I was just wondering if Firaxis was going to fix their mistake with the Chinese leader. Mao was NOT leader of China in 1936, he wasn't until 1949, and we shouldn't give him any extra time, even if it is on a video game. Can they fix it in the next patch??? PLEASE????

Also he was Chairman Mao not Chairman Zedong lol. It would be like calling Washington "President George".

The same could be said of a lot of the other leaders. For example Churchill wasn't Prime Minister of the UK until 1940. Curtin wasn't PM of Australia until 1941. I guess it's just a decision as to which leader around the time of the war is the most well known.

Unfortunately Civ IV doesn't support leader switching mid-game. Perhaps in Civ V...

Mind you it'd be kind of funny to have Neville Chamberlain as leader of the UK. I wonder what his traits would be?

Next time you post a thread like this, could make sure this hasn't been fixed.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=168701

if (Emperor2 == Pwned!)
{
Will9++;
}


:D

Well Dale probably picked well know leaders that were around at that time. Not ones that were at that time.

If you grab the add-on it adds Chiang Kai-Shek instead of Mao. Although when it comes down to which of the two fought the Japanese better, I'm sticking with Mao.

If you grab the add-on it adds Chiang Kai-Shek instead of Mao. Although when it comes down to which of the two fought the Japanese better, I'm sticking with Mao.
It's like choosing between General George McClellan or General Ambrose Burnsides to command your offensive. For non-Americans, they were both incompetent US generals during the civil war, though, to be fair, McClellan was fine at defending and great at logistics, he just had no nerve...

Best case would be to represent both factions and their in-fighting, but that would probably make Japan overpowered...

It's like choosing between General George McClellan or General Ambrose Burnsides to command your offensive. For non-Americans, they were both incompetent US generals during the civil war, though, to be fair, McClellan was fine at defending and great at logistics, he just had no nerve...

Best case would be to represent both factions and their in-fighting, but that would probably make Japan overpowered...

Considering that by the end of World War 2, 90% of the Japanese ground forces were hunting communist guerrillas rather than engaging the decrepit Guomindang army, I'd be willing to state that there's some difference ;). Of course, neither group had the ability to actively attack the Japanese units fortified within the conquered Chinese cities (most admited that the countryside belonged to the CCP, however). But the Communists did a far better job of tying down the Japanese and limiting their gains than the Guomindang did.