country is included in the expansion).

@Thedrin: The History Channel lineup: "Hitler's Things" followed by "Nazis and Stuff" followed by "When Nazis Attack" and so on. It's been better recently, but not by much. I don't so much want to see Spain replaced, but rather I had a little cunning idea for Charles V and Spain/Austria (each would have two leaders). For Spain, you could pick from Charles V or Isabella as a leader. Then, you would only have the other Austrian leader to pick from, say Maximilian I (maybe not the best choice, but a good one). Or, you could pick from Charles V or Maximilian I for Austria, then Spain would have to pick Isabella. Essentially, he's one leader that can lead two different countries. It's historically valid, I think, as well as a neat little feature.

I really like that idea. I wonder if any other possible leaders could be split between multiple civs.

Not sure about a lot of French medieval history but I would have no objection to him being a new French leader. He did first rise to power in what is modern France. The question, I suppose, is whether or not France existed as a political concept while he ruled. I was under the impression that it had.

Am I the only person that thinks "Beyond the Sword" means they will be focusing more on peace and building and not just gunpowder scenarios? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this pack would be the antithesis of Warlords.
I'm afraid you're not the only sharp person around here, as I also believe that "Beyond the Sword" is meant for things beyond the pursuit of battle, like culture and diplomacy. Personally, I'd slice up Firaxis if they even dare make it a gunpowder/modern-themed expansion pack, literally "beyond the sword." Or maybe a throat/flesh/armor/shield/air/anything-you-can-point-at-themed scenario, just to make it a little more literal. Maybe people will cut me short for all my bad puns, but that's just me.

Who I want to see:
Japan: Emperor Meiji (Creative/Protective) (similar to Augustus, Meiji is better than Mutsuhito)
Greece: Pericles (Philosophical/Industrious)
Germany: Adolf Hitler (Aggressive/Charismatic) they'll be too insensitive if they put him in
Persia/Arabia: a more modern leader (I really want to see a sort of Peacemaker scenario, however that'll be implemented)
Spain: a King (Spiritual/something, yet again)
Germany: Adolf Hitler (Aggressive/Charismatic)

Having charles V being a leader for Spain and for Austria as well might be cool ;) I think that fact just boosts him above Philipp II. in my opinion ;)

mick

I'm afraid you're not the only sharp person around here, as I also believe that "Beyond the Sword" is meant for things beyond the pursuit of battle, like culture and diplomacy. Personally, I'd slice up Firaxis if they even dare make it a gunpowder/modern-themed expansion pack, literally "beyond the sword." Or maybe a throat/flesh/armor/shield/air/anything-you-can-point-at-themed scenario, just to make it a little more literal. Maybe people will cut me short for all my bad puns, but that's just me.

From the Beyond the Sword press release:

The expansion will focus on the late-game time periods after the invention of gunpowder

But I don't think this will have any bearing on the games new civs or leaders. My understanding was that the late game focus was on expanding game options in this stage of the game. The presence of the Babylonians would give weight to this view. So would the artwork of Charlemagne's cavalry.

From the Beyond the Sword press release:The expansion will focus on the late-game time periods after the invention of gunpowder
After the invention of gunpowder was the U.N. (not directly after, but after).

Anyway, I just like to think that "Beyond the Sword" is too good a name to be used in such a cheesy fashion.

Edit-reply:
But I don't think this will have any bearing on the games new civs or leaders.
I'll have to say "yes" to that.

Well, they had Churchill and Stalin in an expansion that focused on ancient and medieval warfare...

@flyingchicken: I'm laughing--that was funny.

@Thedrin: But you have implicitly assumed there will be a focus on warfare here. Maybe they just want to revamp the modern age and change the space race around (that was in the announcement as well)--just because it is post gunpowder doesn't automatically mean it will be about fighting.

No, I haven't. The three aspects of the game that I know are being expanded upon are trade (corporations), diplomacy (Apostolic Palace) and the space race. I also want an expansion pack concentrating on the non military aspects of history.

Edited to add: I actually misread FlyingChicken's post.

No, I haven't.
In your response, you implied that you either strongly opposed or strongly supported the notion of having a less war-oriented expansion pack. So I suppose you meant the latter.

Conclusion: this reply has no real purpose.

Addendum:
@Antilogic
Thank you.

Charles de Gaulle - France (Pictures have been seen from Firaxis, not confirmed but a safe bet) no idea on the traits

I don't think De Gaulle is a safe bet. I believe the picture you are referring to on the Firaxis site is from Sid Meier's Railroads, in which De Gaulle is in (including portrait). Doesn't mean he won't be in the game, but the pic is from another game.

They wont put Hitler in the game for the same reason they wont put as Isreali civ. Too politically charged.

Persia: Darius. I know everyone has Xerxes on the brain from 300, but Darius has been used in the past.
Third roman/Italian leader seems likely. I would be tempted to say Mussolini if there wasnt such a strong connection to Hitler. Also other Roman leaders I can think of is Hadrian or Trajan. Well all know Nero, but as a leader of a civ..ehh.

Third roman/Italian leader seems likely. I would be tempted to say Mussolini

Italy is not the continuation of Rome. As I understand it, Italy's inhabitants are prominently descendant from Germanic peoples.

Italy is not the continuation of Rome. As I understand it, Italy's inhabitants are prominently descendant from Germanic peoples.
Aren't the Italians Romano-Germanic (therefore, Italians are still partly Roman; "Romano-Germanic" is made-up)? Unless the Germanic tribes committed Roman genocide or all the Romans became infertile at some point in history, of course.

To clarify:
Therefore Italians are still Romans, just with a heavy dose of Germanic blood (or not - the Romans could have stuck to "their own kind" adopting the rugged, Germanic way of life). I don't know, but I do hope a person who does know speaks up.

Aren't the Italians Romano-Germanic (therefore, Italians are still partly Roman; "Romano-Germanic" is made-up)? Unless the Germanic tribes committed Roman genocide or all the Romans became infertile at some point in history, of course.

To clarify:
Therefore Italians are still Romans, just with a heavy dose of Germanic blood (or not - the Romans could have stuck to "their own kind" adopting the rugged, Germanic way of life). I don't know, but I do hope a person who does no speaks up.

I tend to agree with you, flying chicken. Although politically, the state of Italy is relatively new (1870s), the people themselves are a mixture of many cultures, including those of Roman descent and their Germanic conquerors.

However, I highly doubt that there will be an Italian civ in the xpak. My rationale? City names. If Rome is both a Roman city and an Italian one, who wins out in 4000 B.C.? It would just be too difficult for players and programmers. Although historic cities have been shared in the game under differnt names(i.e. Greek Byzantine, Roman Constantinople, and Turkish Istanbul), it would be nonsense to have Rome and Rome (even if you spelled it in Italian: Roma). Just not happening. Sorry.

They wont put Hitler in the game for the same reason they wont put as Isreali civ. Too politically charged.

Persia: Darius. I know everyone has Xerxes on the brain from 300, but Darius has been used in the past.
Third roman/Italian leader seems likely. I would be tempted to say Mussolini if there wasnt such a strong connection to Hitler. Also other Roman leaders I can think of is Hadrian or Trajan. Well all know Nero, but as a leader of a civ..ehh.

Xerxes was in Civ III so I think he's a strong contender for an alternate Persian leader if one is in the cards. What do you mean by "Darius has been used in the past"? In a previous Civ game?

Xerxes was in Civ III so I think he's a strong contender for an alternate Persian leader if one is in the cards. What do you mean by "Darius has been used in the past"? In a previous Civ game?

I was actually glad to see Xerxes go. In previous Civ incarnations, they had a tendency to pick famous leaders and their adversaries. In this incarnation, they have selected more leaders that have genuinely improved their civilizations and not the most famous enemy of a Western civilization.

If you read some Persian history, you will see why there is a perhaps small but vocal fraction that favor the inclusion of Darius over Xerxes--Darius did much more to build up the Persian state. Xerxes is just famous because he lost to the Greeks and Herodotus was kind enough to bring the battles an epic sense of warfare and "the fate of the world hangs in the balance!". 300 doesn't help.

Old Apr 01, 2007, 08:29 PM #50
Antilogic


Originally Posted by Scaramanga View Post
Xerxes was in Civ III so I think he's a strong contender for an alternate Persian leader if one is in the cards. What do you mean by "Darius has been used in the past"? In a previous Civ game?

I was actually glad to see Xerxes go. In previous Civ incarnations, they had a tendency to pick famous leaders and their adversaries. In this incarnation, they have selected more leaders that have genuinely improved their civilizations and not the most famous enemy of a Western civilization.

If you read some Persian history, you will see why there is a perhaps small but vocal fraction that favor the inclusion of Darius over Xerxes--Darius did much more to build up the Persian state. Xerxes is just famous because he lost to the Greeks and Herodotus was kind enough to bring the battles an epic sense of warfare and "the fate of the world hangs in the balance!". 300 doesn't help.

Darius eh . His reforms transformed the Persian Empire . He was the one who instructed sastrapes (conquered lands are only obliged to pay taxes) . In short he was a successful reformer , builder of the Empire but his war efforts against the Greeks were a failure. Him being a "builder" will make a good combination with the Warlike Cyrus in the game. I think that Creative-Industrious will suit him.

Even with his failure against the Greeks at Marathon in Attica, he still took territory in Euboea, Thrace, and Macedon during his reign. He was still a successful conqueror on top of the building aspect. He's simply a far better choice than old Xerxes...

Well It will cause a flame war but w/e.

Hitler becuase he is important to history.
Pericles becuase it is high time he get in there.
Constantine becuase he is important to history.
Lincoln becuase well you know.
Charles V for Spain.
For china... Emperor Qianlong? A good guy but extremely shortsighted *and China would pay for his shortsigtedness*

I want Charles V for Austria myself, although if they can share a leader, all the better--two civs can have two leaders for the price of two leaders and not three! Huzzah!

Lincoln's in. Constantine will probably be with the Byzantines if they are added (another one of those wildcards).

I've shouted myself hoarse on Hitler already. Two names to consider in addition: Otto I the Great and Barbarossa. Look at some other posts I've made to see my reasons.

The perfect addition would be Muhammad for the Arabs, but whatever leaderhead they used would cause riots on the "Arab street."

Anyone think Joan of Arc will return in the expansion?

I really could care less if France gets a third leader, but just thought I would bring the idea up.

Hoping for Suleiman the Magnificent (Agg/Org).

Argh..including Jeanne d'Arc is even worse than including Theodora.
They should only use leaders as leaders.
It's bad enoug we have a Prussian king for Germany but at least Frederick was a great and influencial leader for his time (although he got his arse kicked by the Russians).

I've thought of Boadicea myself, as a safe bet. Reasons:

- the Celts have only one leader, and making it two won't hurt;
- Warlords added no female leaders, so they'll probably put in at least one.I also thought of Boudica independently, in another thread. The only thing is now that I think of it, if she didn't get added in Warlords, why would she be added now? Her popular image is very much "the warrior queen." How does that fit with the "Beyond the Sword" theme?

My other ideas (I'm just guessing, not lobbying -- I don't really care):

Tecumseh of the Shawnee

Gilgamesh of the Sumerians

Alcibiades of the Greeks

My criteria for picking these is that all four all are leaders that are iconic, they have historically established personalities that tend to make them greater in stature personally than what their civilization or achievements represent. Their persons have been to some degree romanticized. Che Guevera would be another (modern) leader of that type -- someone you see people wearing t-shirts with his face on long after he is dead. Many, many people have heard of him, and have an image of him -- many more than actually have a clear, historically correct idea of exactly what he did.

Well It will cause a flame war but w/e.

Hitler becuase he is important to history.
Pericles becuase it is high time he get in there.
Constantine becuase he is important to history.
Lincoln becuase well you know.
Charles V for Spain.
For china... Emperor Qianlong? A good guy but extremely shortsighted *and China would pay for his shortsigtedness*

Hitler won't get in, whatever people say, unless Firaxis wants to get into trouble.

Qianlong is probably the 50th emperor you should include to stand for China. If you want ancient emperor, Tang Taizong is the one to go, who represents the golden age of the ancient Chinese culture and was basically the combination of Augustus and Hannibal in one person. If you want a female, then go for Empress Wu, or if you want more recent leader, Sun Yat Sun or Deng XiaoPing. Qianlong is basically a long-lived idixt who just by luck inherited a well-managed kingdom.

I think Japan deserves another leader. It was a regional military powerhouse in the past 500 years and has the 2nd most powerful economy in the world in the past few decades. For ancient era leader, pick either Nobunaga or Hideyoshi; for relatively recent leader, Meiji is the one to go. The more I think the more I prefer Meiji.

Alcibiades of the Greeks



I can only comment on Alcibiades . Alcibiades was yes an extremely Charismatic and Clever General ,a byproduct of Athenian democracy. He was in charge of the Sicilian campaign of Athens (which if it would be successful it would install Athens Hegemony over the Entire World .There aren't many times in history where a War campaign was so important). Athens was winning while he was in charge thanks to his abilities . However his enemies back home blamed him for dishonoring the Gods and other offenses which the Public in the end was convinced . It was easier to do so because he was an immoral Bastard. He escapes conviction and then he submits to Sparta his biggest enemy until then. With his help Sparta invaded Sicily herself which lead to the defeat of the Athenian army.

A Traitor , a man that would sell him self to the Higher bidder doesn't deserve to rule either Greece ,Athens or Sparta. Not to mention the importance that a successful Sicilian Campaign would have for the world and the fact that he ruined it.

But now they are bringing back Abraham Lincoln...which perhaps means a Civil War Scenario is possibly forthcoming....

Does this mean Jefferson Davis or perhaps even Robert E. Lee becomes a Confederate leader, for a US Civil War scenario?

Wow...wouldn't that be a popular one in certain areas of the US....

But really, if they are going to have more post gunpowder based scenarios, I'd be really hard pressed to NOT include Hitler, or Tojo, only to complete a somewhat functional WWII scenario...

Yeah, these choices would be, on the face, VERY controversial, but it is only a game, right? Just my views....

i think they might add Darius for Persia his traits would be Organized and ??????

i think they might add Darius for Persia his traits would be Organized and ??????

Darius was very successful at ruling the Empire ( Organized) and building infrastructure while he was also a reformer. Organized Creative is already taken and so i think Organized Industrious will suit Darius well . You got to love cheap courthouses , forges and factories.

Darius was very successful at ruling the Empire ( Organized) and building infrastructure while he was also a reformer. Organized Creative is already taken and so i think Organized Industrious will suit Darius well . You got to love cheap courthouses , forges and factories.

Roosevelt is Org/Ind.
The only traits not paired with Organised in Warlords are Financial (overpowered) Protective (useless) and Agressive (good synergy).

I don't have a full slate but I agree that Darius is an excellent bet and I'll add Cleopatra (she's been in past civs, she's a woman and she's got name recognition).

Hitler won't get in, whatever people say, unless Firaxis wants to get into trouble.

Qianlong is probably the 50th emperor you should include to stand for China. If you want ancient emperor, Tang Taizong is the one to go, who represents the golden age of the ancient Chinese culture and was basically the combination of Augustus and Hannibal in one person. If you want a female, then go for Empress Wu, or if you want more recent leader, Sun Yat Sun or Deng XiaoPing. Qianlong is basically a long-lived idixt who just by luck inherited a well-managed kingdom.

I think Japan deserves another leader. It was a regional military powerhouse in the past 500 years and has the 2nd most powerful economy in the world in the past few decades. For ancient era leader, pick either Nobunaga or Hideyoshi; for relatively recent leader, Meiji is the one to go. The more I think the more I prefer Meiji.

Meh. It's idiotic that they are ignoring one of the most important leaders in world history, ever. Though I can't imagine that many people would want to play as him. Deng Xiaoping is rather borring and I think Sun Yat Sen didn't rule for long enough before Yuan Shikai took things over and messed them up. Lets cause a ruccus and choose Chiang Kai Sheck.

But yeah, SunYatSen is a good choice becuase he represents a Modernising China and plays well with both Nationalists and the Communists so he is the politically safe choice and a somewhat practical choice.

As far as Qianlong he's not so bad, he had the last fat period of Feudal history. Though during his time the seeds of chaos were also sewn (refused western technology, Canton trade system created, population boom).

I don't have a full slate but I agree that Darius is an excellent bet and I'll add Cleopatra (she's been in past civs, she's a woman and she's got name recognition).

Don't think so.

They put in Hatshepsut, so you have already one female leader for Egypt. And it is clear that Firaxis took the route of removing "famous failures" from Civ4 - that is why you have no Cleopatra, Xerxes or Joan of Arc.

Don't think so.

They put in Hatshepsut, so you have already one female leader for Egypt. And it is clear that Firaxis took the route of removing "famous failures" from Civ4 - that is why you have no Cleopatra, Xerxes or Joan of Arc.


Except that they included Hannibal and Napoleon, famous failures too.

My take on who could be included as new leaders for old civs.
Hamilcar Barca of Carthage
Louis IX of France
Montezuma I (Montezuma II is the one in the game) of the Aztecs
Meiji of Japan
Charles V for either Germany, Austria or Spain
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major of Rome
Suleiman the Magnificent for the Ottoman Empire
Thutmosis III of Egypt
Khufu of Egypt
Maria Theresa of Austria or Germany
Canute (k. of England) of the Vikings
Philip II Augustus of France
Diocletian of Rome
Ferdinand II of Aragon for Spain
Osman I of the Ottoman Empire
Vercingetorix of the Celts
Cetshwayo of the Zulu
Chandragupta of India
Akbar of India
Pericles of Greece
Leonidas of Greece
Otto the Great of Germany
Atahualpa of the Incans
Nehru of India

Pericles- Greece <-- I'd bet money on it.
Lincoln- US
Persia- Darius
Atahualpa-Inca? <-- Maybe for the new world scenario?
Ferdinand- Spain <-- not saying they should, I just wouldnt be surprised if they did to be "cute." Who knows, maybe they'll put in an Alfred instead.

The long shot alternative- Brian Boruma or Cunnobelin- Celts

I don't think we'll see Montezuma I. They should have put him in instead, but I doubt they'll have both.

My take on your picks, Tonifranz (btw, these comments are on likelihood of them being included, not what I'd like to see):

Hamilcar Barca of Carthage - could be, although likely not different enough from Hannibal
Louis IX of France - "another Louis" - not likely ;)
Montezuma I (Montezuma II is the one in the game) of the Aztecs - "another Monty"
Meiji of Japan - possible
Charles V for either Germany, Austria or Spain - possible (most likely for Spain)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major of Rome - don't think so - there is already at least one "great commander" type of leader for Rome, unless Scipio would represent Republican Rome
Suleiman the Magnificent for the Ottoman Empire - very likely imo
Thutmosis III of Egypt - don't think so ("one pharaoh is enough")
Khufu of Egypt - ibid.
Maria Theresa of Austria or Germany - possible, especially if Austria is in.
Canute (k. of England) of the Vikings - possible
Philip II Augustus of France - don't think so (because I'd bet on De Gaulle)
Diocletian of Rome - could be, but I'd guess it will be Theodosius or Constantine instead (i.e. a Christian Emperor)
Ferdinand II of Aragon for Spain - could be
Osman I of the Ottoman Empire - not enough different from Mehmed
Vercingetorix of the Celts - if we see the second Celt leader, it will be Boadicea
Cetshwayo of the Zulu - nah (it's not such an important civ to have 2 leaders)
Chandragupta of India - could be
Akbar of India - more likely
Pericles of Greece - I'd bet on it
Leonidas of Greece - less likely than Pericles (since also militaristic like Alexander, but you never know after "300" ;))
Otto the Great of Germany - I'd like to see that but don't think it's likely
Atahualpa of the Incans - possible
Nehru of India - don't think so (Gandhi already there for modern India

Assuming there are 6 leaders for pre-existing civs, I'd like to see:

Americans - Abe Lincoln
French - Charles De Gaulle
Germans - Otto III or Frederick I Barbarossa
Romans - Theodosius, Constantine the Great or Julius II (the Pope)
Greeks - Pericles or Solon
Turks - Suleyman the Magnificent or Ataturk

Sulieman was added in the expansion was he not? As for other leaders that should be added I think that Charlmeign is border line since he revitalized education and opened universities, but upon his death his attempt was quickly wiped out. Emperor Hirohita is kind of a bad choice since he was a puppet emperor. Constantine would be a pretty good choice since the eastern roman empire lasted far longer then the west thanks to his guidance. The leader I would really like to see although I can't see it happening is Hitler. He did bring Germany out of the depression and created a generation of men that would die for him. He transformed a defeated country into a super power and early on grasped the significance of tank warfare and planes. Later on he kind of lost what little sense he had though and did kill millions, but Stalin and Mao are just as guilty and they were included. In fact Stalin was quite similair to Hitler and even considered Hitler a friend. If he is included though and happens to become your neighbor you'd better not be the civ to found Judaism. Please don't complain about that last incesitiv joke.:)

I think 3rd leader shouldn't happen. It will for America thou :( I know some civ has 3 leaders I think russia and England? Also with the new leaders Im hoping new traits as well :) I'm fine with a new japan leader because I hate The current one, mostly cause of the traits :/ Japan could use an IND leader I would say.

Otto I is the other German leader to consider in addition to the good ones mentioned above. There is a reason why Otto I is called Otto the Great.

I disagree highly with the choice of Charles de Gaulle...I think Phillip Augustus is a solid choice for medieval France (Phillip II)--besides from leaving the Crusades early, he is a solid leader that consolidated France. Good alternative pick.

I think Solon is far too limited in scope for all of Greece. You need to pick a figure that more completely represents the Greeks of the era. Pericles, being the head of the Athenian empire at its height, represents a large fraction of Greece, and he is probably their most influential politician. Also, he represents Greek democracy as opposed to the Macedonian monarch Alexander, so it's a good mix. If you are going for Sparta, Leonidas overall isn't that solid of a pick--he's famous for his sacrifice, although in the end I would suggest the lesser known Kleomenes. A History of Sparta by W. G. Forrest has a great chapter on him, if you have the chance to read that book. Alcibiades...well, the first time I heard about him and his crazy life, all I could do was laugh. He was very charismatic, but with no ethical or moral values whatsoever. Great story, by the way.

I'm pretty sure that if the Byzantines are added, Constantine will be given to them and not Rome. Also, if Austria is added, they will be receiving Charles V over Spain.

Scipio is a bad choice for Rome--he never managed to garner much political influence after his victories over Carthage. I think Hadrian or Trajan might be better picks overall.

I don't know why, rapidveggie, you can see why Hirohito is a bad idea and not see why Hitler is a bad idea. They start out creating an incredibly militaristic and nationalist society, then they go on an invasion spree, overreach themselves, and then have their countries destroyed and subjugated. Hirohito was a puppet emperor of a puppet state. Hitler killed himself, but Germany none the less was divided amongst the victorious powers. He lost just the same as Hirohito.

Here's a funny story: I always assumed the Montezuma in the game was Montezuma I, not II. :) Maybe I've been wrong...this also goes along with what Martinus about removing popular but not actual leaders earlier...

I'm pretty sure that if the Byzantines are added, Constantine will be given to them and not Rome.

Constantine should go to Rome being thier last great Emperor. Besides Byzantines have Justinian I

I'd like to see William the Conqueror - England and someone from Maya in the game.

I disagree highly with the choice of Charles de Gaulle...
It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement for me, but prediction what is most likely. De Gaulle would be useful for WWII scenario, and since we already have Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt, I think it is highly likely.

Putting De Gaulle into the full game is entirely unnecessary for a WWII scenario.

Whatever you think, Firaxis does not think this way. I'm willing to bet De Gaulle will be in. :)

Firaxis does not think this way.

CivIII Conquests says otherwise. Lots of undepicted scenario leaders. Sometimes a scenario leader was represented by the leader head of a completely different full-game-leader.

I won't bet against De Gaulle being in the expansion but because of reasons other than scenarios. I really hope that he isn't.

I'd like to see William the Conqueror - England and someone from Maya in the game.

Yes, but England already have three leaders, so I don't think he would be included.

CivIII Conquests says otherwise. Lots of undepicted scenario leaders. Sometimes a scenario leader was represented by the leader head of a completely different full-game-leader.

I won't bet against De Gaulle being in the expansion but because of reasons other than scenarios. I really hope that he isn't.

I meant mostly that he is a well recognised figure and a WWII leader, and there is a large part of the player demographics who have a boner for WWII references (how else you explain the Hitler debate propping up every now and then).

So I think De Gaulle is in (plus he exemplifies modern France, whereas Louis already is there for l'ancien regime, and Nappy for the revolutionary one).

If DeGaulle is added, I'll be sick.
Just another "winner" of the WWII. Although, he was a very unfit leader.
Neither Hitler, Mussolini nor Hirohito are in this game, while Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin are all in it. Doesn't someone have to lose?
If DeGaulle will be added, it will be another bad leader from the Allied side.
IMO, Hitler is a better leader than all the existing Allied leaders.

DeGaulle not for the win!

Stalin pwns Hitler.

not in hair-fashion :D

I think Solon is far too limited in scope for all of Greece. You need to pick a figure that more completely represents the Greeks of the era. Pericles, being the head of the Athenian empire at its height, represents a large fraction of Greece, and he is probably their most influential politician. Also, he represents Greek democracy as opposed to the Macedonian monarch Alexander, so it's a good mix. If you are going for Sparta, Leonidas overall isn't that solid of a pick--he's famous for his sacrifice, although in the end I would suggest the lesser known Kleomenes. A History of Sparta by W. G. Forrest has a great chapter on him, if you have the chance to read that book.

I agree so far .If we are going to add a Spartan Leader how do you think the prospect of adding Agisilaos . He is the man who ruled Sparta through a decade and through his inspired leadership he shaped Sparta's culture , customs and lead them to victory against Athens in the Peloponesean war. He is also famous for the wisdom he showed while arguing with Spartan politicians and Athenian messengers about the incomming war. ( Described by Thukididis.)


I'm pretty sure that if the Byzantines are added, Constantine will be given to them and not Rome. Also, if Austria is added, they will be receiving Charles V over Spain.

If we agree to have Prussia's leaders or Holy roman empire Leaders as a part of Germany then the same should apply with Eastern Roman Empire and Greece.






I don't know why, rapidveggie, you can see why Hirohito is a bad idea and not see why Hitler is a bad idea. They start out creating an incredibly militaristic and nationalist society, then they go on an invasion spree, overreach themselves, and then have their countries destroyed and subjugated. Hirohito was a puppet emperor of a puppet state. Hitler killed himself, but Germany none the less was divided amongst the victorious powers. He lost just the same as Hirohito.



Well. Like you said where do you draw the line between charisma , arrogance and failure ?

Napoleon also went on an invasion spree, overreach himself, and then have his country destroyed and subjugated.

In comparison to some of the other leaders specifically Mao , Hitler would be a better choice . Furthermore there are so many ww2 leaders and the only one that is missing is him.

However i am not going to argue that there may be better choices like Otto 2 or Barbarossa. I do think this is a good point and a good reason for him to be out og the game but i don't want a leader to be out of the game because he is infamous or for similar reasons

Hah! sct12, dou know any Leader of any country other than those during 1939-1945?

and you cant compare Napoleon to Hirohito and Hitler; Napoleon was an outstanding strategist and field taktitian who won, many, many a war. Napoleon also brought public education and good government and social reforms to france which europe would folllow in the 184* revolutions. Hitler used segregation and class distinction (which isnt very popular in France) and Hirohito was Japanese.


Lincoln -- America -- Industrious and Expansive
Meiji -- Japan --Industrial and Aggressive
Charlmange -- France --Protective and Spiritual
Phillip II -- Spain --Expansive and Imperialist
Abu Bkar -- Arabia --Spiritual and Expansive
Sultan Osman -- The Ottomans --Industrious and Charismatic

ZB2, every single trait combination on your list, except Imp/Exp is already in use. While Firaxis didn't mind switching some traits before, they only did it in connection with introducing new traits, so I don't think any of these choices would go through.

Already used... So? there will be new traits in the expansion. it doesnt matter, its mearly a suggestion on leaders. and it doesnt matter if a combonation is used twice anyway. they are different leaders.

If we assume that no new traits will be added and none of the existing leaders will have his or her traits changed, there are 20 unused trait pairs to take. Assuming that Phi/Ind, Cha/Agg, Fin/Org are not going to be used for overpowered synergies, my guess for the remaining leaders is as follows:

Aggressive/Organized - Mursilis of the Hittites, favours Vassalage
Charismatic/Creative - Charles de Gaule of the French, favours Nationhood
Charismatic/Industrious - Abe Lincoln of the Americans, favours Emancipation
Charismatic/Philosophical - Pericles of the Greeks, favours Representation
Creative/Expansive - Sitting Bull of the Sioux, favours Representation
Creative/Financial - Willem Oranje of the Dutch, favours Free Market
Creative/Philosophical - Hammurabi of the Babylonians, favours Organized Religion
Creative/Protective - unknown?
Expansive/Financial - Enrique of the Portuguese, favours Hereditary Monarchy
Expansive/Imperialistic - Philip II of the Spanish, favours Hereditary Monarchy
Imperialistic/Industrious - Smoke Jaguar of the Mayans, favours Organized Religion
Imperialistic/Philosophical - Suleyman the Magnificent of the Ottomans, favours Bureaucracy
Imperialistic/Protective - Justinian of the Byzantines, favours Bureaucracy
Imperialistic/Spiritual - Constantine of the Romans (or Byzantines), favours Theocracy
Organized/Protective - uknown?
Philosophical/Protective - Otto of the Germans, favours Hereditary Monarchy

Of course this is pure speculation and I realise some pairings might not be the most appropriate for some leaders, but neither are the ones made so far. ;)

and you cant compare Napoleon to Hirohito and Hitler; Napoleon was an outstanding strategist and field taktitian who won, many, many a war. Napoleon also brought public education and good government and social reforms to france which europe would folllow in the 184* revolutions. Hitler used segregation and class distinction (which isnt very popular in France) and Hirohito was Japanese.

Try to read the above posts and then make your points clearer. Like i said i consider that Hitler possess Charisma and other Leadership abilities but due to his flaws he lead to failure.

In Similar faction did Napoleon . I do not directly compare Napoleon to Hitler. I just compare that in both occasions Leaders than possessed charisma lead to failure due to arrogance. "Like you said where do you draw the line between charisma , arrogance and failure ?" That is to empathize how failure doesn't always mean than a Leader lacks Leadership abilities. Now , that doesn't mean that i consider Hitler to be a great leader ot without fatal flaws , or that there may not be better ones. I think based on his qualities that it is a name to put on the table. I agree that how charismatic he is can be argued on both ends but i don't think absolute statements (useless) are informative or correct.



Hah! sct12, dou know any Leader of any country other than those during 1939-1945?

No ZBT i don't know anything about any Leader other than those during 1939-1945 even if most of my posts are suggestions to other leaders that don't come from those periods. I do not claim to be always correct or all knowing but at least if we are going to have disagreements which i believe is very important for having good flow of discussion then have them in intelligent and not childish manner.

But hitler and hirohito where not successful leaders! the game shouldnt have them in amongskt other leaders who built a nation that lasted through their riegn.

ok definitely

persia: xerxes
greece: pericles
japan: hirohito
germany: hitler
france: Charlamagne
america: Lincoln

Hiroshima wasn't even a leader. As I said he was a puppet emperor he had no real power. Hitler was evil but his early strategy's were as sound as Napoleans and they both just made the same mistake. Mussolini was crap, couldn't even beat Greece without German help.

But hitler and hirohito where not successful leaders!

Neither was Napoleon.

Napoleon was not successful? Just ask yourself why everyone but the British drives on the right? ;) More seriously, he "reset" European continental history, ending with his conquest most medieval leftovers, 1815 was just a quick interlude. On more factual things, what about the "Code Civil"? I do agree that Hitler does qualify as a leader too in this case, but he won't get in nevertheless, as a) there would be way too much complaints on him [If 30 % support him, while equally 30% fiercly are against him, you won't include it, the threshold for approval is much higher than for dissaproval, just go an look into politics...] and b) Germany probably can be given more diversity better by including a medieval leader.

mfG mitsho

(And C : AFAIK, It is forbidden by law to use nazi imagery for entertainment purpose in Germany)

As others have said, about Hirohito's only claim to fame is that he did not stop the Japanese Military from dragging the entire country into the greatest disaster to ever strike Japan, ever. If that warrants a place in civ...blech.

Meiji, OTOH, would be a pretty good pick. And, of the available traits combinations, the only one I can see as fitting him is Imperialistic/Industrious

If De Gaulle is in the game, I look forward to conquering his arrogant, self-important ass.
Anyway:
America: Lincoln
Japan: Meiji (we need someone besides bloody Tokugawa)
Greece: Pericles
Persia: Xerxes (I miss him from Civ III)
Celts: Boudiccea (they need another woman, and Boudiccea is actually an interesting historical figure)
France: De Gaulle (:vomit:)

Alternates I would like for them to add, but which they probably will not:
Zulu: Cetshwayo
Carthage: Dido

If we assume that no new traits will be added and none of the existing leaders will have his or her traits changed, there are 20 unused trait pairs to take. Assuming that Phi/Ind, Cha/Agg, Fin/Org are not going to be used for overpowered synergies, my guess for the remaining leaders is as follows:

Aggressive/Organized - Mursilis of the Hittites, favours Vassalage
Charismatic/Creative - Charles de Gaule of the French, favours Nationhood
Charismatic/Industrious - Abe Lincoln of the Americans, favours Emancipation
Charismatic/Philosophical - Pericles of the Greeks, favours Representation
Creative/Expansive - Sitting Bull of the Sioux, favours Representation
Creative/Financial - Willem Oranje of the Dutch, favours Free Market
Creative/Philosophical - Hammurabi of the Babylonians, favours Organized Religion
Creative/Protective - unknown?
Expansive/Financial - Enrique of the Portuguese, favours Hereditary Monarchy
Expansive/Imperialistic - Philip II of the Spanish, favours Hereditary Monarchy
Imperialistic/Industrious - Smoke Jaguar of the Mayans, favours Organized Religion
Imperialistic/Philosophical - Suleyman the Magnificent of the Ottomans, favours Bureaucracy
Imperialistic/Protective - Justinian of the Byzantines, favours Bureaucracy
Imperialistic/Spiritual - Constantine of the Romans (or Byzantines), favours Theocracy
Organized/Protective - uknown?
Philosophical/Protective - Otto of the Germans, favours Hereditary Monarchy

Of course this is pure speculation and I realise some pairings might not be the most appropriate for some leaders, but neither are the ones made so far. ;)

I think this is a better way to choose leaders than getting a bunch of names and then trying to assign them traits. If you do it that way someone will end up getting a bad match.

Suleiman the Magnificent would ideally be Creative/Organized, but that's taken; Aggressive/Organized would also fit.

Here's what I'm hoping for:

Hernán Cortés (Spain)
Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans)
Pericles (Greece)
Xerxes (Persia)
Meiji (Japan)

Constantine would favor free religion. He's most famous for legalizing Christianity, but he didn't make it the state religion.

I hope for

- Philip II. of Spain
- Abd ar-Rahman III. of Arabia, but more probable: Abu Bakr
- Shapur I. or Akbar of Persia, but more probable: Xerxes
- Meji of Japan
- Pericles or Themistocles of Greece, cannot really decide.

But I do think, aside of them, we would need to have another Turk and Roman at least.

mick

Here's what I'm hoping for:

Hernán Cortés (Spain)


Cortés never lead Spain :confused:

Hernan Cortes was an spanish Conquistador (=Conquerer) as well as Francisco Pizarro. They were not leader of spain. ;)

Philipp II. (Expansive, Imperialistic) would be a better choice for Spain
Meiji (Imperialistic, Philosophical) for Japan
Dareios (Aggressive, Organized) for Persia, Maybe Xerxes, but I think Dareios was the better leader
Abu Bakr (Spiritual, Imperialistic) for Arabia
Pericles (Philosophical, Creative) for Greece
Lincoln (Charismatic, Industrious) for America

- Pericles or Themistocles of Greece, cannot really decide.

Is a new leader in the expansion for the Greek civ of purely Athenian note really conceivable for the Civ 4 epic game? I sometimes think the Alexander leader was designed to be the be all and end all of Greek leaders (Aggressive representing Sparta, Philosophical representing Athens).

I've allways missed Hammurabi from the Babyloniërs in civ1

@Scaramanga

Purely Athenian? I do think both switched sites a few times ;) Well, I do think than Alexander should represent Panhellenism and that there should be someone from the earlier period too. See it as you wish, Alexander is a militaristic aggressive leader, but Greece as a whole is seen ad the basic foundament of Western Civilization because of its cultural achievements... I do think that a solemly builder Greece type AI would be beneficial to the game. I would have changed Alexander to charismatic/something else long ago. I mean he's the prototype of charismatic... I would have chosen Aggressive, but that is not allowed, philosophical is kinda ok, but it is really bad in gameplay terms ad the two traits operate in differen directions. That's why I think philosophical should be removed from Alex.

but I can see where you are aiming at, nevertheless I do think another Greek leader is needed deeply. (I would also accept Cleopatra if they needed to have another female in there for the hell of it ;)).

mfG mick

Hernan Cortes was an spanish Conquistador (=Conquerer) as well as Francisco Pizarro. They were not leader of spain. ;)

Philipp II. (Expansive, Imperialistic) would be a better choice for Spain
Meiji (Imperialistic, Philosophical) for Japan
Dareios (Aggressive, Organized) for Persia, Maybe Xerxes, but I think Dareios was the better leader
Abu Bakr (Spiritual, Imperialistic) for Arabia
Pericles (Philosophical, Creative) for Greece
Lincoln (Charismatic, Industrious) for America

The notion of Meiji without the Industrious trait is just wrong, somehow.

Imperialistic is right, though.

Well, when you think that industrious translates as wonderbuilder in civ4, it suddenly doesn't seem that awkard anymore... ;)

mick

Even then. It's not like too many of the other traits would really fit.

I suppose from that perspective (ie, if you eliminate industrious) cheaper universities and increased great people output is pretty much the least damaging choice.

@PW90
While I agree that Phillip II deserves to be included, I'd call him Spiritual/Imperialistic.

Also, for a second leader for France, why not Richelieu? It could after all be argued that without him, France would've been a second-rate power for years. Call him Spiritual/Imperialistic, maybe

Why did Xerxes name pop up again? Has nobody read the previous page on this thread? Or the one two or three before that?

Darius was by far a superior leader to that deadbeat Xerxes. If we can't have Darius and Cyrus to lead Persia, can be a later Persian, maybe a good Sassanid? Xerxes was a failure of a military leader, and although Darius lost at Marathon, he still took Thrace and Macedon and reorganized the Persian Empire. He was far more successful than Xerxes could ever hope to be.

On the issue of the Spanish/Austrian leaders and West/East Roman ones...maybe it was the way I was educated, but Constantine always seemed more like an East Roman for me. Maybe it's because of the city or his title "the Great" was an East Roman honorific. He did rule in the West as well...

Charles V, however, was most influential as the head of Austria and therefore the entire Hapsburg empire. Spain was more of a stepping stone for him.

Also, for a second leader for France, why not Richelieu? It could after all be argued that without him, France would've been a second-rate power for years. Call him Spiritual/Imperialistic, maybe

My one objection with Richelieu is that he wielded power in the same period as Louis XIV. Actually I'd prefer Richelieu over Louis XIV.

I'd like to see Maria Theresa of Austria (Creative/Charismatic). A Charismatic female in Civ 4 would be cool (a warmongeress :D).

Edit: Oh wait, this is for civs already in the game, whoops.

Why did Xerxes name pop up again? Has nobody read the previous page on this thread? Or the one two or three before that?

Darius was by far a superior leader to that deadbeat Xerxes. If we can't have Darius and Cyrus to lead Persia, can be a later Persian, maybe a good Sassanid? Xerxes was a failure of a military leader, and although Darius lost at Marathon, he still took Thrace and Macedon and reorganized the Persian Empire. He was far more successful than Xerxes could ever hope to be.

What if they put Darius and Xerxes in (so 3 leaders in total for Persia)? I'd say that way Civ 4 would account for most of the great Persian leaders. I myself am most familiar with these three leaders from Biblical accounts so it appeals to me at least.

Why did Xerxes name pop up again? Has nobody read the previous page on this thread? Or the one two or three before that?

Darius was by far a superior leader to that deadbeat Xerxes. If we can't have Darius and Cyrus to lead Persia, can be a later Persian, maybe a good Sassanid? Xerxes was a failure of a military leader, and although Darius lost at Marathon, he still took Thrace and Macedon and reorganized the Persian Empire. He was far more successful than Xerxes could ever hope to be.Oh, I don't know. Xerxes will be absolutely fine if his leaderhead was fashioned after the 300 character. If it's not, however, that's when you bring out the Darius versus Xerxes argument.

My one objection with Richelieu is that he wielded power in the same period as Louis XIV. Actually I'd prefer Richelieu over Louis XIV.

Agreed. Louis XIV reigned over France's golden age, but it was Richelieu who handed him that golden age on a platter.

We need Hitler... someone to take our aggression out on. :lol: But he probably won't be in the game because of controversy.

My favorites are in green.

We will probably have
-Darius I for Persia
-Pericles for Greece (Greece needs a second leader and Alexander was a Macedon king)
-Charles de Gaulle for France
-Charlemagne for Germany

We might have
-Alaric I for Barbarian State (maybe they'll become playable)
-Hirohito for Japan
-Hitler for Germany

ARGH.

All Hirohito ever did was NOT stop his military from dragging Japan into a war. What kind of credential is that supposed to be?

He stopped Nazi Germany from taking over the world. (Dragging us into the war; Hitler could have conquered Europe in 1950s and then invaded an unaware USA).

I would like to see Philip II in there for Spain.

I reckon there'll be a "colonization" style scenario (with the Native Americans/Sioux, Netherlands and Portugal coming into the civ mix). Maybe Philip would be better than Isabella for this? Perhaps there'll be a scenario where the armada are featured?

I feel that Japan might have a new leader for a WW2 scenario.....which brings me to Hitler. It's likely Firaxis won't bring a Hitler leaderhead out...though a WW2 scenario would be more realistic with him in it IMHO.

As for other new leaders...de Gaulle for France, Darius for Persia and a new Greek leader would be great...either Pericles or Leonidas would be my preference.

Boudicca has been suggested...if I can work out how to do animated Civ IV leaderheads, I would update my Civ III Boudicca for Civ IV!!

He stopped Nazi Germany from taking over the world. (Dragging us into the war; Hitler could have conquered Europe in 1950s and then invaded an unaware USA).

But the fact that this probably wans't his intention kinda takes it away...

But the fact that this probably wans't his intention kinda takes it away...

True.

123456

Zavanna Burkett
Letty Crom
Braelyn Saltser
Redd Cass
Tiana Young
Kristie Tue

You give him too much credit.

He didn't drag America into the war ; his military did. All he did was not stop them from doing it.

I'd Rather see Arnold Swarzeneggar as a Leader for Germany before Hirohito is for Japan.

Its that rediculous

I think they should replace Lincoln with Schwarzenegger...

Hahaha what would you say his traits be? Charismatic (how did he get california to vote for him anyway huh?) and maybe a new trait, Cyberdyne Robotics, all units built get +99 Xp and all gunpowder units get free Combat I,II,III,IV,V, VI

Someone mentioned Persian leaders, so without ado (or adon't) *drumroll*

Ladies and gents, Khosrau Anushivran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrau_I_of_Persia

He laid foundations of many new cities and magnificent palaces, trade roads were repaired and new bridges and dams were built. During Khosrau I's ambitious reign art and science flourished in Persia and the Sassanid empire was in its peak of glory and prosperity. Reformed the Sassanid tax structure, held his own against Justinian and Belisarius of the Byzantines, and led the "second Sassanid golden age", so, I'd go.... Creative/Financial, p'raps?

I must correct some of my ideas for new leaders, after I've made a list with all leaders and their traits. All traits are used, but not Aggressive/Charismatic, Industrious/Philosophical and Organized/Financial, because they are a little bit overpowered (I heared this from some people in another forum ;) )
The things witch are already fix, are in red, and the others are written in black . ;)

For the existing civilizations:
Abraham Lincoln (America) Industrious/Charismatic
Abu Bakr (Arabia) Spiritual/Imperialistic
Perikles (Greece) Creative/Charismatic
Phillip II. (Spain) Creative/Expansive
Meiji (Japan) Industrious/Imperialistic
Dareios (Persia) Philosophical/Imperialistic

For the 10 new civilizations:
Willem van Oranje (Netherlands) Financial/Expansive
Hammurabi (Babylon) Creative/Philosophical
Henrique (Portugal) Expansive/Imperialistic
Maria Theresia (Austria) Creative/Protective
Sitting Bull (Native Americans) Protective/Organized
Matthias Corvinus (Hungary) Philosophical/Charismatic
Jayavarman (Khmer) Creative/Financial
Jan Sobieski (Poland) Protective/Philosophical
Menelik (Abbesinia/Ethiopia) Protective/Imperialistic
Smoke Jaguar (Maya) Aggressive/Organized

But with some Traits I'm not sure, if they fit perfectly ;)

I would like to see a Persian leader of post-medieval Persia. Like Shah Ismail I This was a period when many Persian leaders tried to modernize Persia, but they only partly succeeded. The clergy often opposed modernization. The region was dominated by Persia in that era. It was also the time that Persia became a shia Islamic state. A strange combination of modernization and Shia radicalism both existed in this period. Powerful religious leader and democratic movements existed side by side in this period. A period that I think is nor yet over.

Shah Ismail I claimed Azerbaijan, conquered north Iran and became the Shah of Iran. He then conquered: Ak Koyunlu,Hamadan, Shiraz, Kerman,Najaf, Karbala, Baghdad , Khorasan, Herat and he took much land from the Uzbeks. He started with quite nothing and he ended up with a gigantic empire! All population he conquered had the great pleasure to choice between becoming shia or becoming a corpse!

Other candidates are

-Nasser-e-Din(Amir Kabir): He revived Persia after it went bankrupt and had lost wars with Russia and became under big Russian and British influences. He weakened British and Russian influences and made Iran again an independent country. He builds the first Iranian university and encouraged science and education. He let European teachers come to Persia to help Persia modernize.
Arguments against him: He only temporary weakened foreign influences, he didn't created the needed democratic and constitutional reforms. This would cause the many revolts after his reign.
-Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: One of the most progressive and modern leaders Iran ever had. He extended voting rights to women and tried to eliminate illiteracy. Major plans to build Iran's infrastructure were undertaken, a new middle class began flourishing and in less than two decades Iran became the undisputable major economical and military power of the Middle East.
Argument against him: His modernization created the causes of the Islamic revolution that his successor faced(Mohammad Reza Pahlavi). He often undertook his modernization on an authoritarian way.

Having both an ancient Persian leader and one from the modern Shia period, would allow both sides of Persia to be shown in the game. The conflicts between Persia the Ottoman Empire, Russia and the British would also be good for a scenario.

I'd Rather see Arnold Swarzeneggar as a Leader for Germany before Hirohito is for Japan.

Its that rediculous

I know, but I couldn't think of anybody else at the time for Japan. @-Oda Nobunaga and ZB2- And when I said he brought us into the war I was making fun of him.

Lol, fair enough.

Meiji is the one you want for Japan. At the start of his reign Japan was essentialy a feudal nation still (though not as backward as sometime depicted) that had to give in to a series of unequal treaties (ie, western rip-offs) because they were utterly outmatched by any european power (or the States).

By the end of it, Japan was an industrial nation, a constitutional monarchy and a colonial power, that had, via victory against Russia, obtained a seat among the great powers of the world ; to the point that a few years after his death, at the end of World War II, Japan was awarded stewardship over most of the ex-German possessions in the Pacific.

kolpo I would like to see a Persian leader of post-medieval Persia. Like Shah Ismail I This was a period when many Persian leaders tried to modernize Persia, but they only partly succeeded. The clergy often opposed modernization. The region was dominated by Persia in that era. It was also the time that Persia became a shia Islamic state. A strange combination of modernization and Shia radicalism both existed in this period. Powerful religious leader and democratic movements existed side by side in this period. A period that I think is nor yet over.

Shah Ismail I claimed Azerbaijan, conquered north Iran and became the Shah of Iran. He then conquered: Ak Koyunlu,Hamadan, Shiraz, Kerman,Najaf, Karbala, Baghdad , Khorasan, Herat and he took much land from the Uzbeks. He started with quite nothing and he ended up with a gigantic empire! All population he conquered had the great pleasure to choice between becoming shia or becoming a corpse!

Other candidates are

-Nasser-e-Din(Amir Kabir): He revived Persia after it went bankrupt and had lost wars with Russia and became under big Russian and British influences. He weakened British and Russian influences and made Iran again an independent country. He builds the first Iranian university and encouraged science and education. He let European teachers come to Persia to help Persia modernize.
Arguments against him: He only temporary weakened foreign influences, he didn't created the needed democratic and constitutional reforms. This would cause the many revolts after his reign.
-Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: One of the most progressive and modern leaders Iran ever had. He extended voting rights to women and tried to eliminate illiteracy. Major plans to build Iran's infrastructure were undertaken, a new middle class began flourishing and in less than two decades Iran became the undisputable major economical and military power of the Middle East.
Argument against him: His modernization created the causes of the Islamic revolution that his successor faced(Mohammad Reza Pahlavi). He often undertook his modernization on an authoritarian way.

Having both an ancient Persian leader and one from the modern Shia period, would allow both sides of Persia to be shown in the game. The conflicts between Persia the Ottoman Empire, Russia and the British would also be good for a scenario.

Good to see some new names other than the usual.

If I were to pick five modern leaders (with BTS seemingly geared towards more modern rather than "old school"), I'd pick:

* France - de Gaulle is perhaps the best known leader of the newest French Republics.
* China - either Kangxi (although a Qing emperor may not be "modern" enough) or Sun (he was never a proper "leader", but he is the father of modern China - on both sides of the strait)
* Japan - either Meiji (prewar restoration) or Showa (best known for military during WWII, although the postwar restoration was also under his reign, and that may be more important)
* Spain - Franco (we need some fascist leader that isn't politically charged)
* Germany - Goebbels - if you want to avoid Hitler for his politically charged name association and you still want Nazi Germany to be represented (other than with Panzers), Goebbels is probably a good bet.

What would be surprising for me would be:
* A leader for a civ with three leaders already
* A living person as leader (doubly shocking: Gorbachev for Russia, say)
* A "modern" leader of an ancient civilization (eg. a modern Greek leader representing ancient Greece, a modern Italian leader representing ancient Rome, a modern Irish leader representing the Celts, a modern Egyptian leader representing ancient Egypt, a modern Scandinavian leader representing the Vikings, etc)

However, BTS might be less "war-oriented" overall, and the best five non-war leaders I could imagine could be my nominations for China and Japan above, plus:

* Persia - Darius is "epic proportions" enough...
* Arabia - can't name a good leader yet...
* Egypt - can't name a good leader yet...

Still, going OT here, is I wish that the UBs of a city are not automatically destroyed when a city gets conquered. After all, aren't ancient foreign relics tourist traps nowadays (and everyone would want a city with only unique buildings - a true international cosmopolitan city...)?

kelvSYC, I don't think we really need a modern German leader - Bismarck fits that role quite nicely imo, even though he was active in the 19th century.

Also, I think Pericles is more deserving to be a leader than most of the ones listed by you, especially where the civilization in question already has two leaders.

Think u gays the new leader would be post gunpowder leader, (such as Lincon and de Gaulle) ,that means NO celts or any other leader who lived before gunpowder

That's not true, Hammarn. We know that Babylon will be in the game so at least one pre-gunpowder leader is in the game. Leader choices also have no impact on game mechanics and 'Beyond the Sword' supposedly refers to expanding the game mechanics in the post-gunpowder era.

16 new leaders, 19 trait combimations left, new trait/s will have to be introduced surely

Leaders
1. Tamerlane (Mongols not Persia)
2. Abu Bakr (Arabia)
3. Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans)
4. Pericles (Greece)
5. Franco (Spain)

Its difficult as the game will focus on after gunpowder in Europe but not many civs had a resurrgence after gunpowder was introduced to Europe. I put Franco in because England and Russia have 3 leaders, France has 2 (And apart from Napoleon no leaders that made France a superpower) Germany (But they have Bismarck) and that leaves Spain.

Think u gays the new leader would be post gunpowder leader, (such as Lincon and de Gaulle) ,that means NO celts or any other leader who lived before gunpowder

It is mostly after gunpowder, but there are going to be some before gunpowder, such as the confirmed Babylon. Think before you start insulting everyone.

Timurid leaders should go to the Mongols not Persia; the Timurids were a Mongol occupation. Adding Timurid leaders to Persia is like making Stalin the leader of an Ukraine civilization, it would be extremely insulting and inappropriate.

The Timurids build buildings from the sculls of the Persians they murdered, they robbed their land. They left Persia in a very bad shape. The Timurid leaders also claimed to be related to Genghis Khan, this clearly shows they were Mongol not Persian.

Think u gays the new leader would be post gunpowder leader, (such as Lincon and de Gaulle) ,that means NO celts or any other leader who lived before gunpowder

It is mostly after gunpowder, but there are going to be some before gunpowder, such as the confirmed Babylon. Think before you start insulting everyone.

Did he mean "u guys"?

Possible Women:

Indira Gandhi
Boudicca
Empress Wu
Maria Theresa (If Austria are in)

Did he mean "u guys"?

I doubt it. The "A" and "U" keys are quite far away, and from his posting style, and how he came across, i think he was trying to insult everyone.

Bump so that people may not open new topics on the subject.

I like the idea of Akbar of the Indian Empire. What traits would fit him? Personally I think Spiritual/Imperialistic is a good match.

I like the idea of Akbar of the Indian Empire. What traits would fit him? Personally I think Spiritual/Imperialistic is a good match.


If Akbar of the Indian empire is in, any time he offers you open borders he should yell out, "It's a trap!"

We already have a leader portrait for him:
http://www.pop-arena.com/articles/akbar/akbar1.jpg

IT'S A TRAP!

I like the idea of Akbar of the Indian Empire. What traits would fit him? Personally I think Spiritual/Imperialistic is a good match.
Akbar would be awesome. Shah Jahan and Chandragupta are the only other important Indian leaders I can think of.

Bump so that people may not open new topics on the subject.

My prediction:

Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Woodrow Wilson
John F. Kennedy
Bill Clinton


Possible woman:

Hillary Clinton ?

Lincoln is confirmed, of course, so let's look at the others...

Celts: Boadicea
Spain: Franco
Rome: Lucius Junius Brutus
Persia: Darius I
Greece: Perikles
France: Charles de Gaulle
Japan: Meiji, Shotoku
Korea: Sejong the Great

{grumble} Already out of ideas...

Pericles is not a very convincing leader of Greece, as he did not actually lead Greece in any meaningful way. Alexander did ... because his father conquered it; and Pausanias kinda did because he created the Hellenic league and led those Greeks who choose to fight Persia. The movie 300 might way in on their decision, so Leonidas might be a possibility.

Would like to see a new Russian leader ... though they already have too many; but wouldn't mind a medieval ruler like Saint Vladimir, Sviatoslav or Andrei Bogolyubsky. Shame they turned Russia into the Russian Federation for Civ 4, rather than as a historic civ, so they'd have to reverse that. A medieval German ruler would be cool too, like Frederick Barbarossa (who's the most famous, though not the greatest).

As the Celts in Civ 4 do not refer to the Celts in general, but the Gauls, the only likely new leader could be Vercingetorix. And I'm thinking, what difference would that make? If they changed the city list and UU to refer to the insular Celts, we could have Niall of the Nine Hostages and Robert Bruce (who was actually a Celt - a native speaker of a Celtic language - who was king of the Scots and whose brother was nominal king of Ireland too). Other candidates could be Brian Boruma, Mac Bethad (undoubtedly the most famous Celtic ruler in history), Flann Sinna, Oengus mac Fergusa, Mael Coluim mac Cinaeda. Or what about King Arthur? :D

Realistically, Spain will prolly get a new leader, maybe Philip or his daddy Charles. Charles V (of Germany BTW, not Castille, though Castille was his most useful Kingdom) presided over the Castillian conquest of the Mexico and the Incas, the European Reformation, a two fronted war against the French and the Turks, the German sack of Rome and ruled most of western Europe to boot. Didn't someone say he was the first man to rule territory on which the son never set? But ruler of what? Germany? Spain? Holland? Austria (in the dire event they get included)? Maybe one of the new civs will come with two leaders? If Rome is to have a new leader ... it simply has to be Constantine, in my view the most important ruler in the history of western Eurasia other than perhaps Cyrus the Great.

I really hope there will be a new leader for

-Japan
-Spain
-Greece.

Just because whenever I see one of these civs on my map, I know I am going to be stuck next to an isolationist, a religious fanatic, and a backstabbing traitor. Its like when you can see some Russian Culture near your fog of war boundaries, and you hope its Peter instead of Catherine or Stalin. (I find Peter to be much more of an easy enemy than two others.) I am not real familiar with either of these three cultures, so I don't have a preferred leader.

I also hope to see secondary leaders from the

-Incans
-Arabians

For the Incans I would expect to see Pachacuti, but I would love to see Tupac Amaru. Pachcuti is more well known and did more for the Incan empire and its expansion into a golden age, but I just love Tupac Amaru's last rebellion against Spanish culture, christianity, and occupance. After previous Incan rulers began to incorporate Spanish culture into Incan life, Tupac again closed off boarders and destroyed any traces of christianity in Incan lands. His war ended in defeat (as most Incan fights vs the Spanish) and he was beheaded.

I would like to see Abu Bakr for the Arabians only because I used him a lot in civ3. There may be a better secondary leader for the Arabians, again, I am not an expert in their history either.

I would like to see Abu Bakr for the Arabians only because I used him a lot in civ3. There may be a better secondary leader for the Arabians, again, I am not an expert in their history either.
Maybe not nesseserily a 'better' arab leader, but you could have Harun al-Rashid, Muhammed or Ibn Saud.

Africanus would be interesting for the Romans. He did defeat Hannibal, after all.

I don't quite remember all the leaders' existing traits, so off the top of my head -

Akbar (India) - Protective, Cultural
Suleiman (Ottomans) - Expansive, Cultural OR Expansive, Financial
Pericles (Greece) - Industrious, Charismatic
Baibars (Arabia) - Spiritual, Organized
Cnut (Vikings) - Financial, Aggresive?

I heard that the next expansion is about post-gunpowder age. So I think I should be Tipu Sultan(India) since he was the first one to use Rockets as wepon(against Britishers in 1880's).

India-Tipu Sultan:Organized,Industrious.

The leaders that I want to see added are:

Abu Bakr (Arabia) Philisophical, Spiritual
Either Darius or Xerxes (Persia) Organized, Spiritual for Darius, Aggressive, Imperialistic for Xerxes
Philip II (Spain) Expansive, Spiritual
Pachacuti (Inca) Imperialistic, Expansive
Suleiman I (Ottoman) Expansive, Creative

Among the existing civilisations, Spain and Japan are probably the most in need of a second leader, purely because they're large, well-known civilisations who are inadequately represented and stereotyped pretty badly by their existing leaders.

Meiji seems the obvious choice, because the Meiji restoration represents something radically different from what Tokugawa represents.

Spain's is trickier though, though. Their choice of modern leaders is limited at best... partly because Spain wasn't a world power by the 19th century, and partly because you'd be hard-pressed to pull a worthwhile candidate out of the chaotic liberal-conservative back-and-forth of the 19th century and I don't think "peace through electoral fraud" is enough to give either of the Alfonsos a look-in. And so you're left with Franco since between them, the Alfonsos, Franco and Juan Carlos ruled the entire 20th century.

The two main choices for older leaders are both, in my mind, too closely related with Ferdinand and Isabel and the Golden Age of Spain... in many ways, Charles and Phillip both merely presided over what had already been set up... Charles and Phillip merely inherited the empire.

Carlos I/Charles V could be included with an Austrian civ, but I do think there's a stronger case for including him with Spain as Carlos I just because Spain was the more powerful part of the empire at that time, and the crown was unified for the first time with his accession. Isabella covers the militaristic-religious side of that period, so a leader with a more cultural/artistic/philosophical bent to represent the Golden Age might work and Charles and Phillip both fit squarely with that time-period. If they're included, I hope it's not just as more psycho-religious stypes.

Carlos I/Charles V would give Spain a bit more diversity since the Spanish Empire's identity wasn't SOLELY that of chauvanistic religio-nationalistic Castillian crusader-monarchs... the Empire fell together at least partly by chance and marriage, and thus was also a very heterogenous and multi-ethnic entity. Charles with his dual Austrian/Spanish lineage maybe represents this, as well as maybe better symbolising the creative, artistic side of the Spanish Golden Age since the Hapsburgs were known as patrons of the arts and whathaveyou

Actually, **** it... Franco's a towering leader in Spanish history for better or worse. As much as it pains me to say it, the miserable old bastard wasn't just a Fascist, and he probably seriously deserves consideration as representative of the more modern era.

So uh yeah. Franco or Charles V/Carlos I...

why franco???!! tell me something he did!

whats that? nothing? just overthrown the republicans and went fascist. bravo. he has to be included then.

Phillip for Spain.

Well, his legacy is a bit more mixed than that. It's a bit weird, more than a bit contradictory to the anti-modernist bent of the Nationalists, but Spain basically modernised and industrialised under the Franquist regime. He wasn't really much of a fascist, except inasmuch as he needed fascist support and a legitimising ideology... the Nationalists were a mixed bunch of Monarchists, hardline Catholics, the Army's officer corps, and the Fascists.

I'll grant that he's probably a bit too contentious to properly represent Spain, but if we're going for any sort of remotely modern Spanish leader it has to be him. Or Juan Carlos.

i think Darius would be a good fit for Persia being either Org/Agg or Org/Pro because those are unused combos with Organized, unless they switch around the traits OR they add new ones

I support:

1) Pericles
2) Darius
3) Meiji
4) Philip II
5) Suleiman

We need to add to the Civs that have only one leader, so that's why I chose those.

It's a real shame there isn't room for a female, cause this game is seriously lacking in female presence.


And no, they likely won't include:

Boudica
Leonidas
Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc)
Pachacuti

in the game because they already used them as Great Generals in Warlords. If they felt that