Assuming vanilla/Warlords is the same as it is now;

I agree with Hammurabi, João II, William the Silent, Pacal and Gilgamesh. For new leaderheads, I also agree with Suleiman the Magnificent and Pericles. This is where I would begin making changes.

Arabia: Add Abu Bakr.
Babylon: I would also add Nebuchadnezzar II.
Egypt: Cut Rameses II, if that's possible, and add Ptolemy I.
Germany: Add Charlemagne. No need for a separate Holy Roman Empire civ.
Japan: Add Meiji, or if that's illegal for Japan, something like Ōkubo Toshimichi.
India: India is a low priority to add a third leader, but I would like to see Babur.
Persia: It's hard to beat someone as amazing as Cyrus, but I guess Darius I would work. They need a second leader at the very least.
Rome: I think Rome is one of the civilizations who deserve three leaders. Thus, I would add Vespasian, or perhaps Trajan.
Spain: Add Philip II.

NEW CIVILIZATIONS;

Ethiopia: Menelik II.
Hittites: Mursilis I, as Civilization 3.
Israel: King David.
Italy: Yes, it conflicts a little bit with Rome, but c'mon; we have both the Ottomans and Arabia. I would have Garibaldi as the leader of Italy.
Siam: Not very strong on the history of Siam, but possibly Ramathibodi I?
Sioux: No need for a "Native American" civilization. Sitting Bull.

I would probably need to add a few new traits for all the leaders. But hey, it's fun having diversity, right?

I agree with a lot of this, except for a few. Scrap Ramesses II? One of the most important Egyptian monarchs? No, just add Ptolemy if you want.

You'll get a lot of arguing over Charlemagne as a German leader. ;)

Rome needs Trajan, optimus princeps.

Israel needs to be in, and David or Solomon are good choices. Same for Ethiopia and Siam.

I agree with changing the Native Americans to Sioux.

Italy is completely unnecessary, and the HRE argument (if you want to go that direction) would apply equally well here.

The other leaders are all good choices.

Poland: Sobieski or Casimer
Austria: Maria Theresa
Germany: 3 Leaders, Frederick, Bismark and Maria Theresa and Charlemagne if 4. I want germany to represent all german states.
Polynesia: Leader?
Venezuela: Simon Bolivar

I think pretty much all the choices so far have been fine.

I do agree that Persia, Arabia, Spain and Japan need additional leaders.
Darius, Abu Bakr, Charles I, Meiji would be good choices.
Because we don't have that much free room left, I would suggest we remove the second Celt leader and Lincoln. Sorry, I really don't think Lincoln is that interesting.

I do agree with all the selected new civilizations and would be satisfied if the final two spots go to Ethiopia and Siam/Khmer.

You are obviously not an American then, Sneaky. Or else you are a Southerner. :D

The 10 Civs that I would add are:

Mayans
Byzantines
Dutch
Portuguuse
Ethiopia
Siam/Khmer/Vietnam (can't really decide which one though)
Dacia
Kongo
Babylon
Poland

The six leaderers I would add for existing civs:

Greece: Pericles
Inca: Pachacuti
Japan: Meiji
Spain: Philip II
Persia: Darius I
Arabia: Abu Bakr

You are obviously not an American then, Sneaky. Or else you are a Southerner. :D

rofl :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway i think Lincoln and Boudica was really unnecessary

I agree on using Karl der Große as German Leader.

Meiji should be the second leader, Illegal or not.

America isn't that important to have 3 leaders, even more then China and Rome.

Spain should get Charles I.

You are obviously not an American then, Sneaky. Or else you are a Southerner. :D

No I'm not an American, but honestly if I'm objective I think internationally speaking Roosevelt and Washington were interesting leaders, while Lincoln was more important for internal policies. Also, and this is my personal opinion, I don't think such a young civ needs three leaders when empires that lasted a thousand years maybe only have one. Of course I know the reasons why the creators decided to add an additional American leader, but the question was, what would you choose if you were the director of BTS, so therefore I decided I would rather leave out Lincoln and add Charles I, Darius etc.

Italy is completely unnecessary, and the HRE argument (if you want to go that direction) would apply equally well here.

Still, it'd be weird to have "Garibaldi of the Romans."

Venezuela: Simon Bolivar

Snap, that's a good idea. I forgot about him.

None...;)
Assuming I had a limited set of art and coding resources:
I would create as many generic 3D leaderheads, units and buildings as reasonable, leaving them to be skinned and used by mod makers in creating civilizations.
After that I would use any remaining art and programming resources left to me on other parts of the game, such as increasing the number of cultural and era unique graphics.

Venezuela should've been in. Simon bolivar needs to be in!

rofl :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway i think Lincoln and Boudica was really unnecessary

Just to clarify, I am a Southerner, and Lincoln is one of my favorite leaders of all time.

No I'm not an American, but honestly if I'm objective I think internationally speaking Roosevelt and Washington were interesting leaders, while Lincoln was more important for internal policies. Also, and this is my personal opinion, I don't think such a young civ needs three leaders when empires that lasted a thousand years maybe only have one. Of course I know the reasons why the creators decided to add an additional American leader, but the question was, what would you choose if you were the director of BTS, so therefore I decided I would rather leave out Lincoln and add Charles I, Darius etc.

I don't know that the internal policy issue holds. If you think about many others, like Isabella, they also were predominately internally focused. Isabella was hellbent on driving out the last of the Moors in Spain (a bit iffy there, because you could cite the Columbus expedition as an external achievement). Tokugawa is perhaps the epitome of internalism. :D

The problem is that, outside of the western expansion and Indian conflicts, the U.S. was solely focused on internal matters basically until the turn of the 20th century. Any leader you choose before Teddy Roosevelt will reflect that.

Honesty, when Civ 4 came out I was glad to see different choices besides Lincoln. But now I miss him, so I'm glad he's returning. The reason Firaxis chose him is because he's the most beloved American president and easily recognizable, and America is the key market. I remember I once went looking for some other TBS games that were civ-like; one (I forget its name) particularly caught my eye. But when I found out that America wasn't a civ in the game, I said "forget it." It had a lot of interesting features but I lost interest the moment I heard America was not in. Firaxis is smart enough to avoid that and plays up to the American market.

Of course, you are free to make your own picks. I personally don't believe in an either/or mentality, but that's the way it goes. I would advocate adding Lincoln and those other people you mentioned instead, not one or the other. I'm sure somebody will complain about the constraints of time schedules and whatnot, but my response to that is they could've had more time to add new leaders if they hadn't spent so much time on silly features, like the 5 or so "fantasy-style" scenarios in the game.

Of course, I agree, if it could be possible to both add Lincoln and all the other leaders mentioned, I would certainly support that.
I just tried to keep the number of included leaderheads the same for sake of discussion. My only argument was that personally I prefer the leaders I named over an addtional American leader, because looking over the entire history of the world, I don't think America has been important enough to receive a third leader. Lincoln specially hasn't been influential enough on the entire world to warrant inlcusion. That said, some of the other leaders in the game also weren't that internationally important, but in many case they were added because they were the most iconic or popular.

Anyway, I do understand why Lincoln was added and why a lot of people will be pleased with that addition, but again from a personal standpoint I would have made other choices.

Scrap Ramesses II? One of the most important Egyptian monarchs?

nah, he was just a big braggart and the Egyptian equivilent of Bush, except he still had enough money to fund to build huge projects that said how great his victories were. and adding in Ptolemy I is similar to adding Cleopatra in that both were Macedonian/Greek and NOT real Egyptian.



now, back on topic, if i were to change the ten civs around...

- the SE Asian civ wouold be Vietnam (leader Trung Trac) :D
- the African civ would be Nubia (leader Taharqa), or Ethiopia (leader Menelik II)
- kick the HRE out and put in Polynesia (Kamehameha) or Brazil (PEdro II) or, *fine* Poland (whoever the Poles want)
- replace NA civ with Iroqouis, and not the Sioux, because the Iroqouis were actually more of a "civilization" - they were politically united, had a real government besides chieftainism, etc.


now, for new leaders:

first, scrap out Lincoln, Boadicea. leaving with four leaders, i'd add:

- China - Wu Zeitian, Zhuge Liang, Taizong, or Kanxi.
- Egypt - Thuthmosis III, Menes (he was originally to be in the vanilla game), one of the Senusrets or Amenemhats, or Khufu (the guy who build biggest pyramid)
- Spain - Philip II
- Japan - Meiji

and adding in Ptolemy I is similar to adding Cleopatra in that both were Macedonian/Greek and NOT real Egyptian.

George Washington wasn't American, he was originally from Britain. Ptolemy is a fine leader for Egypt.

George Washington wasn't American, he was originally from Britain. Ptolemy is a fine leader for Egypt.


i've seen someone use that argument somewhere, and it doesn't work... George Washington was one of the founders of America. Ptolemy wasn't really Egyptian, and neither was the dynasty he founded. the Ptolemies actually discriminated against Egyptians, considering Hellenic culture superior; they did everything in more or less a Hellenic fashion. they acted more like any of the Greek factions that came out of the fall of Alexander the Great's Empire. and none of them knew Egyptian. the closest and Ptolemid ever got to being a real Egyptian was Cleopatra, because she was nice to the Egyptians and actually knew how to speak Egyptian.

anyhow, by the time Ptolemy came, Egypt was the oldest civilizaition on earth (at the time, of course - these days they're beat by CHina), they were almost three thousand years old, maybe even more. there are many more worthy actual Egyptian rulers, numerous; though i wouold accept the addition of Ptolemy I to Egypt, if i had to.

OK, I'm not angry about any of the ones chosen, but it does annoy me because I definitely prefer more diversity in my game. I want to feel like I'm replaying world history and not just European history. That said, here's what I would have liked to have seen:

1) Maya
2) Iroquois (could be convinced of another NA civ)
3) Indonesia
4) Burma
5) Ethiopia
6) Swahili
7) Portugal
8) Poland
9) Sumer
10) Babylon

I don't think as much about leaders, but here's what comes to me off the top of my head:

1) I'd add an ancient Chinese ruler, because no civ should be more prominent than China
2) I'd add Charlemagne as a French King
3) I'd rename the Vikings the Scandinavians to add Queen Margaret
4) I'd add a Japanese Leader
5) I'd add another leader for Korea...I remember there's a much better one than they have now for the civ, but I'm not going to look it up right now
6) I'd add an Arabic leader

As long as we're fantasizing, here's who I'd have on the bench ready for the 3rd expansion:

1)Brazil
2)Gran Columbia
3)Netherlands
4)Austria (changing the 'German' civ in the game to Prussia)
5)Polynesia
6)Byzantine Empire
7)Vietnam
8)Khmer
9)Kongo
10)Nigeria*

*the modern state of Nigeria is a mess, I admit, but I'd take the civ to represent the rich history of the entire area of what is now Nigeria. It has 3 large ethnic groups (Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo) and many many smaller ones. I'd take the leader from the history of one ethnic group, the UU from another, and the UB from the last one.


So you see, all of the announced civs (except HRE) are in my top 20, but I'd have only added them in a more balanced fashion, to keep the feeling of replaying world history.

Besides those already in:
I would add Poland & Lithuanian commonwealth with Jogaila (Wladislaw II Jagiello) as leader, but that is just because I am biased :mischief:
I also would love to see Simon Bolivar as leader of something.

And off course: have a look at my signature for that matter!:king:

None. Current list is fine.

I would have concentrated on the core game. More unique units/buildings; more resources; more techs; improvements to current gameplay (AI, forts etc); more gameplay additions (similar to corporations/vassals).

New Leaders:
Arabia: Harun al Rashid.
Ottoman: Süleyman the Magnificent
America: Abraham Lincoln
Japan: Meiji
Persia: Darius I.
Spain: Philip II.

NEW CIVILIZATIONS;
Ethiopia: Menelik II.
Khmer: Jayavarman
Iroquois: Hiawatha
Maya: Pacal
Babylon: Hammurabi
Sumer: Gilgamesh
Netherlands: Willem van Oranje
Portugal: Joao
Austria: Maria Theresa
Poland: Casimir the Great

New Leaders:
Arabia: Harun al Rashid
Japan: Meiji
Greece: Pericles
Ottoman: Suleyman I
Persia: Shapur I
Spain: Philip II.
--
Germany: Otto I

Rename Vikings as Denmark

New Civs:
Sweden: Gustav II Adolf
Srivijaya
Sumer: Gilgamesh
Assyria: Sargon II
Maya: Pacal
Ethiopia
Portugal: Joao
Babylon: Hammurabi
Poland: Casimir III
Hittite Empire: Mursili II
--
Frankish Empire: Charlemagne
Byzantium: Justinian I

I would NOT add:

- the Holy Roman Empire
- Boadica
- Byzantines
- Native Americans (replace it with a Sioux Civ)

I would add:

- a Chinese leader
- a Japanese leader
- Emperor Akbar for India
- Siam
- Another East European civ, probably Poland
- If possible, Israel or Hittites
- Another Arab leader, probably Harun al-Rashid.
- Charlemagne (as a stand-alone leader not affliliated with any civ, seeing as it's possible to have any civ-leader combo in BTS)

i believe every civ with only one leader MUST get another one.
new civs?

poland
israel
african civ
south asian civ
maybe brasil

that's it. ideas like HRE sounds incredibly stupid for me.

Rename Vikings as Denmark


If you did that you would HAVE to include Queen Margaret I besides or instead Ragnar. :)

America: Teddy Roosevelt, Protective/Imperialist
Favored Civ: Environmentalism
Korea: Park Chung Hee, Financial/Industrialist
Favored Civ: Nationhood
Portugal: Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Financial/Organized
Favored Civ: Mercantalism
Celts: Michael Collins, Protective/Charismatic
Favored Civ: Nationhood

New Civs
Italy
Benito Mussolini, Charismatic/Organized
Favored Civ: Police State
Camillo Benso, Philosophical/Expansive
Favored Civ: Representation
Poland
Casimir III, Protective/Spiritual
Favored Civ: Organized Religion

for all of you looking for another East European civ you have one, the Ottomans. Technically the founders of the Ottoman Empire were the turks, a nomadic people from Eastern Europe (around modern day Turkmenistan, hence the state now known as Turkey).

for all of you looking for another East European civ you have one, the Ottomans. Technically the founders of the Ottoman Empire were the turks, a nomadic people from Eastern Europe (around modern day Turkmenistan, hence the state now known as Turkey).

1. Turkmenistan is not Eastern Europe. The Turks' original homeland was actually Xinjiang, so early Turks are Asiatic in appearance and customs. The Turks are newcomers into Eastern Europe, arriving via conquest of the Dardanelles in the 15th century.
2. The Ottomans and (modern) Turks are Eastern European geographically but what I meant is a Slavic-speaking civilisation, like Serbia or Poland.

But what I really like to see is more civs from regions away from Europe.

Simón Bolívar wasn't Venuzula only, he was also president of Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. So I would use him as a leader of Great Colombia

There are still 3 traitcombos that are not used. These 3 new civilizations should be added.

Poland
Dacia
Maoris (something to represent polynesians)

- Native americans should be chanced to something else.
- Assyria, hitites etc. are important, but there is already Sumeria/Babylon. Their UU:s and UB:s would not necessarily be that original or fun either.
- Toltecs, anazasis etc. are important, but we dont know enough about them.
- Huns, saracens etc. could be in as some kind of "super barbarians"

I would add Poland. I dont see why it shouldnt be in the game, because Poland played a major role several times in world history (for examplae the solidarnosc in the 80s).
In addition there a just too less east-european States (if u count Russia as half asian, there is none -.- ).
Im fine with HRE since it represents also Austria (the Habsurger ruled the HRE and afterwards Austria) and it existed almost 1000 years, so yes it should be in.
I would also add Israel. Israel is an ancient civ, it is/was important and it still exists as a state :king:
I dont understand why phoenicia is not in the game. I know Carthago is in, but I think phoenicia is a lot cooler :mischief:

Simón Bolívar wasn't Venuzula only, he was also president of Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. So I would use him as a leader of Great Colombia

HE was but. He has Venezuelan, He got Venezuela independent first, And he's heartland was in venezuela.

I'd go nuts and go over 10 probably. I'd probably let HRE in, but also try to work that title as perhaps a side-effect of the Apostolic palace. Perhaps somehow one civ can wear the title even if it doesn't build the AP.

I'd look more to filling space on the world map and under-represented civs, and very little emphasis on adding leader that fill all permutations of the trait combos.

Probably at least one civ for each of the four corners of each region of the world.

Afterwords, try to mine history to find one leader for each possible trait combo. And try to distribute them based on need as well as the aesthetic of including the most interesting leaders in history.