Here is a list of all the current leaders of the included civs:
United States of America: George W. Bush (Aggressive, Imperialistic)
Canada: Stephen Harper (Protective, Organised)
Mexico: Felipe Calderón (Organised, Financial)
China: Wen Jiabao (Organised, Industrious)
North Korea: Kim Yong-Il (Protective, Aggresive)
Russia: Vladimir Putin (Expansive, Industrious)
Kazakhstan: Nursultan Nazarbaev (Protective, Charismatic)
Israel: Ehud Olmert (Protective, Expansive)
Palestine: Mahmud Abbas (Spiritual, Protective)
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak (Organised, Spiritual)
Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Spiritual, Aggressive)
South Korea: Lee Myung-bak (Financial, Industrious)
Nigeria: Umaru Yar'Adua (Organised, Philosophical)
Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf (Aggressive, Expansive)
India: Manmohan Singh (Financial, Creative)
Venezuela: Hugo Chavez (Charismatic, Imperialistic)
Colombia: Álvaro Uribe (Aggressive, Financial)
Brazil: Lula da Silva (Philosophical, Charismatic)
Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Charismatic, Financial)
Myanmar: Than Shwe (Organised, Protective)
Japan: Yasuo Fukuda (Industrious, Philosophical)
Australia: Kevin Rudd (Philosophical, Financial)
Philippines: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Organised, Protective)
Indonesia: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Protective, Creative)
Saudi Arabia: Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (Spiritual, Financial)
Sudan: Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Aggressive, Spiritual)
South Africa: Thabo Mbeki (Financial, Protective)
European Union: José Manuel Barroso (Financial, Industrious)
Permanent Neutrality: Micheline Calmy-Rey (Philosophical, Creative)
NATO: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Expansive, Imperialistic)
Independent African States: Muammar al-Gaddafi (Charismatic, Organised)
African Union: Jakaya Kikwete (Protective, Expansive)
Taiwan: Chen Shui-bian (Protective, Industrious)

Traits are up for discussion, and it may turn out that some leaders are no longer in power when we release the mod, so they may change too.

Also, what would everyone think to having vices like in isau's Saints and Sinners mod?

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

Why is there both Nato and EU?

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

Why is there both Nato and EU?
*sigh*
Maybe we should link the original thread in every forum...
NATO was done too include nation states that are considered "western" or have military pacts with western states and are not really aligned with the EU but are too small to include as independent civs: UK, Turkey, Albania, Croatia etc.

Nice explanation :) I hope you don't mind me using your list.

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.


*sigh*
Maybe we should link the original thread in every forum...
NATO was done too include nation states that are considered "western" or have military pacts with western states and are not really aligned with the EU but are too small to include as independent civs: UK, Turkey, Albania, Croatia etc.

OK, but I think the UK and Turkey are important enough to be independent civs.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

Ok, Medvedev is not the ruler of his country. Putin is. I don't care what Medvedev is nominally (Putin is also PM, which could have more power even on paper), Putin is running the country.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.Interesting idea. I can imagine as we move through time, we'll change the leaders and geography to fit what happens later in the year, but something like that would be an interesting idea to work on. :)
Ok, Medvedev is not the ruler of his country. Putin is. I don't care what Medvedev is nominally (Putin is also PM, which could have more power even on paper), Putin is running the country.Oops, I thought I'd already changed that. It's now fixed in the first post.

I really don;t want to start a forum fight here, but...Nato as Civilization? I know your explanation, but still. NATO is an organization of many Civs. Including it would force the US and Canada (its 1st and 3rd largest contributors, IIRC) in it too to make it seem 'normal' (IMO). The UK and Turkey are important enough to be separate, and the Balkan states (at least, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Slovenia) are in talks to join the EU by 2011. Serbia could be created to cover Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, and Albania could be lumped with the EU as well. I know it sounds like I'm a minimalist, but having a 'NATO' Civ, when its just an alliance of many Civs, doesn't seem to me to be a good idea..

UK and turkey should be included as independant civs,I agree .I think that the idea that leaders should be replaced democratically is interesting as well............"Pat buchanan, has been voted leader by our democracy (Pat buchanan, Spiritual and agressive, will lead for 4 years)-maybe-possibly- have it linked with something like revolution .If your people are unhappy ,they will kick your party out.Parties could mean a change in civics ie health care etc

Ok, Gooblah, notice that this thread is called Leaders and there is a separate thread called Civs Discussion. ;)

I mean ,france,the uk and germany are much more powerful politically than say burma,canada or taiwan-so maybe enlarge germanyto include eastern EU nations,france to include spain and italy and make turkey a 'secular middle eastern civ'.Albania +croatia dont really need to be mentioned at all,or maybe just as independants.Add taiwan +south koreato america,burma +sudan as failed states and we might have a balance-just a suggestion though.If it has to happen the im fine with a eu civ.

Ok, Gooblah, notice that this thread is called Leaders and there is a separate thread called Civs Discussion. ;)

sorry:blush::crazyeye:

Hehe. Never mind. It's just easier to keep the comments in one place so that they don't get lost.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2007/01-january/e0110a.ht
since the capital of The NATO civ is in the uk ,why not have gordon brown-he'll be there for the next two years (financial,organised)

I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.

:(yeah,sorry-stick with jaap

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

I had that idea, too. It would be nice to have something to simulate the term of office.
If the player chooses a democratic civic, every 4 years, or 48 turns there should be an election. If a lot of citizens are unhappy a fictional opponent will be elected as leader of your civilization. Then you'd have to turn over control to the AI for a couple of turns. Next time you'd win the election automatically and are in charge again...
The same system should work for AI leaders. If one AI leader loses the election, the leader name could change and there could be random but slight effects on the relationship to other leaders. Maybe even one leader trait changes...
For the human player this should simulate the pressure on a leader to neglect important issues for the sake of winning an election.

I guess it's a hard job to mod that but we could keep it in mind for a later version of this mod.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=266295
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173593
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102537
Sorry-but ive just remembered some civ3 scenario that are similar to this(though this is well better)-of no use what so ever,but hey!

How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.

How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.

But since our mod is starting in the present...wouldn't it be odd to have a "historical" playmode? I mean what events should we include that could happen? That would be more or less crystal ball gazing...no real difference to free play. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan. :lol:

By historical I mean things that are most definitely going to happen will happen like elections, where as in free play you just play like a regular game. So rather than a complicated democratic system we just, other than this year, randomly change leaders names and traits every four years so you have the illusion of a complicated democratic system. This will also prevent the US from doing something they won't do like become a police state (or would they :confused:).

chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.

Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan.

I have read up on everything you guys have so far and I like everything except this thread. If you don't want to alienate people I suggest leaving political bias at the door. Neither Bush nor Chavez are Imperialistic. zbelg makes my point for me.

Bush
Aggressive
Protective
He is fighting Islamic Extremism aggressively to protect the west. Some may agree or disagree if it is working but it is not an attempt to expand an empire. So Imperialistic is a poke at Bush and is not an accurate trait.

Chavez
Organized-
Protective-
He has beefed up the Venezuela military since he took office. So protective is a viable trait. Charismatic isn't a good trait for him IMO. Most of the
people in Venezuela are very poor and this number is rising. Giving him a +happy in each city just seems wrong. Organized fits him much better.

EDIT: I would change N. Korea to Agg/Imp. The only thing stopping them from invading and taking over S. Korea again is the US military.

Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.

Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.

There is so much wrong with what you just said that we would need a seperate thread to break it all down (which we can do if you want). I was simply suggesting we leave political bias and (since you've now added some) propaganda out of the creation of this game. I know people hate Bush, its easy to blame the worlds problems on one man and one country. Through this fog lets keep a since of realism. I just don't want people that would genuinely like this mod to be turned off if it takes an anti-american or anti-any other nation stance.

OK, these are serious accusations. :)
It's hard doing a mod that represents today's world and not getting political. Every way of looking at the world is influenced by each one's individual political preferences. I guess some North Koreans would cry out aloud if you call their leader Agg./Imp. It all depends on somebody's point of view. No-one is right or wrong. Of course you could remove all "negative sounding" leader traits from the game if you don't want anybody to be turned off. And I agree with you: Leader traits are something very subjective. Probably the most subjective aspect of the game. In vanilla this is less a problem because most times history has adjudicated on leaders of the past. But this here is especially tough because every living leader has his devotees who see something different than his opponents.
I wrote you a PM.

Yes there needs to be political discussion in a real time mod but that doesn't mean we have to use it as another way to vent our IBS (irritable bush syndrome). Hey I don't agree with alot of his decisions but he's doing what he thinks is right and I'll let history be the judge. As far as the Imperialistic trait there just aren't any empires in the world today so the Imperialistic trait is pretty outdated. I said N.Korea may fall under this because they are a military state and would be overtaking there neighbor if not for the US and S. Korean militaries holding down the line. As for the heated political discussion we'll have it via PM as not to clog up this thread with the normal talking points.

Chavez did have huge initial success in reducing poverty and..............well.8-hour tv talks!Thats got to be worth something!

As far as Chavez I guess he would fit the Charismatic trait. He has the whole champion of the people image in Latin America. Like a new Castro but we all see how that turned out. Although there is no country that loves their leader more than N.Korea. They are of course brainwashed by the state and not just simply mislead like Chavez has done.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

But it would have been strange then cause if there's an election in for example the US and you are russia then the leaderhead won't change, or can you fix that? If so that would be awesome

I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.
He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.

And he is NOT Financial/Organised, otherwise this country would be in the middle of a boom and not a bust (wasn't it he who said "an end to boom and bust"...famous last words, anyone?). Knowing people who know him, Organised/Protective is more like it, Blair having been Charismatic/Aggressive. (David Cameron = Creative/Charismatic, but since I actually do know him, let me put it charitably that perhaps Creative/Stoned-half-the-time would be more like it. The time I role-played a civ game as him - well, OK, using Gilgamesh's Creative/Protective stats - it was the only single game in which I have lost the Apostolic Palace building).

I'll add my 0.02 :commerce: to the Civs thread, as the UK should be in as an independent civ. The EU is not a coherent global power, nor does it have its own army - take it from me as someone who knows these things intimately - and could not really be considered a civ. Particularly given the Treaty of Lisbon has failed, it really can't be organised into a single unit. If you are putting Kazakhstan (!) in, then the UK should be in on its own.

He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.

and ed balls is too loyal,the two alans too uncharismatic, the lefties dont have enough support ,and frankly, charles clarke is just lying to himself.
Okay, I get your point,but he did make his name being a successful chancellor, even though he hasnt been the best of PMs.:cool:but ok

My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

So why then?

i think it's better with PM.

My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

It wouldn't work. If you have the Queen as head of state for the UK, then she'd have to be the head of state for all the British Dominions/Commonwealth realms Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea which in turn would make little sense as she is the Queen of each country separately. You wouldn't be able to have the Queen of Australia declare war on herself as the Queen of Papua New Guinea.

And if you'd want the "Head of the State" as the leader for every country you'd have e.g. Horst Köhler for Germany instead of Angela Merkel and Giorgio Napolitano for Italy instead of Silvio Berlusconi. That would be no fun...

Bush
Aggressive
Protective
He is fighting Islamic Extremism aggressively to protect the west. Some may agree or disagree if it is working but it is not an attempt to expand an empire. So Imperialistic is a poke at Bush and is not an accurate trait.



Well, personally I feel the effects of imperialistic,if not the title is suitable for bush,but more importantly, a john mccain leader would have agg+pro

Australia: Kevin Rudd (Philosophical, Financial)

I don't agree with Rudd being given the "financial" trait. In the course of him trying to do something "good" for the lower class of people in Australia, he'll inadvertently drive up inflation by doing what every Labour government has done for the past 30 years, "giving a helping hand to the poor".

I think that "charismatic" trait would suit Rudd better as he could talk a cow right out of it's calf..... that and the fact he's in love with China and manages to keep them happy.

If EU is going to be a single civ, I think it would be a better idea to put in Angela Merkel or José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as a leader rather than a somewhat obscure European Commision leader.

Likewise, if England is part of NATO, put in Gordon Brown.

Well, personally I feel the effects of imperialistic,if not the title is suitable for bush,but more importantly, a john mccain leader would have agg+pro

But, we don't have John Mc Cain as our leader we have Obama, so, personally, say Obama should be Charismatic and Organized.

Just so everyone knows, I can start working on leader AI programming once I finish Civics, so just tell me once you all decide.

Yes, it should be Obama, because there's no way we're getting this mod released even Semi-playable until 2009.