There have been many opinions about the new leaders in BTS.

What leaders for the included civilizations do you miss?

Certainly not Tut-Ankh-Amon. He was a nobody. He isn't mentioned anywhere in old inscriptions. He died as a child -- obscure.

The only reason he's famous now, is because his is the only grave so far discovered that hasn't been plundered. This -- again -- probably because he was a nobody. A king for a very short while (months?), then dead. Buried, forgotten.

Imagine the treasure that was once put into the famous kings' graves. Would surely have put Tut's to shame many times over.

As for the poll: we need Knut. And Harald Hardrule (Hardrada).

I am happy with the included leader, although I would agree that Spain, Japan and Arabia need additional leaders.

I'm more into the gameplay, which I love, I'm not really concerned over which leaders, civs, wonders, etc are in or out - I like everything they add. In fact, the threads about "my pet leader/civ/whatever should be in/out" kinda crack me up, since I don't see why people get so bunched up over this.

"The boy scouts are worldwide, they should be a civ, with a grand poobah as the leader" .... whatever!

This version of Civ has more of everything - way more than previous versions, and ridiculous levels of mod potential, down to the code itself, and people still complain!

Haile Selassie, Ethiopia for two reasons, one, I have a rastafarian friend, and two, Zara Yaqob after some research was not that great of a leader.

First, let me say I am happy with the included leaders. If they had added more, of the choices given I would've picked Theodore Roosevelt, Cleopatra, Abu Bakr, Hirohito and Philip II.

Cleopatra... could do with more female leaders in the game, but not religious freaks like Maria Theresa or plain insane ones, like Joan of Arc...

Well I know they'll never include Hitler, so I'm going to give my vote to Theodora. I was very excited to hear that the Byzantines were returning (with the awesomeness of Cataphracts :)) only to find that Justinian looks ridiculous with that crown squishing his tiny head. :lol:

I would also like to see more female leaders, Boudica was a welcomed addition but was the only women added in Beyond the Sword. :sad:

Harun al-Rashid ("other"), Canute and Meiji.

Looks like a close field.

Maybe I should have included Margareta of Scandinavia, too, and dropped Tutankhamun.

Lenin is the only one that jumps out from that list. Spain needs another leader though, I agree.

Canute
Abu
Meiji ;)

Maybe, Xerxes, Persia definetly needs another leader. Besides wouldn't it be great to get revenge on the greeks for Thermopylae, which shouldn't have had Leonidas as the hero, but a certain Greek naval commander whose name escapes me.

Also they should add another leader for the byzantines

I chose Abu Bakr and Meiji. Japan and Arabia each need an additional leader.

I voted for Nero and Abu Bakr.

Nero-- because Rome is my favorite Civ in the game, so why not more Roman Emperors for me? Actually, I would of prefered Caligula over Nero. ;)

Abu Bakr-- Only because the Arabians need another Leader besides Saladin.


The ones I would of liked to of seen (but weren't listed are):

Caligula (as mentioned above)
Ronald Reagan (probably one of the best U.S. presidents in history)
Nebuchadnezzar

Xerxes I for Persia, and Meiji is crucial for Japan (far more than Hiroito)!

Ronald Reagan was one of the worst US presidents in history and another Roosevelt doesn't fit, so perhaps Jefferson. Nero would be nice for Rome. Russia already has three leaders, and we have Stalin as the icon of communism; Lenin was important as well, for the revolution, but he didn't rule the USSR for long.

As for the rest, I don't know enough about them to give an educated opinion. :p

Can't believe noones thought of this- TOYOTOMI HIDEYOSHI AND ODA NOBUNAGA NEED TO BE WITH JAPAN!! Jeun de' Arc practically saved France, so she would be a great addition.

Ronald Reagan was one of the worst US presidents in history

He only orchistrated the downfall of the Soviet Union... hardly worth mentioning, I guess. :rolleyes:

I voted for Nero and Abu Bakr.

Nero-- because Rome is my favorite Civ in the game, so why not more Roman Emperors for me? Actually, I would of prefered Caligula over Nero. ;)

Abu Bakr-- Only because the Arabians need another Leader besides Saladin.


The ones I would of liked to of seen (but weren't listed are):

Caligula (as mentioned above)
Ronald Reagan (probably one of the best U.S. presidents in history)
Nebuchadnezzar

No need for nero or any other new roman leaders since we have Justinian as the 3rd Roman Empire leader.

I would have liked Queen Dido for Carthage...more women need to be in the game and this one actually deserves to be in, not just some lady picked just because she is a lady....

I'm glad Xerxes WASN'T included...why does he need to be in? we already have two of his relatives in aaand all he really did was squander his inheritance and began the age of decline of his empire...

there are others that don't belong either, like nero, cleopatra, and a few others, and many of the options are for civ's with 3 leaders already...

i would, however, like to see a mod of pompous and innefective and over all damaging rulers...wouldn't that be fun? imagine caligula vs andrew johnson along wiht many other silly and terrible rulers... can have rules where you have to spend all your money each turn by throwing lavish parties, building rediculous monuments, and grinding down great armies into nothingness for trivial gains ;)

Sergent Pepper would make a good English ruler in such a mod...

He only orchistrated the downfall of the Soviet Union... hardly worth mentioning, I guess. :rolleyes:
Far from it. The state of Soviet Union had been worsening for years thanks to a multitude of factors. Reagan's aggressive policy helped, but was definitely not the prime determinant.

He enacted economic measures that didn't bring the US from its recessions in the 1980's as expected, leading to an increase in poverty and poorer living standards. His appalling international policy ended up funding terrorist groups (who do you think Bin Laden got his weapons from, originally to fight the Soviets?) and placing violators of human rights in power all around the globe.

But I digress... This isn't the right topic to discuss that.

I voted for several, but I am also pleased with those included. The game can easily feature more! I'm not concerned if 2 leaders of different civs have the same traits - duplication like that only becomes redundant if you choose to allow "any leader for any civ" - which doesn't really work for me. (Sitting Bull of the Persians? That's too silly for me! :nono: :cringe:)

I included Other as well. Joan of Arc seems as least as relevent as Boudicca to me, I like Hiawatha and I think many more NA leaders are possible. Canute, Theodora, Abu, Indira, Philip II and Meiji are all interesting. Chiang Kai-shek would be a good foil for Mao!

To continue the political rabbit trail, I can't really argue with you about the whole "ended up funding terrorists and human rights violators," but it's not exactly abnormal for the US in the 20th or even 21st centuries. We're really quite bad at labeling allies of opportunity as life-long friends, arming them, and expecting them to conform themselves to whatever standards we set for them. Didn't work in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc. We're supposedly arming Iraqui militias now simply because they've decided at the moment that they hate Al-Queda more than us (want to guess how long that alliance will last once Al-Queda's no longer in their backyards?). I frankly would not be at all surprised if Israel decided that they didn't like us sometime in the next couple of decades and made us regret funding them as well. Bottom line, Reagan did that sort of thing, but it's not a Reagan thing, it's an American thing.

As far as his economic policies, that depends on who you ask. Some say he put the things in place that later fixed the recession. Others say that he made it worse and that his successors fixed it. I was only a few years old during his presidency, and I'm not an economist, so I'm not going to claim expertise. (I'm rather surprised to see somebody from Argentina making statements about internal American economics from two decades ago, but maybe you have qualifications that aren't apparent.)

It's also true that Reagan really only contributed to the winning of the Cold War; the USSR wasn't exactly healthy and most seem to believe that it died a natural death from internal corruption. Nevertheless, Reagan made some good speeches and definitely did a great deal to a) help along the toppling of the Soviet Union and b) try to work with those who would be left when it fell.

The bottom line is that Reagan may not have been great, but I'm not sure how many presidents that word can really be applied to. On the other side, he didn't screw things up nearly as much as some other leaders. Finally, Reagan is probably the last man in the White House that, after a number of history classes, news viewing, and independant research (his newly-released diaries are great), I still have a great deal of respect for as a level-headed man who really tried his best. He wasn't a status-quo guy, of a public relations snake, or a stubborn one-man show. He was just a really good, solid guy for all the good, solid guys in America.

My four cents.

Nevertheless, to bring this back on topic, I would leave him out of Civ, because America already has three leaders and doesn't need a fourth. If there was a fourth, he'd be my first choice because he a) represents the Cold War era, b) represents a more contemporary world, and c) is the only latter 20th century president who I think is generally well-liked still.

Alcibiades (for the Greeks) could be fun! He's probably the craziest I 've ever read about, although he betrayed everyone too often, and so nobody likes him :)

While Joan of Arc was there in Civilization III, she shouldn't have, and she shouldn't be in Civ4 either. While she was a very important figure in France during her short life, she didn't rule the country (nor was anywhere near that position).


PS: Leonidas for Greece, naturally ("This. Is. GREEEEEEEEECE!!!!!" :aargh:).

Just kidding. :lol:

Who would suggest Hirohito over Meiji? :smoke: Meiji took Japan from being a medieval society to an industrial powerhouse capable of competing in the global market with Europe. Hirohito was just the puppet of a runaway military machine.

I would like to see the Ayatollah Khomeni. Modern Iranians very much consider themselves the direct decendants of ancient persia. and Khomeni was arguably one of the most impactful leaders of the 20th C., whether or not you agree with that iimpact. Loved and adored by millions worldwide. Despised by millions worldwide. The UU could be the basijis to take the place of modern infantry or whatever that unit is and gets some bonus against modern armour and a +50 bonus against Babylon or Sumeria. that'd be cool.

I picked both American leaders (both due to my really liking them (both), and partially due to likely bias as an American).

Of all of the ones I chose I probably miss Canute the most! That and maybe no helmet with Horns ;)

I also voted for Abu Bakr and Lenin.

I miss a Swedish civ to be quite frank. Compared to a couple of the other civs 'times of greatness' during history, swedens was not a short one. I would really want to see a swedish civ with Karl XII as leader.

'Sweden was, between 1611 and 1718, one of the great powers of Europe. In modern historiography this period is known as the Swedish Empire, or Stormaktstiden'

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Sweden_as_a_Great_Power

I wouldn't mind if leaderheads had the ability to be a .jpg or something, or even if they couldn't be animated at all.

If I want my civiilsation to be represented by a turkey sandwich or a giant penis with Mr Potato Head accessories I should be able to just go to google images and maybe fire up GIMP or Photoshop and import it in.

He only orchistrated the downfall of the Soviet Union... hardly worth mentioning, I guess. :rolleyes:

You have just shot up about 50 points in my estimation, Grave (if that's even possible). :goodjob:

We should get someone to make a 3D LH of him like in Civ 3.

Adolf Hitler. One of the best dictators of all time.

Adolf Hitler. One of the best dictators of all time.

Argh! I wish people would stop trying to start crap about Adolf 'My Own Voice Gives Me an Erection' Hitler! Cripes, we've had enough flame wars over this tired old subject.

It`s just my opinion and you are free to disagree. I just said I liked to have him in the game.

I think Ali should be in there instead of Abu Bakr for the Arabs. I would prefer for there to be a non-Muslim Arab in there, but in pre-Islamic times the Arabs were not a significant power.
However, I'd also say Haile Selassie, who was probably as great as Zara Yabob but also far more widely known for Ethiopia, also perhaps Vercingetorix for the Celts should be in there.
I think leaders should be very individual but also chronologically spread out. For this reason I think they should have either Ivan the Great or Ivan the Terrible instead of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, who were both leaders during the 18th century Russian Enlightenment. Similarly, I don't think having Xerxes or Darius as well as Cyrus is a good idea. Khosrau I, Sassanid Emperor, would be more interesting.

Ali? What Ali?

Franco, Hirohito and the man above all men teddy roosevelt!!!!!!!

Why the heck would Chiang Kai-shek be in anything other then a WWII scenario

I voted for Phillip II, Spain needs another leader and Franco is just to offensive... at least for me personally :mad: just like Hitler or Mussolini would be for other people.

<- By the way I had to create another account, I just got BTS and started playing Civ again but forgot my username and everything else... :confused:

Abu Bekr for sure

Ali? What Ali?
Ali the Caliph and Imam.
Shi'ites believe that Muhammad expressed God's wish that Ali become the Caliph after his death, and resent Abu Bakr for becoming Caliph in violation of God's will. By contrast, Ali is both recognised as a rightful Caliph, by Shi'ites through divine appointment and by Sunnis by election by the Muslims, revered by both sects and recognised as a great warrior, diplomat and theologian.

Viking represented by a norwegian ????

Danes was in control of norway most of the time, and it was mainly danes that took controll of what they later formed into England !

Sweyn I, or Sweyn Forkbeard, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, also known as Swegen and Swein, (Old Norse: Sveinn Tjúguskegg, Norwegian: Svein Tjugeskjegg, Swedish: Sven Tveskägg; Danish: Svend Tveskæg, originally Tjugeskæg or Tyvskæg), (c. 960–February 3, 1014), was king of Denmark and England, as well as parts of Norway. He was a Viking leader and the father of Canute the Great. He was, on his own father Harald Bluetooth's death, King of Denmark, in late 986, or early 987, and was ruler over most of Norway in 1000, with allegiance of the Trondejarl, Erik of Lade. In 1013, he was, shortly before his death, King of England, after a long forbade conquest. With the last months of his life, he was the Danish sovereign of a North Sea empire, which only his son Cnut was to rival in northern Europe.

:goodjob:

Xerxes because he is kind

There is no scandinavea civ. ;)

Personally, I'd say for the Japanese, Emperor Meiji for starters. Also, perhaps they could add the Japanese Goddess Izanami from Shinto mythology in as a female leader for Japan? She was pretty important in religion and heck, isn't Gilgamesh basically "mythology", as is Pericles, yet there both still in?

I do think for a World War II scenario that both Hitler and Chiang Kai-Shek should be modded in. Firaxis/2K should have just pulled a Paradox and not added either Hitler or Chiang in German or Chinese versions, like Paradox do with their HOI 2 series.

It's debatable wether or not FDR is worth having in at all. To be honest, I'd prefer Teddy Roosevelt. Thomas Jefferson would be good. What about John F Kennedy? And Ronald Reagan......perhaps. To be honest, I don't mind Reagan.

I would have liked Queen Dido for Carthage...more women need to be in the game and this one actually deserves to be in, not just some lady picked just because she is a lady....



Queen Dido is a legendary character, not a real queen- what traits would she have, madly falling in love with Trojans when Venus decides she wants her to? Setting herself on fire?

And to the person asking who won the naval war against the Persians (at Salamis): That'd be Themistocles

I find it ironic that with Pericles as your leader, by all rights, when you found Sparta, the city should declare war against your capitol.

And as to a leader I would have chosen:
Gaius Marius (Rome) or Diocletian (Rome)

Xerxes because after i saw 300 all I wanted to do was be Xerxes and attack sparta with my immortals and war elephants, and get slaughtered by their phalanx

I voted for Meiji, Philip II and Abu Bakr. I also would like Gustav II Adolf of Sweden in. But that would mean a new Civ.

Ali the Caliph and Imam.
Shi'ites believe that Muhammad expressed God's wish that Ali become the Caliph after his death, and resent Abu Bakr for becoming Caliph in violation of God's will. By contrast, Ali is both recognised as a rightful Caliph, by Shi'ites through divine appointment and by Sunnis by election by the Muslims, revered by both sects and recognised as a great warrior, diplomat and theologian.

that is the whole reason there are two branches of islam and we all know Abu Bekr was a better leader.:lol:

Hitler


I KNOW he wasn't an option in the poll and I'm not trying to start a big flame war or another Hitler discussion here. I just think it's interesting to have leaders both famous and infamous to choose from.

Nuff said

It's sad that chancellor Adenauer doesn't get more support. He restored sovereignty, created the Wirtschaftswunder (Financial & Organized?), reconciled with France, started a settlement with Israel and opened diplomacy with the USSR.

I would call him the greatest of all European post-war politicians.

t's sad that chancellor Adenauer doesn't get more support.
I second that.

Being a German, I am really disappointed with the German leaders in the game - two Prussians!? Sure they are both fascinating historic figures, but it's hard to identify with them. And more diversity would have been good.
I was hoping for Firaxis to include a modern German leader in BtS. My favourite is Adenauer - another good choice would be Friedrich Ebert.
Disagree about the traits though - Adenauer should definitely be Industrious. Industrious + Financial.

I also agree to the poster who mentioned Gustav Adolph - I really miss the Swedes. :) I mean, look what big a lobby Poland has on this forum. And Austria is mentioned quite often. But hardly anyone seems to like the Swedish, though they were imho far more important than the latter two.

Oh, and another leader no one has mentioned yet that I'd like to see in Civ: Wallenstein for the HRE. He's not exactly been a "leader", however, I still think he qualifies for a leader position in the game.

that is the whole reason there are two branches of islam and we all know Abu Bekr was a better leader.:lol:

do we all know that?

speak for yourself.

Yi Song-gye and Park Chung-hee of Korea. They both have played role that is arguably far more prominent than Wang Kon.

Rome should have Trajan or Marcus Aurelius.

Lack of Nehru for India is at best, a disturbing oversight. Same for Adenauer.

I do think that leaders should be limited to 4 at the most. In fact four might be too many

Well I know they'll never include Hitler, so I'm going to give my vote to Theodora. I was very excited to hear that the Byzantines were returning (with the awesomeness of Cataphracts :)) only to find that Justinian looks ridiculous with that crown squishing his tiny head. :lol:


I ACTUALLY thought Justinian looked a lot lik a woman in BTS hehe.
And there isn't many women's leader because most 'important' civilizations had/have very few women's leader. They were more likely the leader of the 'Castle's' cleaners :rolleyes:

NO MORE Americans! Bring on the ARABS!!!

Which reminds, Saladin being the ruler of the arabian empire is wrong because

1. He was a Kurd
2. He was then King of Egypt.....

that is the whole reason there are two branches of islam and we all know Abu Bekr was a better leader.:lol:
Ali didn't have an opportunity to achieve more because he didn't want to increase Muslim disunity by challenging the Sunni Rashidun who were elected before him.
The fact is that most Sunnis agree that Ali was as great a man as Abu Bakr. Using Abu Bakr could be seen as endorsing the Sunni opinion on the succession to Muhammad, and there's no need to do something so contentious when there is a perfectly good alternative in Ali.

Saladin may have been ethnically Kurdish, but Arabness is usually associated with the Arabic culture and in particular language rather than ethnicity itself. Ancient Macedonian identity is similar, being considered Greek (ish) even if they were ethnically distinct, so why do we have no problem with the idea of the Macedonian Alexander the Great leading the Greeks? The simplest answer would be because he did. Someone doesn't have to be an ethnic Greek to lead the Greeks, just as someone doesn't have to be an ethnic Arab to lead the Arabs. Catherine the Great was a Prussian, but there's no denying that however she got there she was Empress of Russia.

May i ask why people want Xerxes I ? :p he really wasent that great there are alot more persian leaders that did more than him

isn't Gilgamesh basically "mythology", as is Pericles, yet there both still in?

Gilgamesh is a mythological figure, but Pericles is solidly historical.

Maybe it's just regional pride talking, but I wouldn't have minded seeing a Canadian Civilization, even with just one leader - John A. McDonald (Financial/Expansive), William Lyon McKenzie King (Charismatic/Creative), or Pierre Trudeau (Philosophical/Creative) would all have been suitable choices.

Also, we would get the Mountie as a UU and the Hockey Rink as the UB.

(But I wouldn't have minded seeing Knut, or Geronimo, or another Japanese leader.)

May i ask why people want Xerxes I ? :p he really wasent that great there are alot more persian leaders that did more than him

In a number? 300.

I'm not a fan of Xerxes as an option, but he's noticeable now because of the movie.

I voted for pretty much any of the leaders that would give one-leader Civs the option that they should have. Canute, Abu Bakr, Franco, and especially the Meiji Emperor. Much more so than that chump Hirohito.

While I'm not going to open the Hitler can of worms, I see no reason to exclude leaders if they are more infamous than famous. After all, Stalin is in the game. Leaders like Franco, Tojo, *insert own pet favorite here* bring complexity to the game, which is a good thing.

I would like to have some Medieval European leaders (not Joan of Arc) from the times of Crusades and knights: Richard the Lionheart, Barbarosa, etc
There is no true European Medieval leader in the game at the moment (one may argue about Viking guy and Charlemagne but ...)

Having Nero as a leader would be comparable to having Hitler. (Though there are some leaders that already give everyone favorite Austrian a run for his money). He helped to kill Claudius, which put him on the throne, then after having his mother run the country for years he severed ties with her, then when she wanted another youth to take the throne, Nero poisoned him! He was had unsatiable lust, and cared nothing for the many women he married and had affairs with. He slowly killed all political rivals, including his mother, in his drive to absolute power. Anyone who spoke against him was killed or exiled. One of his high points was two succesful wars against Parthia over the province of Armenia, that more or less resulted in Parthis becoming a Roman vassal. He made himself popular with the lowerclasses at any expense, in an attempt to make his dictatorial policies acceptable. And he mercilessly put down the rebillion in Britian led by ever civers favorite big breasted celt, Boudica. In the Jewish rebellion, he destroyed the Temple of Solomon for no reason other than his contempt for Jews and religion in general. He did give massive relief out of his own pockets to the citizens of Rome after the fire that destroyed much of the city. Then when Romans blamed him for the fire, he choose Christians as the scapegoat and had all Christians found to be tortured, crucified and burned. Eventually he was exiled, and commited suicide.

So basically, he was the same as everyonther psycho-dictater. He did some good thigs for his country, but in the end, proved himself to be a madman driven by greed, and a hunger for power, without any restraint from morals or conscience, and had a total contept for religion.

What a emperor... I'm sure Stalin took notes....:goodjob:

I said Lenin. I missed him so much (I'd rather have him then Stalin) I made him! :D (signature)

Al gore for the win :)

^^ I would boycott Civ and Firaxis until I die...

Just a spelling correction. It is Maria Theresia, not Maria Theresa.

Haile Selassie, Ethiopia for two reasons, one, I have a rastafarian friend, and two, Zara Yaqob after some research was not that great of a leader.

He certainly was not as insignificant as Haile Selassie.

As for certain other suggestions, Cleopatra was not Egyptian at all; she was Greek-Macedonian. The Meiji Emperor is impossible as a leader of the Japanese civ because the Japanese would not accept having an Emperor desecrated in that way. It has been covered in previous debates. Also, I mean no disrespect to Theodore Roosevelt, but does America really need a fourth leader? For the same reason, I am opposed to Joan of Arc even though I really liked her in Civ III.

Lenin is the only one that jumps out from that list. Spain needs another leader though, I agree.

If so, make it Carlos V, not Franco, What's so great about a rebellious general who overthrows the republic, massacres a lot of people (with the assistance of his friends Hitler and Mussolini) and harbours Nazi war criminals after the Second World War?

I voted for Nero and Abu Bakr.

Nero-- because Rome is my favorite Civ in the game, so why not more Roman Emperors for me? Actually, I would of prefered Caligula over Nero. ;)

Abu Bakr-- Only because the Arabians need another Leader besides Saladin.


The ones I would of liked to of seen (but weren't listed are):

Caligula (as mentioned above)
Ronald Reagan (probably one of the best U.S. presidents in history)
Nebuchadnezzar

If you want a good Roman leader, as opposed to a cruel and incompetent one, you should go for someone like Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius.

Other considerations apart, isn't Reagan a bit too close in time? Furthermore, he did not "orchestrate the downfall of the Soviet Union" - the only thing he orchestrated was his own snoring. Still, my basic point is that I think leaders from WW II are already a bit too close in time, and I should like to see Mao go, and I am against all the modern civ leaders suggested. Jawaharlal Nehru, for Chrissake! Why not Sabu?