Ha ha... I remember all the controversy over the "mystery leaderhead" at the bottom of the Firaxis site... everybody said De Gaulle was in Railroads. Well, that may be true, but now all the naysayers will be quite surprised to find him in BtS, too! :D

From IGN:
French: De Gaulle - Charismatic, Industrious

Hey, he took Lincoln's rightful traits! ;) Oh well.

Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

Lincoln's Philo/Char, I have no complaints.

aww man, this is great. Because I have a mac, I'll have to wait :( and wait :sad: and wait :coffee: and wait....:wallbash: :gripe: [pissed] :suicide: :deadhorse: :aargh:

Yeah, Philosophical/Charismatic is pretty powerful in its own right...

I bet we'll get lots of complaints over no new leaders for Spain and Japan, though.

Yeah! \o/ Love the addition and the powerful traits :)

De Gaulle? Jeez, how about giving Spain a second leader? Or Japan?

I didn't think De Gaulle would really be someone that had to be in... Japan definetely has some more interesting leaders in their history.:crazyeye:

The addition probably has to do with the WWII scenarios.

Well, they could've just as easily put in Hirohito for that... ;)

Booooooooooooooooooo

(Boudicea deserves that twice as much, of course)

Meiji should have been in before either of these.

Interesting. Zara Yaqob (Ethiopian leader) gets Augustus' old traits (Cre/Org) and Darius gets Fin/Org (I guess it's not forbidden anymore).

There are a lot of other French leaders I would have put before De Gaulle, but since my period is older times I may be biased!

Please, why not Philip Augustus?

Breunor

We have Churchill, Roosevelt even Stalin and now Charles De Gaulle.

That's all allied WWII leaders but no one for the axis.

We have Churchill, Roosevelt even Stalin and now Charles De Gaulle.

That's all allied WWII leaders but no one for the axis.

Well in the case of Hirohito, the Japanese hold their emperors pretty highly (they were considered divine before Japan lost WWII) and having his likeness in the game might effect sales. They could have put Tojo in instead but that would be a waste of a perfectly good leader slot.

And we all know the deal about 'you know who' (for the love of God let's not start another pointless debate).

Everybody forgets Mussolini. :D
Seriously, he would be terrible. Let's instead focus our complaints on why Spain or Japan did not get a new leader. ;)

Well in the case of Hirohito, the Japanese hold their emperors pretty highly (they were considered divine before Japan lost WWII) and having his likeness in the game might effect sales. They could have put Tojo in instead but that would be a waste of a perfectly good leader slot.

Yeah, I guess your right there.

And we all know the deal about 'you know who' (for the love of God let's not start another pointless debate).

I know, but they had Stalin. Of course he got away with his genocides and murdrs, so I guess he's ok! :goodjob:

Seriously, he would be terrible. Let's instead focus our complaints on why Spain or Japan did not get a new leader. ;)

What about the Arabs? Hardly a mention about them.

There has to be countless leaders that could be used for them.

Maybe the issue is that the Axis were defeated...?

Seriously, let's not go there. Really.

BTW, Fox, I was one of the few who thought a second Arab leader would be nice. :D

After they put in the HRE there is no way by their logic why japan and spain deserve a new leader.

Maybe the issue is that the Axis were defeated...?

Seriously, let's not go there. Really.

BTW, Fox, I was one of the few who thought a second Arab leader would be nice. :D

I would love to see 3 new leaders for the arabs.:)

I am a bit perturbed that yet another civ with more than one leader has gotten ANOTHER one. Must Japan always remain shut off from the rest of the world? Will Spain always be fervantly anti-my-religion?

All I hope is that DeGaulle isn't as antagonistic as Napoleon or such a naysayer as Louis.

After they put in the HRE there is no way by their logic why japan and spain deserve a new leader.

I really wanted to see Nobunaga or Meiji but both DeGaulle and Darius I are both deserving of being put in as well.

BTW, Fox, I was one of the few who thought a second Arab leader would be nice. :D

Good for you. Thanks. :D

I'm hoping for Persia, Arabia, Spain and Japan to get new leaders. I think they will dissapoint me there, though.

Persia does get a second leader... Darius. :D

Persia does get a second leader... Darius. :D

Really? Excellent!

I don't see how they could overlook the Arabs though. They need someone to represent the Caliphate, maybe Abu Bakr again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Age_of_Caliphs.png

Abu Bakr came to early on to represent the whole caliphate. An abbasid or ummayad caliph would do nicely before they left the realm of arab leaders.

Hurray !
Now that is actually a great news !

De Gaulle has saved France's honour during WW2, thanks to him France has recovered its full independence in 1944, and he also strongly modernized France as a President later in the 1960's and took a very courageous decision regarding Algeria. If you would like to discover how fascinating is that man, I strongly recommend you reading more about him.

It's a genuine miracle for France that this guy happened to be there at the right time. It's not simply a matter of honour, but also a matter of influence. France would be nowhere near as influential as it is currently worldwide without him.

Just for fun, I remember that he has been elected as the greatest Frenchman of all times in a TV show few years ago by French people. The second one being Louis Pasteur, and the third one being Marie Curie. Napoleon has finished something like 10th, and Louis XIVth wasn't even in the top 20. Granted that's only a silly TV show which tends to be myopic and unable to see further away than contemporary times, but this still shows how French people value that man.

Furthermore, and more seriously speaking, France will finally be represented by a President of the French Republic. Something which can't be bad news considering how unpopular are French Kings since the Revolution... which is considered by many as the founding event of the French national identity.

eh.... they've added a leader who tried to split apart a country who helped liberate his country, cant say I'm looking forward to seeing him

De Gaule is a very good leader and i would rather him a hundred times rather than Boudica but France already has two leaders while Both Japan and Spain only have one. I would rather they add Meji and Philip i respectively.

eh.... they've added a leader who tried to split apart a country who helped liberate his country, cant say I'm looking forward to seeing him

I've heard he didn't realize what the heck he was saying when he made his infamous "vive la quebec libre" speech.

eh.... they've added a leader who tried to split apart a country who helped liberate his country, cant say I'm looking forward to seeing himHe did not try to split Canada in half, he has just given a verbal support to free Quebec. It's not as if he had actively funded the Parti Quebecois or anything alike.

But anyway, what matters isn't how popular De Gaulle is in Ontario, but how popular De Gaulle is in his own country. Same is true for all civs leaders. ;)

well he totally snubbed English Canada, he refused to visit Ottawa

I dont see how he could have made a mistake

edit: I'm not saying he doesnt deserve to be in the game, I'm saying I would leave him out of my games

Considering the one person here who is actually French wholeheartedly agrees with the decision... I say it's probably appropriate. While I am not too happy that Spain and Japan have been given the short end of the stick, I wouldn't add more leaders at the expense of De Gaulle. Instead, I'd have not added another Ottoman leader, and Brennus wouldn't have been in Vanilla in the first place (we could keep Boudicca then).

Persia does get a second leader... Darius. :D

Confirmed ? Source ?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/797/797847p1.html

De Gaule is a very good leader and i would rather him a hundred times rather than Boudica but France already has two leaders while Both Japan and Spain only have one. I would rather they add Meji and Philip i respectively.Britain already has 3 leaders. As you can see it works both ways. And as a matter of fact, Louis XIV is a crappy leader anyway.

well he totally snubbed English Canada, he refused to visit Ottawa

I dont see how he could have made a mistake

edit: I'm not saying he doesnt deserve to be in the game, I'm saying I would leave him out of my games

He was actually going to visit Ottawa but his visit was cut short and he had to leave the country after his speech due the uproar it caused.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/797/797847p1.html

Very good , there is a lot of new information ,there.

Britain already has 3 leaders. As you can see it works both ways. And as a matter of fact, Louis XIV is a crappy leader anyway.

I have no problem of them adding more Leaders for any Nations , but really they should prioritize their selections . Seconded on Luis.

He was actually going to visit Ottawa but his visit was cut short and he had to leave the country after his speech.

Protocol is to visit Ottawa first, its tradition for visiting heads of state

either way, its in bad form for a nation to go into a nation who helped liberate it and try to split a province off it

Abu Bakr came to early on to represent the whole caliphate. An abbasid or ummayad caliph would do nicely before they left the realm of arab leaders.

Ok, how about Muawiyah I?

For a more modern leader, It hink the career of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud is a good choice.

Breunor

I am glad about De Gaulle. It is good to have more modern leaders.

I think we can all agree that Louis, Napoleon and DeGaulle are all much better choices than Joan of Arc in Civ III.

I would gladly accept Joan of Arc over any of them. I don't care that she wasn't an actual ruler of France, she was a leader regardless and the most interesting of the four.

I think we can all agree that Louis, Napoleon and DeGaulle are all much better choices than Joan of Arc in Civ III.

Just remember: DeGaulle beat out Meiji.

I was more impressed with Napoleon than Joan and DeGaulle combined

well there are still two (non overpowered) combinations that aren't included in the game BTS Cre/Cha & Org/Pro maybe they'll give them to Japan and Spain in a patch or more likely a Mod. I really doubt there'll be another expansion, but you never know.

Ok, how about Muawiyah I?

For a more modern leader, I think the career of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud is a good choice.

Breunor

I don't think Firaxis would include Mu'awiyah because shi'ites hate him for his conflict with Ali, however I'm a sunni so it doesn't bother me. I thought he was a very capable leader and great man. If firaxis know at all about this they may not include and besides there are other great arab leaders namely Harun al-rashid.

I think this also brings up that Firaxis should have added second leaders to one-sided civs like japan and spain before adding 4th or whatever leader to the americans and europeans. The civs with only one variety provide no challenge because they always act the same.

Britain already has 3 leaders. As you can see it works both ways. And as a matter of fact, Louis XIV is a crappy leader anyway.

Suppose Charlamagne were an official leader choice for the French Civilization as well as the HRE, would you now be appeased?

well there are still two (non overpowered) combinations that aren't included in the game BTS Cre/Cha & Org/Pro maybe they'll give them to Japan and Spain in a patch or more likely a Mod. I really doubt there'll be another expansion, but you never know.

Yep, due to the umbalances on the leader share (Japan, Spain and Arabia being probably the most in need of a new leader after it has been confirmed more civilizations will get three), I would really advocate for a dowload-a-leader feature in the Firaxis website. I know we can mod leaderheads, but is always more nice if the new ones are made by the same art department.

So, please new leaders for Japan, Spain, Arabia, and Maybe China and Rome and Egipt -all these should have three leaders if France does- in the next patch! (please, please, please :P)

We have Churchill, Roosevelt even Stalin and now Charles De Gaulle.

That's all allied WWII leaders but no one for the axis.

Well the axis leaders are who . . . Hitler, Hirohito, and Mausolini . . . (sorry for any mispellings). If we suggest adding Hitler people will riot, Hirohito wasn't much better with the medical research and Japanese might protest his image being used, and Mausolini might get a few boos too.

Personally I say add them all . . . but lets not get THAT discussion going. It's not something you can logically talk about here, and I've seen enough outcry on HRE without adding THAT to the pile.

Suppose Charlamagne were an official leader choice for the French Civilization as well as the HRE, would you now be appeased?Yes, because he wasn't French

Suppose Charlamagne were an official leader choice for the French Civilization as well as the HRE, would you now be appeased?Appeased of what ? Charlemagne was the ruler of the Franks. He was neither the ruler of the Germans, nor the ruler of the French.

It's not because both the French kingdom and the Holy roman empire are offshoots of the Carolingian that it's rightful to consier him as the leader of any of both. My solution is simple, if you want Charlemagne in the game, then put the kingdom he has ruled in... hence the Frankish Kingdom.

Britain already has 3 leaders. As you can see it works both ways. And as a matter of fact, Louis XIV is a crappy leader anyway.

No, england has 3 leaders, not Britain. I guess you could say that Britain has 5 leaders (england + Celts).

I agree that the Arabs, Spain & Japan should have an extra leader, but I am happy that Boadicea has been included.

Will Spain always be fervantly anti-my-religion?



If you want leaders of the age of the Spanish empire, then yes. The other two great kings in Spain were king Charles I of Spain (or Emperor Charles V of the Holly Germanic Roman Empire) and his son Phillip II.
The first one lead an infinite amount of wars against the Protestants, while his son Phillip II also isolated Spain from the rest of the world in order to avoid that Protestantism enters, beginning Spains long decline.

The other King which would be interesting to add is Charles III, he was the King who in the late 18 century tried to modernise Spain, but by that time Spain had lost much of his old glory. It was his son who would later give the country to Napoleon for free.

An idea: Charles V could be added as the firts leader for two Civs: Spain and the HRE

I don't get the whole De Gaulle hate. He was probably the greatest President Republican France ever had. Too many people seem to view him solely through WWII resistance, but he was also a powerful President after WWII.

No, england has 3 leaders, not Britain. I guess you could say that Britain has 5 leaders (england + Celts).

I agree that the Arabs, Spain & Japan should have an extra leader, but I am happy that Boadicea has been included.

Brennus is not a leader of Britain - he was a leader of Gaul Celts, not Briton Celts.

No, england has 3 leaders, not Britain. I guess you could say that Britain has 5 leaders (england + Celts).

I agree that the Arabs, Spain & Japan should have an extra leader, but I am happy that Boadicea has been included.Well Boadicea could indeed be interpreted as British, but it's harder to consider Brennus as such. As Martinus pointed out, Brennus was a Gaul Celt who had ransacked early Rome. Furthermore, the Celts were located in the large part of Western Europe.

Hence, they are not particularly more "British" than "French" or whatever, though it's true the word "Britain" comes from the Britons, who were indeed a celtic tribe. But anyway, considering this, the word France comes from the Franks who were actually ruled by Charlemagne, which would make of him a fourth "French" leader... (even if Charlemagne is not specifically more French than he's German... he's at the roots of what became these two modern states).

I don't get the whole De Gaulle hate. He was probably the greatest President Republican France ever had. Too many people seem to view him solely through WWII resistance, but he was also a powerful President after WWII.I agree with this. Well, De Gaulle during WW2 has been determining for France. At the opposite of what many people think, he has not been put at the head of France in 1944 by the Western allies. He did it by himself against their will. The outcome of this was that France has been considered among the victorious, meaning it managed an occupying zone in Germany and it had a permanent seat at the UN security council. Something rather amazing once considered France had just been occupied during 4 years.

But anyway, you're right that what De Gaulle did as President in the 60's is at least as determining. The France of the 50's was a backward country, desperately rural and poor. In the end of the De Gaulle/Pompidou era, France was a leading industrial power, technologically extremely advanced with showcase products such as Concorde and TGV. More than this, it even joined the nuclear powers club.

Without De Gaulle, the US would have probably made of France something similar to West Germany (without the divide of course). Nowadays, France would be about similar in influence as are Spain or Italy. De Gaulle is really the kind of guy that amazes you in making you realize how one man alone could change the fate of a whole people.

I agree, De Gaulle is a great choice for France. In fact Napoleon and De Gaulle are among my favourite leaders. Both men were ardent partiots, brilliant and inspirational. Aweosme choices in both cases.

I think we can all agree that Louis, Napoleon and DeGaulle are all much better choices than Joan of Arc in Civ III.

Hmm why yes to Boudicca and no to Joan of Arc ?

To be honest this one of the things I was happiest with considering the new civs/leaders. Pericles being Cre/Phi and the addition of both Ethiopia and Khmer just barely come ahead.

Brennus is not a leader of Britain - he was a leader of Gaul Celts, not Briton Celts.

Fair enough. The point I was making was that Britain isn't in the game - it's england.

People forget that Boudicca was in previous Civ incarnations.

NYHunter, stop stealing my signature! :D

well, De Gaulle is in for WWII scenario at least, and why not add him in the main game if they took so much effort to create a proper LH for a scenario.

That's assumption, but i can imagine that you will be able to play only as the allied in this scenario and be in always war mode against the other (no possibility to make peace, vassals nor anything with the Axis).

Well, i agree some civ deserved another leader too (Japan comes first easily), but De Gaulle is definitely one of the french leaders you could take for an ingame leader.
I don't know what people have against Louis (despite being very annoying in game terms), he surely is among the three best leaders. (Napoleon, Louis and De Gaulle - oh!! the one firaxis choose!!)

Having Joan of Arc as a leader is like having Amiral Nelson for England or Rommel for Germany. apart from the military side, they did nothing. On the opposite, Ulysse Grant could be a US leaders (i'm not saying he deserves a spot, don't make me say something i don't mean to), but after military success, he has been president (i'm not aware enough of US history to know if he was a good president or not...)

Next leaders: Meiji please please please please!!!

Hmm why yes to Boudicca and no to Joan of Arc ?

Boudicca was a ruler of Celts. Joan of Arc was either simply a military leader or a mascot for French armies (I suppose she was a medieval version of a celebrity), depending how you interpret history.

Having Joan of Arc lead the French is like having Paris Hilton lead the Americans. :p

*ducks for cover*

Well,Boudicca was a leader of the Iceni tribe after her husband died. Its hard to call anyone the leader of the 'Celts' since they rarely unified; she clearly didn't laead the 'Celts' in Britain and the revolt didn't spread to too many otehr Celtic tribes (fortunatley for the Romans!). But there are almost certainly better picks from an historical point of view.

Not sure about Paris Hilton. :-)

Breunor

Vercingetorix is an obvious choice for a Celt leader, but I'm happy with Boadicea.

Paris Hilton for America?! Aggressive/Reckless; +3 :) in all cities (you know why--party animals) but +10 :yuck:
City less likely to generate a Great Artist

Meh. Do we really need three leaders for some civs when others have only one?

Paris Hilton for America?! Aggressive/Reckless; +3 :) in all cities (you know why--party animals) but +10 :yuck:
City less likely to generate a Great Artist

Would jails increase or decrease happiness?

:mwaha:

Besides I have red while you have dark red. See the difference :D



NYHunter, stop stealing my signature! :D

Would jails increase or decrease happiness?

Increase it, due to late night jokes, but decrease science output for all the media coverage. :crazyeye:

Okay, back on topic now...

The issue I have with the "why do some civs get three when others have only one" argument is that some civs that have two leaders are undeserving of them, IMO. Why does the Ottoman Empire need two leaders? Why do the Celts? There are your two leaders for Spain and Japan right there (only get rid of Brennus, not Boudicca ;)).

It all comes back to the "wow" factor. Personally, I won't get excited when I see Suleiman of the Ottomans. He's no different from Mehmed to me. :Yawn: However, it is much more interesting to encounter Churchill or De Gaulle in the game because those are leaders it is "fun" to conduct diplomacy with (or play as).

This is the primary reason Firaxis includes these leaders, I suspect, and also why they've added Charlemagne and Boudicca. It isn't about representation or any other PC garbage; it's about what they think will be the most fun for players in the target age group and countries of the market. Having said that, I also feel Hirohito would be fun to encounter (I'd love to declare war on him as Roosevelt) and similarly for Philip II or another Spanish leader. Even Abu Bakr would be acceptable for Arabia; I get sick of Saladin.

Suppose Charlamagne were an official leader choice for the French Civilization as well as the HRE, would you now be appeased?

Well now that you can switch leaders/civs, you can make Charlemange the leader of France or Germany if you really really want to now.

Well, I have no problems with any new leaders except for DeGaulle. Didn't he lead France when Germany overran them mostly because of the failed Mginet line? I know he was the leader of the free french during WWII and helped rebuild them afterwards but I am reather disappointed in him. Never was too happy with Churchill either (could have used another english leader). Ethiopian and Khmer is fine. Sitting Bull looks pretty damn good for early defensive setup and a pain cultural opponant. Abe and Darius look fine to me. Bull and Gilgamesh unique units look a bit odd to me. Quite a few unit archery units now. Overall very pleases.

I've heard he didn't realize what the heck he was saying when he made his infamous "vive la quebec libre" speech.

Maybe you should read more about him. He was very much aware of old and recent Québec history, what would be the consequences of his speech. He was prepared.

Well, I have no problems with any new leaders except for DeGaulle. Didn't he lead France when Germany overran them mostly because of the failed Mginet line? I know he was the leader of the free french during WWII and helped rebuild them afterwards but I am reather disappointed in him. Never was too happy with Churchill either (could have used another english leader). Ethiopian and Khmer is fine. Sitting Bull looks pretty damn good for early defensive setup and a pain cultural opponant. Abe and Darius look fine to me. Bull and Gilgamesh unique units look a bit odd to me. Quite a few unit archery units now. Overall very pleases.

No, he was actually a Colonel at the beginning of the war, and when Germany overran France, and had nothing to do with the Maginot Line and had no say in military policy beyond what you would expect from a rising Colonel. Maurice Gamelin was the French supreme commander at the beginning of the war and a chief architecht of the Maginot Line strategy.

Gamelin was replaced with Maxime Weygand before the 40 war ended.

De Gaulle was actually one of the few commanders who fought, but as the commander of the ad hoc 4th armored division, he couldn't do much about the German steamroller.


My only 'problem' with de Gaulle (not a bad choice) is that IF you want a French leader, I think there were more important ones (like Philip Augustus, Francis I, Henry IV, etc.) France certainly has no shortage of great leaders!

Breunor

Will Spain always be fervantly anti-my-religion?
If you want leaders of the age of the Spanish empire, then yes. The other two great kings in Spain were king Charles I of Spain (or Emperor Charles V of the Holly Germanic Roman Empire) and his son Phillip II.
The first one lead an infinite amount of wars against the Protestants, while his son Phillip II also isolated Spain from the rest of the world in order to avoid that Protestantism enters, beginning Spains long decline.

The other King which would be interesting to add is Charles III, he was the King who in the late 18 century tried to modernise Spain, but by that time Spain had lost much of his old glory. It was his son who would later give the country to Napoleon for free.

Someone a while back suggested a Moorish leader for Spain. I don't know if the Spanish would appreciate that or not, but I'd find that interesting.

Anyway, while I'd like to see a 2nd leader for Japan and the Arabs, I'm probably most perturbed that there are now 4 civilizations with more leaders than China. In a game that represents the span of human history, no civilization should be more represented than China.

An idea: Charles V could be added as the firts leader for two Civs: Spain and the HRE

Well, Kublai Kahn could be made leader of China as well. And of course, Charlemagne could be the leader of 3 civs now in the game.

Considering how fundamental has been the French Revolution for France, the country desperately needed a leader representing the Republic. I know that technically speaking we could consider Napoleon as one, but hey, a democratic leader wouldn't be that harmful.

Furthermore, it seems many of you neglect what De Gaulle has brought to France. But whatever, I guess I've already wasted too much of my time in all this.

OK, I stand corrected on DeGaul.

If you want leaders of the age of the Spanish empire, then yes. The other two great kings in Spain were king Charles I of Spain (or Emperor Charles V of the Holly Germanic Roman Empire) and his son Phillip II.
The first one lead an infinite amount of wars against the Protestants, while his son Phillip II also isolated Spain from the rest of the world in order to avoid that Protestantism enters, beginning Spains long decline.

While that might be actually true for Phillip, I do not think Charles was a Religious fanatic. It depends on the point of view: you say he lead an infinite amount of wars against the Protestants (as if he started them because they were of a "different" Religion).
On the other hand, it is historically reasonable the german "princes" who were not happy with him as Holy Roman Emperor, took protestantism as their "national" Religion in order to differentiate their lands of those that were loyal to the emperor, and have a reason to wage a war to be free.
Thus, it was a battle for power made up as a religion war: as many times in history, Religion is not the reason, but makes a good excuse.
Indeed, Charles is often portrayed as an "humanist" and reasonable king, quite opposite to being a religious fanatic.


The other King which would be interesting to add is Charles III, he was the King who in the late 18 century tried to modernise Spain, but by that time Spain had lost much of his old glory. It was his son who would later give the country to Napoleon for free.

While Charles III is indeed the best of the -historic- Borbonic kings, if you want to keep with the Spanish empire, you may also use Ferdinand of Aragon, he is not portrayed as a religious fanatic (just as cold and machiavelic :p). Ministers of other Hausburgs (such as Count-Duke of Olivares) might also work (they were probably more interested on money than on religion :p).

Lincoln's Philo/Char, I have no complaints.

aww man, this is great. Because I have a mac, I'll have to wait :( and wait :sad: and wait :coffee: and wait....:wallbash: :gripe: [pissed] :suicide: :deadhorse: :aargh:

I feel your pain...I have to do the same:
:sad :coffee: :wallbash: :gripe: [pissed] :suicide: :deadhorse: :aargh:

HE'S IN THE GAME! YES MY WISH CAME TRUE!!!!!!!!!1111

Rofl i fully support this Addition.

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

Serious. I always wanted him in the game.

I feel your pain...I have to do the same:
:sad: :coffee: :wallbash: :gripe: [pissed] :suicide: :deadhorse: :aargh:

'Tis a shame, isn't it? more processing power, but longer wait for awesome games. :cry:

Booooooooooooooooooo

(Boudicea deserves that twice as much, of course)

Meiji should have been in before either of these.
I don't get why Meiji should be in. He didn't real do anything that resulted in the Meiji Restoration. If we wanted a leader for the Meiji Restoration (and there should be one), it should be Yamagata or someone else.

Booooooooooooooooooo

(Boudicea deserves that twice as much, of course)

Meiji should have been in before either of these.

De Gaulle? Jeez, how about giving Spain a second leader? Or Japan?

I didn't think De Gaulle would really be someone that had to be in... Japan definetely has some more interesting leaders in their history.:crazyeye:

I am a bit perturbed that yet another civ with more than one leader has gotten ANOTHER one. Must Japan always remain shut off from the rest of the world? Will Spain always be fervantly anti-my-religion?

All I hope is that DeGaulle isn't as antagonistic as Napoleon or such a naysayer as Louis.

amen, De Gualle is the last person i would have put in the game, Modern France is a sad excuse for a nation, put someon who lead there nation to be powerfull, not weak. i could come up with so many nations that actually needed a new leader. Japan and Spain have already been mentioned but what about Korea and Carthage or even Zulu. France did not need one, also the Holy Roman Empire??? Austria would have been a much better Civ.

And Is Ethopia should have been Nubia. Nubia was a extremely powerfull and cultural Civ.

Having Joan of Arc as a leader is like having Amiral Nelson for England or Rommel for Germany. apart from the military side, they did nothing. On the opposite, Ulysse Grant could be a US leaders (i'm not saying he deserves a spot, don't make me say something i don't mean to), but after military success, he has been president (i'm not aware enough of US history to know if he was a good president or not...)
Grant's presidency was unfortunately horrible. It was wracked by corruption. It wasn't Grant's fault, he just was far too trusting (he actually lost loads of money to conmen throughout his life) and so was unaware of the corruption. He's consistently ranked among the worst presidencies.

Better choice would be Eisenhower. Not only was our greatest General of the war, but presided over one of the countries largest economic booms, constructed a world wonder grade project, and started the space race. :D

Much the same as anglo Canada, De Gaulle enjoys a poor reputation in the UK and is seen as a bit of a treator by returning our support and hospitality during the war with the famous "Non" to our entry to the EEC . I think he's a good addition to the game though and our entry was probably a bad idea anyway.

if they were going to make another civ have three leaders, i would've add Chandragupta II or Chandragupta Maurya as a third leader of the Indians, but of course all civs should have 2 before some have three

Chandragupta is certainly a good choice. Of course, with Asoka we have his grandson, so we might not want two from the same family like that. Kublai and Ghengis are different, in that the Mongol glory period was so short. For India, there are so many dynasties, the history is, we may want to diversify.

As a counter-argument, we have Caesar and Augustus, so maybe I'll change my mind!

Breunor

I am a bit perturbed that yet another civ with more than one leader has gotten ANOTHER one. Must Japan always remain shut off from the rest of the world? Will Spain always be fervantly anti-my-religion?



Yes, and in the case of several civs (America, England, Russia) they get THREE leaders in total while Spain and Japan are left with a measely one. Even Mongolia got 2 leaders. Completely puzzled at why already well represented civs keep on getting more and more leaders while others, get only 1 despite the numerous requests for them made here. I mean really, would it truly be that hard for Firaxis to create a couple more leaders? The demand is obviously there for these 2 civs by reading these forums.

Oh well, I suppose we must be happy that Pericles made the cut ..maybe they were thinking about adding a 3rd Mongol leader :crazyeye:

Four? Since when? Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. That's three, the same as Russia, the same as England, the same now as France. I'm not going to argue that it was fair to give three out to some while others still had one, but there's no third level discrepancy.

My solution is simple, if you want Charlemagne in the game, then put the kingdom he has ruled in... hence the Frankish Kingdom.

Fair enough. That's what I wanted for Civ I.

if they were going to make another civ have three leaders, i would've add Chandragupta II or Chandragupta Maurya as a third leader of the Indians, but of course all civs should have 2 before some have three

I've been pulling for Akbar, the best and most admirable of the Mogul emperors. He was religously tolerant, for example, unlike, say, Aurangzeb. Babur was also a remarkable man, but he didn't really rule northern India for that long. (Actually his son lost it for a while to yet another remarkable man, Sher Shah, but got it it back after Sher Shah died.) Shah Jahan wouldn't be too bad, especially since he was responsible for one of the wonders of the game, but Akbar's more interesting.

if they were going to make another civ have three leaders, i would've add Chandragupta II or Chandragupta Maurya as a third leader of the Indians, but of course all civs should have 2 before some have three

I would follow your logic as well. Japan and isabella were better then America And France.

Everytime I hear that name I think of Starcraft...

Admiral Dd Gaulle should be in!

Good thing de Gaulle's in... would have preferred a Japanese leader (Nobunaga would be nice) instead of maybe Darius or Boudica, but i'm happy. :)

I've been pulling for Akbar, the best and most admirable of the Mogul emperors.

http://www.sixmonthsofsolitude.org/images/akbar1.jpg

http://www.sixmonthsofsolitude.org/images/akbar1.jpg

I never want to see that picture again.

I never want to see that picture again.

http://www.sixmonthsofsolitude.org/images/akbar1.jpg

;)

http://www.sixmonthsofsolitude.org/images/akbar1.jpg

;)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And as a matter of fact, Louis XIV is a crappy leader anyway.
You should be hanged for saying this.

De Gaulle is really the kind of guy that amazes you in making you realize how one man alone could change the fate of a whole people.
Agreed. Something Sarkozy, despite his dreams of grandeur, will fail at, as surely as de Gaulle was tall and Sarkozy is a dwarf. [just to tease you a bit ;) ]

De Gaulle was an unnecessary addition. the civilizations with three leaders are all "WEstern". this still shows that Civ still has too much of a Western bias. for third leaders, i would've preffered De Gaulle to a Chinese leader, or maybe even a Roman, Egyptian, or Indian leader. but if not, a new leader for Japan or Spain would be nice too.

Cybrx I agree that China and India deserve more leaders, but all the civs who do have third leaders also deserve them as they have been major world powers: Russia, U.S., France, England.

I agree that it is very Western centric but that is only because of money/demand. The Eastern markets have potential to change that though.

Cybrx I agree that China and India deserve more leaders, but all the civs who do have third leaders also deserve them as they have been major world powers: Russia, U.S., France, England.

I agree that it is very Western centric but that is only because of money/demand. The Eastern markets have potential to change that though.

china and india were, though not superpowers (yet), were at times in history the most advanced and prosperous nations on earth. buyt, whatever.

i know it has to be Western centric, and i accept that (i remember there was one guy before the release of Civ4 rambling on why they shuold've put 5+ African civilizations or something... ridiculous). i myself just think it is starting to lean too much towards the Westerno-centric side. but, oh well, the western world took over and not the eastern, what can i say.

if i had to choose a western nation for a third leader, i probably would've opted for either Rome or Germany. the problem with Germany is that many of their options are now unapplicable because of the addition of the HRE, but the addition of a third Roman leader seemed reasonble in my view, especially because the Romans seem to be the Western standard of civilization.

Germany was the only country who deserves 4 leaders. 1 from HRE 1 from Germany (bismark not hitler) 1 from Prussia and 1 from Austria

I agree which is why I said they deserve third leaders.

china and india were, though not superpowers (yet), were at times in history the most advanced and prosperous nations on earth. buyt, whatever.

I agree which is why I said they deserve third leaders.

too bad. and even the choice of De Gaulle i don't like that much for the French... there must have been other choices... i know there are some medieval/reinessance ones...

De Gaulle was an unnecessary addition. the civilizations with three leaders are all "WEstern". this still shows that Civ still has too much of a Western bias. for third leaders, i would've preffered De Gaulle to a Chinese leader, or maybe even a Roman, Egyptian, or Indian leader. but if not, a new leader for Japan or Spain would be nice too.

How are Rome and Spain not "WEstern" civilizations? Why would you pick them over France? Besides the fact that Isabella sucks...De Gaulle is a good choice. They don't add leaders to make all the civs have equal amounts or to be "fair". They add them because they're important to history.

yah i can't see anyone as important as Isabella for spain. But i understand Japan.

How are Rome and Spain not "WEstern" civilizations? Why would you pick them over France? Besides the fact that Isabella sucks...De Gaulle is a good choice. They don't add leaders to make all the civs have equal amounts or to be "fair". They add them because they're important to history.
Philip II was pretty important historically. Personally, I'd have gone with Henry of Navarre for France.....

How are Rome and Spain not "WEstern" civilizations? Why would you pick them over France? Besides the fact that Isabella sucks...De Gaulle is a good choice. They don't add leaders to make all the civs have equal amounts or to be "fair". They add them because they're important to history.

hey, good to see you back.

anyways...

yes, Rome and Spain are "Western", but i think they deserved a leader more than France. and the fact that Isabella is annoying is the reason why Spain would need a second leader.

anyhow, from what i heard, De Gaulle was not that great, and i know he presided over France when it lost all its colonies.

anyhow, India, and China more of, were as important, and perhaps more, than France in history. Rome also applies into this category, and Spain somewhat.

anyhow, in the end, De Gaulle is in and thats too bad. at least he is better than many other choices out there.

They could just tweak Isabella's cleva.. ahh i mean traits to be more friendly.. and bigger ;)

Marla Singer already explained why De Gaulle was great. He influenced the formation of the modern sense of French national identity.

haha, i like the sound of that.

oh well. sometimes it is fun playing against her. at least you know you'll have one guaranteed enemy.


i wonder what De Gaulle would be like...


Marla Singer already explained why De Gaulle was great. He influenced the formation of the modern sense of French national identity.

sorta like the Mao of France, like the Uncle Ho of Vietnam... ack... not that great, but i see the reasoning.

De Gaulle was an important leader, but France doesn't need a third leader! I'd prefer they add Meiji or al-Rashid than de Gaulle.

Another example of over-Eurocentrism in Civ.

and Under-Eurocentrism only counts for Poland ;)

if they did have to do Eurocentrism... at least a Roman or Spanish leader...

too bad. and even the choice of De Gaulle i don't like that much for the French... there must have been other choices... i know there are some medieval/reinessance ones...

Yup, I agree. Just as the game designers prefer Western nations, the prefer 'famous' leaders.

So, De Gaulle and Louis XIV are among the better known French leaders, but they had some very deserving other ones -- I think Philip Augustus was their greatest king. Similarly, they used Joan of Arc in earlier Civs because people know here better than other important people. They also had, for instance, Cleopatra. I'm sure some of this also was to have women leaders, but the idea is obvious.

Breunor

yah i can't see anyone as important as Isabella for spain. But i understand Japan.

Not sure about Isabella there. For Spain, I would probably pick Ferdinand I (of Leon). Obvioulsy, Charles I lead them in their glory period, but since he is also Charles V of the HRE, we would open up another can of worms.

Ferdinand III of Castile is also a very good pick, as is his enlightened son Alphonso X.

Breunor

Philip II was pretty important historically. Personally, I'd have gone with Henry of Navarre for France.....

Yeah, I've been pining for Philip, although I usually call him Philip Augustus! Henry is also a good pick.

Good to see someone agreeing with me! ALthough I don't think De Gaulle is a bad pick either.

Breunor

Is there a pic of de Gaulle yet? I heard you can see him in some video.. anyone have a screenshot?

I know, but they had Stalin. Of course he got away with his genocides and murdrs, so I guess he's ok! :goodjob:

Personally, I think they should remove the mass murderer Stalin (who was also an incompetent military commander) and replace him with Lenin. Lenin was a swine too, but not on the same scale; and he was quite competent. And earlier. And the founder of the Soviet Union out of the ruins of Tsarist Russia.

I'd also be happy to see Mao go. Chine has had lots of better leaders. The Empress Wu, for example.

yah but atleast Mao makes us know china represents all of china and not just ancient china.

Same can be said for stalin, now we know russia includes the soviets aswell. but i'd also like to see lenin before stalin.

Personally, I think they should remove the mass murderer Stalin (who was also an incompetent military commander) and replace him with Lenin. Lenin was a swine too, but not on the same scale; and he was quite competent. And earlier. And the founder of the Soviet Union out of the ruins of Tsaririst Russia.

I'd also be happy to see Mao go. Chine has had lots of better leaders. The Empress Wu, for example.

Personally, I would have strongly preferred Lenin as well. Stalin is probably more famous throughout history, but Lenin was a much smarter and competent man. He could even be the Phi/Ind leader..though I doubt Firaxis would ever include that trait combination. He could definitely have been one of the Philosophical candidates, since they had to add so many for this expansion pack. It's just a shame they decided to add Stalin in the previous pack..sigh.

Like it or not, Mao is an enormously significant person in Chinese history and will be remembered for many years to come. He may be remembered for having totally sucked, but I can see why Firaxis included him. But I agree, I can think of at least five Chinese emperors off the top of my head who were much better than him...

To get back on topic, I'm happy with the inclusion of De Gaulle. The French people themselves seem to adore the man, and I'm currently reading a book on the Cold War that really heightens the importance of De Gaulle to post-WWII France in my mind. He's a worthy choice.

Personally, I think they should remove the mass murderer Stalin (who was also an incompetent military commander) and replace him with Lenin. Lenin was a swine too, but not on the same scale; and he was quite competent. And earlier. And the founder of the Soviet Union out of the ruins of Tsaririst Russia.

I'd also be happy to see Mao go. Chine has had lots of better leaders. The Empress Wu, for example.


a lot of people like comparing Mao + Stalin to Hitler and making that the reason for their removal.

though i myself loathe Mao, i understand why they are in the game and not Hitler. why? because they are, at the end, no matter how horribly, they are VICTORS, not losers. and thats all that matters, unfortunately.

well, for De Gaulle, maybe i'll have some better Frenchy guy to beat up than Loiuis or Napoleon...

a lot of people like comparing Mao + Stalin to Hitler and making that the reason for their removal.

Your foregot Mussolini.

Your foregot Mussolini.

oh yea... and Franco Francisco... and Hirohito... but Hirohito's the exception... hes the only one that actually died with people saying "boohoohoo Hirohito our leader died, im sad" - so in other words, he wasn't that hated.

Japanese believed that Suicide was the only proper way of death at the time, so anything is possible cybrxkhan.

Japanese believed that Suicide was the only proper way of death at the time, so anything is possible cybrxkhan.

no, they believed you should die honorably. but most of the time that included suicide anyways... so...

are you agreeing with me or disputing me?

are you agreeing with me or disputing me?

:lol: im 3/4 agreeing. i like to do that. its pho-n.

anyhow, India, and China more of, were as important, and perhaps more, than France in history. Rome also applies into this category, and Spain somewhat.

anyhow, in the end, De Gaulle is in and thats too bad. at least he is better than many other choices out there.

I don't agree that Spain is more "important" than France. According to my memory France had the biggest colonial empire second only to Great Britain. India and Spain aren't more "important" than France, France is an important power in world politics and has had a large impact throughout the world more than India, Spain, or even China. China has expanded only in the areas around it. It has not spread its culture to distant places around the globe unlike European Colonial powers like France. De Gaulle is a good choice.

To get back on topic, I'm happy with the inclusion of De Gaulle. The French people themselves seem to adore the man, and I'm currently reading a book on the Cold War that really heightens the importance of De Gaulle to post-WWII France in my mind. He's a worthy choice.

I agree. People outside France seem to have forgotten how de Gaulle saved French credibility after 1940 and then hauled the country out of a hopeless mess in 1956. He was a great man, no matter one's personal feelings about him.

I don't agree that Spain is more "important" than France. According to my memory France had the biggest colonial empire second only to Great Britain. India and Spain aren't more "important" than France, France is an important power in world politics and has had a large impact throughout the world more than India, Spain, or even China. China has expanded only in the areas around it. It has not spread its culture to distant places around the globe unlike European Colonial powers like France. De Gaulle is a good choice.

I agree with Dutchking: France beats out Spain any day of the week. France influenced European and global politics and culture for centuries-- Spain only really shined during the 16th century. I won't go as far as he to conclude France was more important than India or China, but France does rank amongst them as one of the top empires in world history.

I am happy De Gaulle made it in-- I didn't think Louis (too annoying!) or Napoleon (too angry!) did France justice. I am seriously considering playing my first BtS epic game with him-- first time I play France in Civ4.

I agree with Dutchking: France beats out Spain any day of the week. France influenced European and global politics and culture for centuries-- Spain only really shined during the 16th century. I won't go as far as he to conclude France was more important than India or China, but France does rank amongst them as one of the top empires in world history.

I am happy De Gaulle made it in-- I didn't think Louis (too annoying!) or Napoleon (too angry!) did France justice. I am seriously considering playing my first BtS epic game with him-- first time I play France in Civ4.

Thanks man, I'm not saying that China or India are useless or anything, that would be crazy! I'm just saying they didn't influence areas all around the whole world like France.

Spain was more powerful than France at an earlier time. in fact, Spain, along with Portugal, presided over one of the first, and largest, colonial empires in the history of the world. the influence of Spain can be seen even here in the United States. really, if it weren't for Spain, Americans wouldn't be complaining about illegal immigrants! The Spanish also wiped out a ton of MesoAmerican empires, including the Aztecs and Incas - that is tragic, but it is a "milestone" of history.

as for China and India, the Europeans in a way do owe their power to them, China more of. without the fact that China was the most prosperous, advanced, and powerful countries on earth until the mid-1700s, the Europeans would've never bothered to go outside their borders. Also, the Chinese have invented so many useful and not so useful things, like the printing press, toothpicks, kites, etc., and espeically gunpowder, and it is because the Europeans copied off Chinese gunpowder that they actually could have had a chance at taking over the world. in pre-gunpowder era, any Zulu, Aztec, Mayan, etc. army could've easily defeated an army of European knights. without the Chinese advancements, the world would be a much more primitive place.

India also has its share of importance. India was also very scientifically advanced, (it invented 0 ) and prosperous. however, i would rate India lower than China. i can see why England, Russia, and America do rate over China. they were the only "superpowers" of the world, actually, according to the guy who originally invented the term (and NOT France).

and anyhow, Rome was also the (Western) world's original superpower. its influence can be seen EVERYWHERE, more than any empire in history.

again, not saying France is a land of dirtbags, just saying that i don't think one can say France, historically, has more importance than china (and perhaps India) - at the very least, they would be even.

Spain was more powerful than France at an earlier time. in fact, Spain, along with Portugal, presided over one of the first, and largest, colonial empires in the history of the world. the influence of Spain can be seen even here in the United States. really, if it weren't for Spain, Americans wouldn't be complaining about illegal immigrants! The Spanish also wiped out a ton of MesoAmerican empires, including the Aztecs and Incas - that is tragic, but it is a "milestone" of history.

as for China and India, the Europeans in a way do owe their power to them, China more of. without the fact that China was the most prosperous, advanced, and powerful countries on earth until the mid-1700s, the Europeans would've never bothered to go outside their borders. Also, the Chinese have invented so many useful and not so useful things, like the printing press, toothpicks, kites, etc., and espeically gunpowder, and it is because the Europeans copied off Chinese gunpowder that they actually could have had a chance at taking over the world. in pre-gunpowder era, any Zulu, Aztec, Mayan, etc. army could've easily defeated an army of European knights. without the Chinese advancements, the world would be a much more primitive place.

India also has its share of importance. India was also very scientifically advanced, (it invented 0 ) and prosperous. however, i would rate India lower than China. i can see why England, Russia, and America do rate over China. they were the only "superpowers" of the world, actually, according to the guy who originally invented the term (and NOT France).

and anyhow, Rome was also the (Western) world's original superpower. its influence can be seen EVERYWHERE, more than any empire in history.

again, not saying France is a land of dirtbags, just saying that i don't think one can say France, historically, has more importance than china (and perhaps India) - at the very least, they would be even.
Ahh...if you wanted to make your point even clearer then you should've included all the things the French have done too...then we could see a full comparison. I'm too lazy...could someone else? :confused: :goodjob: Also, the Spanish will never be as "important" as the French in my mind...they were important, but not that important.

You will have to tell us what the French have done other than invade the americas and vietnam.

Edit: My point is what the french have accomplished was due to what many others accomplished mainly the scientific advancements of the middle east, china, and classical rome and greece.

Spain was for a time more powerful than France in the early colonial race, but the French were powerful before and after this period in history. The French influence ebbs and flows throughout history, but like China and India, they have stayed on top throughout recorded history.

Do we really need to list French influence on history? We're all beginning to stray from the thread's main topic here. Can we just all agree that all of the forementioned civs have had a tremendous impact in global history, as compared to say, the Khmer or the Zulu? I don't think that is a stretch of the imagination.

You will have to tell us what the French have done other than invade the americas and vietnam.

Edit: My point is what the french have accomplished was due to what many others accomplished mainly the scientific advancements of the middle east, china, and classical rome and greece.

:clap:

i warn you guys, im not bashing at France just because im Vietnamese. :D

I go with Spain on this one. Spain still left a huge mark on the americas. So huge France shouldn't be a comparison when talking about Colonies.

Spain definitely left a bigger mark, south america except for brazil, and central america all are offshoots of Spain and certainly placed and imprint of their society and culture upon tose many nations. France however chose vietnam who was too developed to be changed.;)

Edit: I don't want to seem like I'm bashing France, my personal opinion is that France was the best of all the colonisers, they treated the natives much better than the dutch, spanish, and british. It is unfortunate that they didn't play a bigger role in colonization.

Spain definitely left a bigger mark, south america except for brazil, and central america all are offshoots of Spain and certainly placed and imprint of their society and culture upon tose many nations. France however chose vietnam who was too developed to be changed.;)

Edit: I don't want to seem like I'm bashing France, my personal opinion is that France was the best of all the colonisers, they treated the natives much better than the dutch, spanish, and british. It is unfortunate that they didn't play a bigger role in colonization.

Look Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/France_colonial_Empire10.png)
I think France was a pretty big colonial power...they were second only to Britain, we're not only talking about the Americas...think about the world!

Edit: I don't want to seem like I'm bashing France, my personal opinion is that France was the best of all the colonisers, they treated the natives much better than the dutch, spanish, and british. It is unfortunate that they didn't play a bigger role in colonization.

really? my daddy used to tell me they were bad bad people... oh wait, hes Vietnamese. :D


the map Dutchking has shows France and Britain AFTER the fall of Spain. Spain was THE original colonial power.

really? my daddy used to tell me they were bad bad people... oh wait, hes Vietnamese. :D


the map Dutchking has shows France and Britain AFTER the fall of Spain. Spain was THE original colonial power.

As a European colonisers they definitely commited atrocities, I'm just saying they weren't as bad as some of those other guys.:) ;)

As a European colonisers they definitely commited atrocities, I'm just saying they weren't as bad as some of those other guys. :) ;)


well, you cant say that to a Viet. :) they tried to make us all Frenchy and stuff! thats why we sometimes eat FRENCH BREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you ask the REAL Viets (and not the ones stuck in Vietnam ;) ), they say... hmm... i think they'd say the Chinese are the worst... thousand year occupation... invasions every twenty five years or something... every occupation poor Vietnamese get tortured in terrible terrible ways... sons having to go to China to get brainwashed... women getting raped... villages being burned... people being killed...

wait... thats what the imperialists do anyways... not the Emperor imperialists, the colonization imperialists... there is a difference.

What does this have to do with the atrocity of de Gaulle being included in Civ 4 BtS??? :gripe:

What does this have to do with the atrocity of de Gaulle being included in Civ 4 BtS??? :gripe:

someone agrees with us! :D

Spain was THE original colonial power.

Actually, probably there where other colonial powers previously: Vikings, Rome..., tough I see your point. Even in that case, Portugal would have been the original (Portugese were already sailing when Spanish had still part of the Iberian Peninsula to Conquer... true, that is because the Spanish left them no other exit).

Yet, if we take into sum up South-America minus Brazil and Guyanas, central america and Mexico, California and Florida, (and Tej(x)as, and Nevada), we probably get more colonial "area" that the one shown for France.

We could also say, as cybraxan comments, the "latin" culture is more present in nowadays world that the "francophonie" (think the importance is such, "latin / latino" is sometimes used for "hispanic" - Spain's culture has even overtaken the name that trully has to be used for the culture of the Roman Empire)

More achievements, you could add the blocking of both Almohad intent for a comeback of an Arab expansion in Europe through the peninsula, and Turkish advance in the East, putting a lot of interest in the control of the Mediterranean.

The contact with Arab world was not only violent, tough, and tanks to the efforts of Spanish kings of the reconquista, a important part of the Arabian (and with this, of the Asian) knoweldge was transmitted to Europe. In "new" knowledge, Spain it is not that famous, but many spaniards have contributed, specially to biological disciplines (Ramon y Cajal, Severo Ochoa,...).

It is true that after the Hausburgs, and the Succesion Wars (when all European powers decided to gather to weaken any resulting empire of the union of Spain with either France or the HRE - which implied the delinking of all European territories (Flanders, Naples, Milan, Sicily, Sardinia) from Spain through the treaty of Utrech), the power of Spain strongly decreased. The Succesion war was a lose/lose option for Spain: if going with Austria, the rest of Europe would have joined France; going with France, the rest of europe would have joined Austria. Besides having a war ravaging all the country, to put it to an end, Spain was quartered between the contenders.

Following that, and carrying as well the "Black Legend" - the anti-Spanish propaganda fostered by rival powers (some deserved, some not: think anti-Americanism of today, after one century more of development), it is true Spain has not been able (and while going up, still is not able) to be considered a world power again.

But still, the staying culture, and the "hatred" it generated at the peak of its power, speak themselves of the power it once had. Also the fact that -differently to other empires that went down- Spain, while secondary, has kept as a player in (at least western) geopolitics until today.

Therefore, while it maybe does not deserve three leaders (like maybe France does). But, In example (lets keept this discussion in franco-spanish terms for simplicity) i would say it does not indeed deserve -i.e.- to have two leaders less than France. For me it would be OK to have three for France and two for Spain (or two for France and one for Spain) but a 3:1 ratio is indeed unbalanced in favor of France.

Actually, probably there where other colonial powers previously: Vikings, Rome..., tough I see your point. Even in that case, Portugal would have been the original (Portugese were already sailing when Spanish had still part of the Iberian Peninsula to Conquer... true, that is because the Spanish left them no other exit).

oh... right, i forgot... let see, i'll add a few more! :D

Egypt, Qin China, Han China, Tang China, and so on...

oh... right, i forgot... let see, i'll add a few more! :D

Egypt, Qin China, Han China, Tang China, and so on...

None of those are colonial powers, they didn't have any colonies...In distant lands around the world...I'm probably boring you guys with this "world" crap and the "colony" crap but to be a colonial power you have to have colonies around the world. Don't get me wrong, they were big powers, but we're talking about colonial powers for some reason...back on topic...let's talk about De Gaulle...

None of those are colonial powers, they didn't have any colonies...In distant lands around the world...I'm probably boring you guys with this "world" crap and the "colony" crap but to be a colonial power you have to have colonies around the world. Don't get me wrong, they were big powers, but we're talking about colonial powers for some reason...back on topic...let's talk about De Gaulle...

they DID have colonies outside their core homeland! im not saying they had colonies around the world, im saying they HAD colonies, thats all. colonies not necessarily have to be across the oceans.

okay, back to De Gaulle...

they DID have colonies outside their core homeland! im not saying they had colonies around the world, im saying they HAD colonies, thats all. colonies not necessarily have to be across the oceans.

okay, back to De Gaulle...

Whatever, I love you man...let's stop fighting...I think De Gaulle is a good addition to the game...

Whatever, I love you man...

um... i respect you too?


i think De Gaulle is the worst leader addition :)

BUT!!! i think he is 1000000 times better than the HRE.

:D

um... i respect you too?


i think De Gaulle is the worst leader addition :)

BUT!!! i think he is 1000000 times better than the HRE.

:D

I'm not gay man...don't worry :lol: ...I say that to everyone who I actually know in person. Hehee. :lol: :cool: I'm actually getting used to the fact that Charlemagne basically has his own civ. :goodjob:

I say that to everyone who I actually know in person. Hehee. :lol:

ah, really? hmm... who do i know is dutch? i remember there was this girl in Junior High... no, you can't be her. :D

so, do you think the HRE is a bad choice? maybe not terrible, but not that great of a choice?

ah, really? hmm... who do i know is dutch? i remember there was this girl in Junior High... no, you can't be her. :D

so, do you think the HRE is a bad choice? maybe not terrible, but not that great of a choice?

First, I'm not a girl. hehe.
Second, I think that if they had the Assets already, why not add them to the regular game. There were better choices they could've made, but I think since everyone was debating whether Charlemagne was French or German it is kinda a good solution to make the HRE.

well, someone else suggested that he could be a leader for BOTH france and germany...

and someone get back to bashing De Gaulle... or does it have to be me?

Fine. I don't like the addition of De Gaulle, i think another leader should've taken his place. :D

Hitler and Hirohito should be in, they'd shake the place up a bit.

I am happy with everything in the new expansion! There are a few stupid things but overall seems great!

Hitler and Hirohito should be in, they'd shake the place up a bit.

you'd just turn this into a AH debate thread... :mad: :) someones gonna do something soon...

Well that person will be me.

On Hitler, all I am going to say is that no leader who starts a war that causes his country to be split in half, one of which becomes a second world satellite state for the Soviet Union for 40+ years deserves to be in the game.

Besides like I always point out, imagine how creepy a cheerful Hitler will look like...

Back on topic: De Gaulle was a pretty good choice

Well that person will be me.

On Hitler, all I am going to say is that no leader who starts a war that causes his country to be split in half, one of which becomes a second world satellite state for the Soviet Union for 40+ years deserves to be in the game.

Besides like I always point out, imagine how creepy a cheerful Hitler will look like...

Back on topic: De Gaulle was a pretty good choice

I'm anti-Hitler too, and I agree that de Gaulle is a pretty good choice.

i myself dont care if Hitler is in...

but if people make entire long dwindling endless tiresome debates and "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" statements, then i think Hitler shouldn't be in. :)

A cheery Hitler right here

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/263731

A cheery Hitler right here

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/263731

Laughing my ass off...:lol:

Hitler will never be in because the very name offends some people.

And if he is included then there will be way to much criticism to fireaxis, The only way he's in is if he's in a WW2 scenerio.

anyhow, from what i heard, De Gaulle was not that great, and i know he presided over France when it lost all its colonies.
So ? Is France the only country to have lost its colonies during that period ? At least de Gaulle was conscious enough to admit that the colonial time was gone, hence his ambiguous speech in Algers and his final decision to let Algeria go. What I'm saying : decolonization = good.

Colonization screwed up France Financially anyway.

So ? Is France the only country to have lost its colonies during that period ? At least de Gaulle was conscious enough to admit that the colonial time was gone, hence his ambiguous speech in Algers and his final decision to let Algeria go. What I'm saying : decolonization = good.

um... im not saying France was the only one. Britain also was quite "yes, fine, okay" when it gave up Indian/Pakistan after the Indians did a long fight. the French (and maybe not De Gaulle), however, tried to stay in Vietnam too long, and thats why they created a mess there. but im not saying i don't like the addition of De Gaulle just because im Viet. :D

I say Charles De Gaulle isn't in just because of his presidency or anything...he was an important player in the French resistance against the Nazis. In "Vichy" France he was charged with "high treason" by the Nazis. Anybody who gets charged with that and lives deserves to be in Civ. :lol: :goodjob:

um... im not saying France was the only one. Britain also was quite "yes, fine, okay" when it gave up Indian/Pakistan after the Indians did a long fight. the French (and maybe not De Gaulle), however, tried to stay in Vietnam too long, and thats why they created a mess there. but im not saying i don't like the addition of De Gaulle just because im Viet. :DDe Gaulle wasn't leading France at the time of the war of Indochina. Actually, De Gaulle came back to power in 1958, during the war of Algeria, because he was thought to be the only one being able to take a decision that would be accepted by everyone.

Algeria was then in a situation somewhat similar to pre-WW2 South Africa. It was a European colony with a significant minority (about 2 million people) of European families being settled there since the 19th century. De Gaulle decided to grant independence to Algeria, which had as immediate consequence to expell from Algeria these 2 million people who've been shipped to metropolitan France in losing everything they had. This was a courageous decision that no other than De Gaulle could take I believe. I guess that was still a better decision than what happened in south Africa.

Anyhow, we cannot blame De Gaulle about the French decolonization conflicts as they started earlier than his accession to power and he actually, solved them.

De Gaulle wasn't leading France at the time of the war of Indochina. Actually, De Gaulle came back to power in 1958, during the war of Algeria, because he was thought to be the only one being able to take a decision that would be accepted by everyone.

Algeria was then in a situation somewhat similar to pre-WW2 South Africa. It was a European colony with a significant minority (about 2 million people) of European families being settled there since the 19th century. De Gaulle decided to grant independence to Algeria, which had as immediate consequence to expell from Algeria these 2 million people who've been shipped to metropolitan France in losing everything they had. This was a courageous decision that no other than De Gaulle could take I believe. I guess that was still a better decision than what happened in south Africa.

Anyhow, we cannot blame De Gaulle about the French decolonization conflicts as they started earlier than his accession to power and he actually, solved them.


dont worry, im just a nationalistic Viet. :)

i will admit perhaps De Gualle was important to forming modern French identity, but... whatever... i don't like French people that much (no insult, if anyone heres French), only because im Viet. :)

De Gaulle wasn't leading France at the time of the war of Indochina. Actually, De Gaulle came back to power in 1958, during the war of Algeria, because he was thought to be the only one being able to take a decision that would be accepted by everyone.

Algeria was then in a situation somewhat similar to pre-WW2 South Africa. It was a European colony with a significant minority (about 2 million people) of European families being settled there since the 19th century. De Gaulle decided to grant independence to Algeria, which had as immediate consequence to expell from Algeria these 2 million people who've been shipped to metropolitan France in losing everything they had. This was a courageous decision that no other than De Gaulle could take I believe. I guess that was still a better decision than what happened in south Africa.

Anyhow, we cannot blame De Gaulle about the French decolonization conflicts as they started earlier than his accession to power and he actually, solved them.

Yes, I agree...then us dumbasses (the United States of America) have to get involved in Vietnam...:(
i will admit perhaps De Gualle was important to forming modern French identity, but... whatever... i don't like French people that much (no insult, if anyone heres French), only because im Viet.
OK, cybrxkhan, your my friend, but what you just said pisses me off...I'm part French and I have to ask this. Wtf man? I don't get why you don't like french people. I thought we were good colonizers. I'm part British too and I'd have to say that we were pretty terrible to everyone, just watch Ghandi. :lol:

i don't like French people that much (no insult, if anyone heres French), only because im Viet. :)

May I suggest that instead of just coppying the opinion of your peers and countrymen, you try and develop your own based on personal experience? Because the statement you said is simply racist. Now I'm not trying to troll here and I know how hard it is to seperate yourself from the opinions of everyone around you (The english still have a lot of emnity towards the Germans).

EDIT: Just re-read what I wrote. Sorry if it sounds arrogant and pretentious, thats not what I intended.

May I suggest that instead of just coppying the opinion of your peers and countrymen, you try and develop your own based on personal experience? Because the statement you said is simply racist. Now I'm not trying to troll here and I know how hard it is to seperate yourself from the opinions of everyone around you (The english still have a lot of emnity towards the Germans).

EDIT: Just re-read what I wrote. Sorry if it sounds arrogant and pretentious, thats not what I intended.

But it's true...those are some wise words Olleus...

A cheery Hitler right here

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/263731

Lol.. That's great! Here's the cartoon it was based on by the way: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iiHG9Rb5ru8

It's one of the most hilarious cartoons I've ever seen.. If you're easily offended though, I don't think you should watch it. Nevertheless, it's a great piece of propaganda and funny at that too!

ok, i apologize if anyone feels offended if im bashing at France, but you know, as a proud Vietnamese, WE DONT LIKE BEING COLONIZED - WE ALWAYS WANT TO KICK COLONIZERS BUTT. the French weren't too particularly nice with us, though i will say they were somewhat better than the Chinese or Mongols. sorry, but the French tried stuffing their culture in our faces, as all colonizers do; they called themselves "mothers" to the Vietnamese while we were a millenia older than them; im sorry, but we Viets are just to proud, like all those Poles. remember, France, besides CHina, were the only nations to sucessfully colonize (but not dominate) Vietnam. and think about it - as a non-European, Asian country, would we prefer France or China?

well, i suppose im doing my Viet rant again. i will admit, French are very cultured, some French girls are actually very pretty, French are more civilized than Americans (;)), they are huge tasty pieces of bread... ack, all colonizers have their pros and cons. its just a matter of which one you want.

ok, i apologize if anyone feels offended if im bashing at France, but you know, as a proud Vietnamese, WE DONT LIKE BEING COLONIZED - WE ALWAYS WANT TO KICK COLONIZERS BUTT. the French weren't too particularly nice with us, though i will say they were somewhat better than the Chinese or Mongols. sorry, but the French tried stuffing their culture in our faces, as all colonizers do; they called themselves "mothers" to the Vietnamese while we were a millenia older than them; im sorry, but we Viets are just to proud, like all those Poles. remember, France, besides CHina, were the only nations to sucessfully colonize (but not dominate) Vietnam. and think about it - as a non-European, Asian country, would we prefer France or China?

well, i suppose im doing my Viet rant again. i will admit, French are very cultured, some French girls are actually very pretty, French are more civilized than Americans (;)), they are huge tasty pieces of bread... ack, all colonizers have their pros and cons. its just a matter of which one you want.

I completely understand what you're saying as I'm a Chinese/Japanese. Wait maybe not.;) But really my religious backgrounds and my racial backgrounds give me biases towards the west and the mongols.;) so I know where you are coming from. This is who we are and hey maybe we chose our opinions and biases because we liked them and wanted them not because everyone else has them. Trust me, I am the last person to conform with group thinks and social opinion. I don't hate anybody because I don't associate people with their racial stereoptypes and my biases.

This will be my last OT post in this thread I promise.

I'm just a freeking mutt...I don't really have any biases towards anyone...but some people do "strongly annoy" me of my own ethnicity and religion...the only ethinicity I really feel good about are the Dutch, I dont really know why besides they're the only ethnicity I have that hasn't fought bitterly with another one of my ethnicities...
Anyway let's get back on De Gaulle, I don't have anything to say...

oooh oooh let me tear down the dutch too. One word, Boers. Other than that nothing against the Dutch. You asians got it easy and I guess Nigeria too. The only western power that was kind was wait no all of them were cruel to their colonized peoples. This is why I think the USSR was better than the imperialists. Go Eastern Europe YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE!!!! :clap:

Ok but seriously how does De Gaulle make the French playing style different? I never play as anyone outside Persia, some India and Mali but mostly Persia. The only thing I see is that France can have a war for almost eternity without any concequences as long as they can protect the home front. I do believe they have had some troubles with that in their history. :mischief:

oooh oooh let me tear down the dutch too. One word, Boers. Other than that nothing against the Dutch. You asians got it easy and I guess Nigeria too. The only western power that was kind was wait no all of them were cruel to their colonized peoples. This is why I think the USSR was better than the imperialists. Go Eastern Europe YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE!!!! :clap:

Ok but seriously how does De Gaulle make the French playing style different? I never play as anyone outside Persia, some India and Mali but mostly Persia.

First off, who cares about South Africa and that Boer stuff?
Second, it really doesn't change the playing style with the French. Playing as the French is cool, De Gaulle just has good traits.
Third, The USSR was imperialistic too...ever heard of the largest modern country of the world? Its called Russia! Russia used to be the USSR! Eastern europe, well, they're eastern europe...

That's called federal annexation, legally the republics should have had say in the government but they didn't. The European imperialists gave their colonies no legal seats at all. The Boer stuff was cut off from the Dutch after the British came.

That's called federal annexation, legally the republics should have had say in the government but they didn't. The European imperialists gave their colonies no legal seats at all. The Boer stuff was cut off from the Dutch after the British came.

Whatever, let's get back to De Gaulle...

This thread reminds me of a recent De Gaulle-based movie I recently re-watched, "The Day of the Jackal." Posters are divided into two camps: the pro-Gaullist "Lebels," who desperately want De Gaulle alive and well to make the French more than a) the pitiful playground of whiny and weak Louis, or b) the military-industrial complex of Napoleon. Then, there are those from the Jackal's camp, who want nothing more than to axe De Gaulle before his big debute. He is nothing more than another pompous Frenchman who took a leader slot from the Spanish, Japanese, and Arabs.

I'm a Lebel myself, but I know there are a few assassins lurking behind those keyboards...:ninja: :sniper:

About De Gaulle, the name kind of implies being a Celtic leader.

as a proud Vietnamese
I'm not a proud French man. I mean, why should I be proud of being French ? I can be proud of having done things in my life, but really, I have no reason to be proud of being born as French, as I was born without any will from my part (obviously). As for our respective, elder countrymen, I guess there were good guys and bad guys in both camps. It's always like this. So, if you could just stop with your "it's because I'm a Viet" in every post... We really don't care.

never mind about De Gaulle, im over it, remember that Viets can get really crazy sometimes.

anyhow, i saw the De Gaulle on the main site... and as someone suggested, he has a funny resemblance to Inspector Gluseau from the Pink Panther... and if he does start acting like the Inspector, then hes gonna be me favorite leader! :D

Well, they could've just as easily put in Hirohito for that... ;)

I disapprove of having Hirohito as a leader of the French civilization. ;)

never mind about De Gaulle, im over it, remember that Viets can get really crazy sometimes.

anyhow, i saw the De Gaulle on the main site... and as someone suggested, he has a funny resemblance to Inspector Gluseau from the Pink Panther... and if he does start acting like the Inspector, then hes gonna be me favorite leader! :D

Chales De Gaulle already is my favorite leader! Besides Boudica...:groucho:Hehe...
:joke: Charles De Gaulle will always be my favorite sitting next to Roosevelt...
I'm not a proud French man. I mean, why should I be proud of being French ? I can be proud of having done things in my life, but really, I have no reason to be proud of being born as French.
Sigh, Sigh, here we go again...it's you smart old people :lol: who don't have any national pride! Be proud of your country! Be atleast a little patriotic...It's your duty as a citizen (sort of)! I quote Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."
I love that quote...anyway, I'm proud of my heritage. I quote my dad :lol: :
"Why do you care where you come from? It's what you do in life that counts!" Then he went on ranting and raving...*sigh again*
You don't have to be a human advertisement for your country, just be proud man...peace! I have to be proud of my heritage cause you can never be sure if you're going to be able to be proud about what you do in life! :lol:

Anyone care to translate? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4134570960593048216&q=General+De+Gaulle&total=89&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
I'm still learning French...
This one's easy to understand...:lol:
LOL (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4070352794902943626&q=Vive+le+Quebec&total=84&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8)

What about the Arabs? Hardly a mention about them.

There has to be countless leaders that could be used for them.
I agree.

The Arabs definately deserve a new leader more than Japan, maybe not Spain...

I wish they didnt have DAMNED BOUDICA!!!!!, Lincoln and De Gaulle, and instead had Harun al-Rasheed, Meiji and Phillip II. Im fine with Lincoln and De Gaulle (the Celts being in is bad enough, but having a second leader!!!!! BEFORE THE ARABS AND SPANISH!!! GAAAAH!).

Yeah, the Arabs definitely need another leader, but I feel along with another Japanese and Spanish leader. Get rid of Boudica! :)

No, get rid of Brennus. :)

Yeah, Boudica should've been in Warlords. Then a Japanese or Spanish leader for BtS. :rolleyes:

Lets settle this by taking out the celts altogether. :)

Nah, we'll get rid of Khmer. :D

Nah, we'll get rid of Khmer. :D

Hey there then cybrxkhan will have nothing, at least with the khmer there was something close to vietnam.:) ;)

Yeah, i'm looking forward to the Khmer. Something completely different I guess...

Nah, we'll get rid of Khmer. :D

Hey there then cybrxkhan will have nothing, at least with the khmer there was something close to vietnam. :) ;)

how bout lets change his statement:

"Nah, we'll get rid of the Khmer"

to...

"Nah, we'll get rid of the Khmer and put the Vietnamese in."

:D

^There you go, no more discussion. I'd rather have Vietnam actually. The Khmer guys is creepy. :eek:

The Khmer guys is creepy. :eek:

Too yellow.

^There you go, no more discussion. I'd rather have Vietnam actually. The Khmer guys is creepy. :eek:

yea, and then the Viets will have two pretty Asian girls as leaders (Trung sisters), and not some funny looking square faced guy...

but back on topic, i have been forced to accept the addition of De Gaulle. i have known, however, since the very begining, that he is a better choice than someone like... erm... uh... example, anyone...

Jacques Chirac? lol

@cybrxkhan:
TheLastOne36 told me to try to get you to stop ranting about Vietnam and he'll stop with Poland, I told him it was impossible..:lol:. And I'll stop bragging about the Dutch, you in?

^works .

^You're in? :eek: Wow! Really?

^oops... i misread.

:joke:

:mwaha:

Celts = Bad
Khmer = Good

We do need more Hindu civs... and less Europen civs... and generally more Asian civs.

but back on topic, i have been forced to accept the addition of De Gaulle. i have known, however, since the very begining, that he is a better choice than someone like... erm... uh... example, anyone...

Actually you're wrong. De Gaulle is acknowledged as one of the greatest all-time French leaders, so really I think it's a nice addition. The fact that English speaking leaders didn't like him so much doesn't make him less important.

Actually you're wrong. De Gaulle is acknowledged as one of the greatest all-time French leaders, so really I think it's a nice addition. The fact that English speaking leaders didn't like him so much doesn't make him less important.

i never said anything. i didn't say that hes some dirtbag loser, i just couldn't think of an interesting choice of a "worser" leader than him.

Worse ? Any other French leader... Chirac, Miterrand, Louis XVI (not XIV)...

... how about... Louis Philippe... the French king before Joan d' Arc... etc. etc. etc.

You might have to go back to the Medieval Era to find some names, but they are there. Why the names of Chirac and Louis XVI (who was famously beheaded, if I recall correctly) are beyond me.

How about Phillip Augustus? Expanded influence of the French, a couple successful wars, reorganized the government to be more effective, financial prosperity, typical good lead