Can anyone agree with me that Persia is in need of more leaders?
I'm thinking The Ayatollah.. I would be so interesting! He's pretty important.. he did shape Iran to how it is now 30 years ago. He'd fit perfect with their idea on expanding the modern ages. He was protective and isolated the nation. Persia modern unit can be Revolutionaries or something.

Just seems interesting.

what are your thoughts on THIS. Not too concerned about the other civs. Just persia talk.

I support this.

In fact... I think every civ should have at least 2 leaders. It would be great and add a lot of variety to games.

I don't like how some Civs get 3 different leaders while others only have 1. In the world of Civ, all civilizations should be equal.

You could also play the Civ that you like to play, but with different styles using a different leader. (I'm talking single player here)

Actually, if one thinks about it, there are going to be 10 new civs in BtS (IIRC). I would imagine some of the new civs will have 2 leaders because otherwise we will have 10 new one leader civs. I do think Persia needs another leader but I think the Spanish are in dire need of another leader. I would place a priority on Spanish first, Greeks second and Persia third, personally. But thinking about it, it wouldn't surprise me if there was little more than what has been mentioned thus far with new leaders for existing civs. It'll be interesting to see.

Actually, if one thinks about it, there are going to be 10 new civs in BtS (IIRC). I would imagine some of the new civs will have 2 leaders because otherwise we will have 10 new one leader civs. I do think Persia needs another leader but I think the Spanish are in dire need of another leader. I would place a priority on Spanish first, Greeks second and Persia third, personally. But thinking about it, it wouldn't surprise me if there was little more than what has been mentioned thus far with new leaders for existing civs. It'll be interesting to see.

Spain - Philip II
Greece - Pericles
Persia - Xerxes I

I'm not really for modern leaders. Especially in the case of Persia when the civilization saw its greatest period during the Achaemenid dynasty. Leaders should only come from that period.

Darius? Seeing as their current and late leaders are terrorists.....eh

I agree that Persia need a new leader, especially seeing as the English, Russians , and now Americans all have three. They held such a large empire and were a feared force throughout Asia, if the Celts are getting a second leader, then Persia surely must have another leader. If they do, I hope it's Darius, although I have a feeling that due to the success of 300, Xerxes would most likely take that slot.

I'm thinking The Ayatollah.. I would be so interesting! He's pretty important.. he did shape Iran to how it is now 30 years ago. He'd fit perfect with their idea on expanding the modern ages. He was protective and isolated the nation. Persia modern unit can be Revolutionaries or something.

It would be a little paradox though to have Chomeini as leader of Persia, as he tried to erase persian national pride and fought remembrence of the glorius persian past.

I'm all for Xerses as a new persian leader. :)

How about Khosrau I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrau_I_of_Persia)?

It would be a little paradox though to have Chomeini as leader of Persia, as he tried to erase persian national pride and fought remembrence of the glorius persian past.

I'm all for Xerses as a new persian leader. :)

Are you a Persian? Because you're definitely not Iranian....

(the distinction only exists in the United States. Specifically, Southern California, which is where I guess you are, if you are Persian).

UGH. NOT XERSES! WHAT IS WITH EVERYONES FIXATION ON HIM.

Seriously, he was the cause of the decline of the Persian Empire.

Personally, I really want Shah Abbas the I to be added. He led Persia to its last golden age, during which the Ottomans were forced out of Mesopotamia. We need more Rennisance period leaders anyway.

Rolo: First with the discussion about the King of Portugal, and now about Persia... you are my idol, you always come with intelligent proposals.
I didn't really know your Sassanid man, but seems very correct for this thread.

Minoan: Yes, Xerxes was a crap. His only relevant traits were his name and his participation in 300 :-p. When I read Encarta about Xerxes (when I had Civ3) I wondered: Why did Firaxis put in this guy? What did he DO?

But, otherwise, I don't think Persia would need another leader. Not because it's not important, but because he's good represented by Cyrus. Take the examples of Montezuma or Isabella (some people were talking in another thread about the need of extra leaders for Aztlan and Spain): they represent the "soul" of theirs countries.

Thanks, benjamin28! I proposed Khosrau I, not only because of his RL acheivements, but because of another thing: Have you ever noticed the total absence of middle age leaders in Civ IV? I really don't see the reason...

I am hoping that Darius is included as Persia's second leader in the expansion. As for those who want to see Xerxes, read this quick description of the Persian Empire.
The term Persia has been used for centuries, chiefly in the West, to designate a region of southern Iran formerly known as Persis or Parsa, the name of the Indo-European nomadic people who migrated into the region about 1000 BC, eventually supplanting the Assyrians and Chaldeans. The first mention of the Parsa occurs in the annals of Shalmanesar III, an Assyrian king, in 844 BC. Cyrus II (559-529 BC), heir to a long line of ruling chiefs in Mesopotamia, was a tolerant and venerated monarch, called the father of his people by the ancient Persians. After a successful revolt against his Achaemenian overlords in 550 BC and inheriting the kingdom of the Medes, Cyrus consolidated his rule on the Iranian Plateau and extended it westward across Asia Minor.

In October 539 BC, Babylon, the greatest city of the ancient world, fell to his Persian forces. Following the death of Cyrus' heir, Darius I (522-486 BC), a leading general and one of the princes of the Achaemenid family, proclaimed himself king following suppression of a number of provincial rebellions and challenges from other pretenders to the throne. Darius was in the mold of Cyrus the Great - a powerful personality and a dynamic ruler. To consolidate his accession, Darius I founded his new capital of Parsa, known to the Greeks as Persepolis ("Persian City") and expanded the ranks of his personal bodyguard, the Immortals.

Although Darius consolidated and added to the conquests of his predecessors, it was as an administrator that he made his greatest contribution to Persian history. During his reign, political and legal reforms revitalized the provinces and ambitious projects were undertaken to promote imperial trade and commerce; coinage, weights and measures were standardized and new land and sea routes explored and established.

Such activities, however, did not prevent Darius from following an active expansionist policy. Campaigns in the east confirmed gains made by Cyrus the Great and added large sections of the northern Indian subcontinent to the list of Persian-controlled provinces. Expansion to the west began about 516 BC when Darius moved against the Greek colonies along the coast of Asia Minor.

Xerses (486-465 BC), son and successor of Darius I, was determined to continue the Persian conquest of the west and is best known for his massive invasion of Greece from across the Hellespont in 480 BC, a campaign marked by the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea. Although successful in the pacification of Egypt and suppression of a Babylon revolt, his defeat by the allied Greek city-states spelled the beginning of the decline of the Persian Empire. Soured by these reversals, Xerxes retired to his palaces at Susa and Persepolis. In his last years, he squandered the once-enormous treasury he had gathered through trade and taxation by launching vast construction programs, most never finished.

The death of Xerxes was the final turning point in Persian influence. Occasional flashes of vigor and ability by some of Xerxes' successors were too infrequent to prevent eventual collapse. The final act was played out during the reign Darius II (423-404 BC), who rose to the throne through palace intrigue. Darius was able to put down yet another rebellion in Egypt in 337-336 BC, but the beginning of the end came soon afterward with his defeat at the Battle of Granicus (334 BC) by Alexander the Great. Persepolis fell to the young Macedonian conqueror in April 330 BC, and Darius, the last Achaemenid, was murdered in the summer of the same year while fleeing the Greek forces. In the struggle for power after Alexander's death, Seleucus I brought under his control the Persian provinces of Alexander's empire. But this unity was short-lived, as the Indian holdings successfully revolted and the Seleucid kingdom broke into the competing nations of Parthia and Bactria. The last vestiges of Persian culture disappeared with the advent of Islam and the Arab conquest (640-829 AD) of Iran.

Second guess, where the description came from....

http://civfanatics.com/civ3/civilizations/persians.php

I find it hilarious that Xerxes was added in Civ3, even after the Persian Empire description talks so badly about him, and so highly of Cyrus and Darius.

Totally agree with you!!
(Another coincidence, and we have so far...)

My proposals (and not crazy ones):
1- Barbarossa of the Germans: technically he wasn't german, but come on! They will never put a "Holy Roman Empire" civ. As certain as Frederick is not a german, but a prussian, Barbarossa, a famous, influential and legendary king, representant of the pre-Prussian moment, should be a must-have leader for BTS.

2- Charlemagne: instead of Charles de Gaulle, not confirmed, but a possible addition. Charlemagne's historical size is bigger than Barbarossa, and is among the top ten leaders in the victory list.

3- Cao Cao: Just to name an important chinese emperor. China needs a new leader, because the country had a lot of more relevant traits than "Protective", "Industrious" and "Expansive" (by the way, Pro/Exp is a really bad combo for Mao). China was and is still a world power, and the first civilization which inspired sense of inferiority to the Europeans, specially in the scientific world.

4- Khosrau I: I don't have faith on him, but would be a wise addition.

5- I've forgotten

I'm iranian.

Khomemini would be perfect though. HE was still part of persian history though regardless of trying to erase (he was more like uniting islamic natins than erasing persia, US history just took a weird way of viewing it). Maybe the SHAH/pahlavis could be added though ?

no point in having xerves or darius. I want someone of modern times for persia, cyrus is enough for classical.

Also i totally agree on another spanish ruler too.

CharleMagne probably won't enter in Civ ( put in in France or in Germany? Hum... Better not put him.). But Philip Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Augustus) could fit well.

Your sugestion for China is a good one. May I add the China's liberator from Mongols, Hung-wu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung-wu)?

Barbarossa is one of my favourites Mediaval German, too. But I would had Frederick II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor), Il Stupor Mundi as an option

And if Isabella was not in the game, I would ask for Alfonso_X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_X) of Castille.

I hope you like the sugestions!

All civs deserve more leaders, particularly those with only one or two. And it seems I can remember a time when there were both male and female leaders available for each, too. (Not that I care too much about that; it's just that there's much more variety available than is currently there.)

Rolo: You ALWAYS come to us with wise elections.
Yes, most of them convince me. I'm sad because you're right: Charlemagne does not easily fit in the countries already available... and he's my hero (?).

And Gaius: Why do you think like that? As said before, a lot of countries are exactly represented by just one leader. Think about Scandinavia, Mali, Korea (well, maybe Queen Min would be nice for it), Tawantinsuyu, Zululand, Carthage or Spain. They prosper perfectly without two leaders. Every example given does concentrate the spirit of their nations on they.

Firaxis would never put Khomeini in the game, unless they want to be boycotted by the US public.

To me the best choice would be Darius or Anushirvan (Khosrau I).

I support any new Persian leader as long as his hair color is.... (is mugged)

Ok seriously, I agree that there should be a leader from the Sassanid period. I think someone could argue that Persia is just as important a nation for the Middle East as French and Britain are for Europe. And I'm pretty sure the Persians where the main rivals of the Romans during this period.

However, I was just posting because benjamin28 mentioned Cao Cao, or Tsao Tsao, as another leader for China. As much as the three kingdoms lover in me is screaming in joy like a school girl, I would argue that our good friend Mengde is a bit too much of a failure to be a truly successful leader of china. He never did succeed to conquer it in the end, and after his death his kingdom would only last for another 60 or so years. In a game like Civilizations, a sixty-year or eighty year kingdom is a drop in the bucket.... Though it does make me think what an awesome mod the Three Kingdoms would make...
I agree that Hung Wu or Empress Wu (for a female face) would be probably the best for China.

Back on topic, how about Ardashir I? Didn't he have something to do with Zoroastrianism or something? If someone recoded Cyrus's Ai to be more of a warlord type, Ardashir could be a more spiritual cautious face to the Persians.
Just throwing something out there on topic.

benjamin:
I like lots of options, but I'm in complete agreement with you--you don't need multiple leaders to capture the spirit of a nation. That's not really the issue as I see it. Look at Kublai Khan and Genghis Khan. They're very similar in the game--both have the aggressive trait. One really would suffice, but the game is slightly improved by more options.

In a word, variety = flavor = good.

@Bukuel: Khosrau I is a better choice than Ardashir. He ruled when the Sassanids were at their height. He destroyed the Hephatalites and got Antioch for the Sassanids (the furthest western point of Sassanid expansion). His reign saw reforms and religious tolerance.

@Benjamin: Taizong (Tang Dynasty), Empress Wu (Tang Dynasty) or Wu Di (Han Dynasty) would be better choices to lead China than Cao Cao. He never controlled the entire country (only northern China) and his dynasty was overthrown shortly after he died. In short, he was a failure.

@Bukuel: Khosrau I is a better choice than Ardashir. He ruled when the Sassanids were at their height. He destroyed the Hephatalites and got Antioch for the Sassanids (the furthest western point of Sassanid expansion). His reign saw reforms and religious tolerance.


I still think that a more modern, post-islamic leader should be added, which is why would much rather see Shah Abbas I added. Besides, if you wanted a representative from the Sassanid Empire, I'd much rather see Shapur the II. And, iirc Khosrau II extend the empire well beyond Antioch.

what the hell? am i the only one that likes the shah pavlavi's and khomemini as ideas? Just think of the scenarios with that! We need modern leaders, having cyrus and then someone from sassanid feels like its repeating itself. VARIETY people and the leaders would be prett much the same acting leaders. Khomemini wanted isolation, shah wanted fast modernization etc.

it would just be a lot more interesting

My proposals (and not crazy ones):
1- Barbarossa of the Germans: technically he wasn't german, but come on! They will never put a "Holy Roman Empire" civ. As certain as Frederick is not a german, but a prussian, Barbarossa, a famous, influential and legendary king, representant of the pre-Prussian moment, should be a must-have leader for BTS.

I agree about Barbarossa, if there is a perception that there is a need for a third German leader.

2- Charlemagne: instead of Charles de Gaulle, not confirmed, but a possible addition. Charlemagne's historical size is bigger than Barbarossa, and is among the top ten leaders in the victory list.

Charlemagne was a Frank. His mother tongue was a Germanic dialect. The Germans can (and do) make as good a claim on him as the French. I'm afraid it's impossible to include him as the leader of any specific European leader. He might be a good symbol for the EU, though.

@ taillesskangaru
I was actually just trying not to be too off topic, most of my post was talking about Cao Cao…
However, after reading up on Khosrau, I guess he is a better ruler then Ardashir. But what traits would he have and what would his AI be? I just put out Ardashir for a bit of a different side of Persia, the religionist aspect. I just don’t want Persia to turn out with two leaders who are practically exactly alike in traits and AI.
For instance, in vanilla civ4, I barely even noticed the difference between Elizabeth and Victoria as far as AI goes. Instead of giving the English a military or empire building side with more of an Napoleonlike AI, they just had two leaders who were the almost the same. I mean… Ezzy or Victoria would have been enough right? Why not throw in something different?
To give this post more of a point, what type of AI should Khosrau have? Should he be a warmonger? Or a peaceful guy? Or a non-descriptive chap like Cyrus… Personally, I never notice that guy Cyrus until I declare war on him….

@anaoshak
I don’t mean to be rude but… Personally I don’t really like modern leaders; I think that they are pretty boring. I actually don’t like Roosevelt or Churchill in civ, even to a lesser extant Victoria. I think it has more to do that SO much is known about these guys, they just don’t seem that epic. They just don’t seem as fun to speculate about as Genghis Khan, Alexander, Caesar or any of the other more ancient leaders in my opinion. Leaders like Khomeini are also thought to be controversial in the US as well, thus I doubt that they would every add him, and if they did, I’m sure people would find much more horrible topics to flam-I mean debate each other about besides some leader’s hair color. Having said all of that, I do agree with you about the variety bit. What’s a new leader without a unique AI?

Based on what's been said about the insight/research used to put Joao II in, I dare say they will do their research if they decide to put in a new leader for Persia and not put the Cleopatra's, Xerxes', etc in.

Well, we have 4 places left, and three of those have to go to Greece, Spain and Japan, all three civs that are way to stereotyped into one gameplay-style at the moment. I think Pericles, Philipp II. and Meij are good bets (especially as they already included the obligatory women), though Philip II.'s place is most shaky.

That leaves One place open for civs like Persia, China, Rome, Germany, Inca, Arabia, France, Korea and India. It seems very arbitrary whom they will finally chose, but I think Persia has good cards (though I'm hard pressed between them, Arabia and the Incans).

I don't think they will chose Khomeini, he seems just too recent to me. Darius and Xerxes seem to have the best odds, though. But I would prefer someone from a different era, like Shapur I. or many of the names that have appeared in this thread. They could also chose to add Timur Lenk or Akbar for Persia, both more logically leaders of other civs (Mongolia and India) but whose civs already have two leaders (not that it would make much sense). I don't think they will do that as they have stated (in last interview) that they don't take a cool unit (leader), and put him in and then look how to make him suit into the game. Rather they go the other way round.

So, Cyrus is quite warmongering, we need something else. There is at the moment only one crazy religion-"whore" in the game and there can be found quite a few in Persian history, from Ardashir to Shapur I to Khomeini, if you really want ;). So I think that would be a good additon.

anyway, Persia does deserve a new leader, if she's in need of one, I'm not so sure,

mik

If they put in Chomeini, Ayatollah Chamenei might issue a death fatwa against Sid Meier.. hehe.

Well, we have 4 places left, and three of those have to go to Greece, Spain and Japan, all three civs that are way to stereotyped into one gameplay-style at the moment. I think Pericles, Philipp II. and Meij are good bets (especially as they already included the obligatory women), though Philip II.'s place is most shaky.It's quite possible that those 4 places might be a second leader for the new civs like the Native Americans for instance.

Yes, it's possible, but I would state that Greece, Spain and Japan are a must due to gameplay reasons and popularity (these have been stated all over and again and again in this forum). As for the fourth place, out of the known new civs, neither the Dutch, Babylonians, Portuguese nor Maya have overwhelming claims for a second leader (compared to the old civs listed above), Native Americans however could have another one, but I suspect we will get the Sioux who deserve only one.

imho,

mick

I have to say that if there ever was a civ which deserved 3 leaders, its Greece. As well as Alexander the Great they simply have to include to include an Athenian and then either a Spartan or a more modern greek. Maybe someone who fought against the Ottoman Empire? I have to say that I know the history of that period too badly to make a choice.

If you want a Greek leader from the post-Otooman times , maybe the first greek president , Ioannis Kapodistrias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Kapodistrias), could do. But I'm more inclined for your sugestion for a Spartan and a Athenian leader. Pericles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles) for Athens ( no brainer), and for Sparta not Leonidas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas) but Agesilaus II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agesilaus_II), that is a much more interesting character.

Definitely the Spanish are in need of a 2nd. I mean, she's a pretty nasty person with her religious persecutions and is the only one representing Spain. I wonder how the Spanish feel about having her there?

For second leaders, my vote goes to Greece, Spain, Japan, and Persia, in that order. Xerxes could work, but Darius would be better in terms of what he did for his empire.

I have to say that if there ever was a civ which deserved 3 leaders, its Greece. As well as Alexander the Great they simply have to include to include an Athenian and then either a Spartan or a more modern greek. Maybe someone who fought against the Ottoman Empire? I have to say that I know the history of that period too badly to make a choice.

Eleftherios Venizelos is one of the few good modern Greek politiciansand is regarded by many Greeks as the most successfull and charismatic/inteligent Statesman of the time.
He was the man that was behind Greece success in the Balkan wars . The first Balkan war was against the Ottoman Empire . Here is a source (not the best )
http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/venizelos.htm





:goodjob:

My picks for Persian ruler 2:

Shah Abbas I
Nader Shah
Shapur I (he had the captured Emperor of Rome as his slave/footstool! :p )

20th Century? Only one I can think of is Mossadeq. He lasted only a year, but he was good.

yeah i definitely think the shah's would be a great next step.

They were very persian in personality. They liked to trade and mingle with other rulers.

Khomemini was quite the opposite but thats also interesting.

Shapur 1 is the natural inclusion.

This Sassanid king, defeated and captured 2 Roman Emperor's in battle and had the captured soldiers erect a 7ft tall statue in a cave on top of a tall hill, to remind them of their defeat.

Personally I believe the Iranian nations greatest and brightest period was during the Sassanid era. Just we all know the Archemedians since they are mentions lots by Herodotus.

I still think that a more modern, post-islamic leader should be added, which is why would much rather see Shah Abbas I added. Besides, if you wanted a representative from the Sassanid Empire, I'd much rather see Shapur the II. And, iirc Khosrau II extend the empire well beyond Antioch.

:goodjob: I agree with Minoan .
If possible how about a modern leader for persia or a Islamic one .
Just like India and China , which has a ancient and a modern leader .
If no suitable leader found , then Darius or Xerxes will just have to do .

while studying Persia in school our textbook mentioned nothing about Xerxes(except he attacked Greece and failed) and yet had a whole chapter about how Darius organized the persian empires after Cyrus enlarged it

^If your in the US, I can tell you that our World History Textbooks are extremely Euro-centric. The only time you can expect to hear much about a non-european country is when a european country is involved(i.e. British in India)

On topic, I am going to support Shah Abbas. I would be more interested in a more modern leader

I disagree, I've met immigrants that fled because of the initial Khomeni revolution, and definitely not West Coast. They always described themself as Persian. Some people appear to use Persia to distance themself from the fundamentalist aspect of politics in Iran. Arguably earlier immigrants would have protested the Shah's naming "Iran".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_naming_dispute


I'd vote for Darius or a pre-Khomeni shah.
Reza sounds appropriate for a modernizer (probably Industrial, and maybe Creative or Phi. Definitely not Financial. I'd lean towards Ind, Charismatic except he became fairly despotic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah

For Darius (Agg, Organized; or Ind, Organized)

Are you a Persian? Because you're definitely not Iranian....

(the distinction only exists in the United States. Specifically, Southern California, which is where I guess you are, if you are Persian).

What about Shah Ismail I, founder of the Safavid dynasty? I didn't read the whole thread so I'm sorry if this has been already suggested.

I like playing Persia and like the history, but that doesn't change the fact that Persia in her greatness was ruled by rather similar regents. No point in having two leaders for Persia if they would share the same charactaristics

I was imagining two cartoon leaderheads having this conversation ("You must renounce your Pop Culture luxury, or a fatwa on your head"), and then it dawned on me that you meant real life, like Salman Rushdie.

If they put in Chomeini, Ayatollah Chamenei might issue a death fatwa against Sid Meier.. hehe.

I disagree, I've met immigrants that fled because of the initial Khomeni revolution, and definitely not West Coast. They always described themself as Persian. Some people appear to use Persia to distance themself from the fundamentalist aspect of politics in Iran. Arguably earlier immigrants would have protested the Shah's naming "Iran".


That's what I meant. It appeared to me that Grenouille didn't want Khomeini in, which led me to conclude (incorrectly) that he was a SoCal "Persian" (I know that the distinction exists elsewhere, but Angelino "Persians" are particularly touchy about it...I've met a few.)

And I think that the only legitimate excuse for excluding Khomeini is that he died less than 20 years ago. He gave political viability to Islamism, probably the single largest political wave in the world in the last twenty years. Not to mention that the regime he founded is currently poised to become the premier power in the Middle East, thanks to American bungling in Iraq.... He's simply too influential, started something too large, to be ignored for political reasons.

They gave China Mao as leader in the original Civilization, after he had been dead for a meager 15 years. Khomeini ought to be in.

I don't think Khomeini should be in, but I do come from a family of Iranian monarchists and my views may be a bit biased. On my part, I think that Shah Abbas I or Reza Shah/Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (father or son) would all be better candidates.

Shah Abbas was really the first Persian ruler to begin modernizing the country, and his reign was one of the country's most productive and powerful. The Persians beat back the Ottomans, the Uzbeks, and the Portuguese, all under him. He is also responsible for Isfahan being once being one of the most beautiful cities on the planet.

Reza Shah was Iran's Atatürk, and he dragged the country into the 20th century and out from under weak Qajar rulers. I'm not sure how viable of a candidate for leader he is because he was somewhat close to the Nazis, but he's an option.

His son, on the other hand, would be very palatable to a Western consumer base. Not only was he ultra-pro-American, but he did a lot in terms of modernization and reform and his overthrowing is one of the most important events in the recent history of the region.

The problem with Khomeini is, as some have said, that he's too controversial of a figure who would probably offend parts of the fan base, not to mention the Iranian government by being depicted in a cartoonish manner... let's not go down that road again.

I might be a little nieve with this, but Persia doesn't exist anymore. Why are you selecting Iranian leaders for Persia? That is like selecting Byzentine leaders for a Roman empire.

The fact that Byzentine is now in the game, and that they are essentially a latter version of Rome, suggests that only Persian leaders should be selected for Persia in order to maintain this consistancy.

There's no difference. The inhabitants of what is now "Iran" have been essentially the same people since the beginning, and they have been calling it "Iran" (or some variant) since time immemorial. It's just the Western name that's changed.

On the other hand, the Byzantines genuinely did change from before: they were Greeks, yet Romanized; they called themselves "Roman," yet they most definitely were not.

Well, the leaders for civs have always been from one of 3 scenarios:
1. They ruled when the civ in question was a superpower
2. They were the first to unify the country
3. They broke off from a colonial power

Based on those 3, a modern leader from Persia doesn't seem to make much sense. They are a growing regional power in the Middle East, but they're not exactly a superpower. There's tons of countries ahead of them for that. I'm more in favor of somebody who ruled when Persia was a superpower and they were a superpower multiple times.

Many in Iran will argue that Khomeini qualifies on point 3, seeing as the Shah was basically an American puppet (or at least lapdog).

I thought Xeres and cyrus are the same person?

I thought Xeres and cyrus are the same person?

Nope. Xerxes is a few shahs down the line...and definitely Cy's inferior.

Reza Shah was Iran's Atatürk, and he dragged the country into the 20th century and out from under weak Qajar rulers. I'm not sure how viable of a candidate for leader he is because he was somewhat close to the Nazis, but he's an option.

Reza Shah I should have taken yet another page from Atatürk and made Iran a secular republic. It would have saved a lot of trouble in the long run ;)

His son, on the other hand, would be very palatable to a Western consumer base. Not only was he ultra-pro-American, but he did a lot in terms of modernization and reform and his overthrowing is one of the most important events in the recent history of the region.

His son conspired with imperialist elements (who both saw Iran as an object on a Risk board) to get his rule back, and lost out to two popular leaders during his career. He may have made nice appearances (did you see the pictures of him at Disneyland?) and western advances, but I think he was one of the weakest leaders Iran ever had.

If anyone in the 20th century should get mentioned, IMO, either Reza Shah I or Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq (I'd prefer the latter), but nobody would "get" the latter being mentioned and they'd all be like 'but uh he was only in office for such a short time'. :rolleyes:

Reza shah and Darius should be in the game :).

Ummm... why would they add Reza Shah? He was a despised leader...

And the only thing he's known for is being defeated by Khoeimini.

Plus Iran =/= Persia. While Iranians identify with being Persian, the culture is totally different. You might as well add a Khwarizmi leader to Persia then.

I know one leader that should be added on. The women that was the leader of the persian fleet. I dont remeber her name but im trying to figure it out.

Darius? Seeing as their current and late leaders are terrorists.....eh

yes, all the leaders from Iran are terrorists.

you
are
retarded

Even if you disagree with their politics, they can't be terroists because they run a country. Lol.

I found it ridiculous that the new leader is FINANCIAL + ORGANIZED.
like i need another AI better than Cyrus to beat me...