This thread is for picking Civ5 leaders - up to three leaders for each civilization you expected and/or wanted to be included. However, you must NOT pick a leader which has already been included in a civilization game. This means, the following are automatically disqualified:

Abraham Lincoln
Abu Bakr
Alexander
Amaterasu [deity]
Asoka
Augustus Caesar
Bismarck
Boadicea (Boudica)
Bortei (Borte)
Brennus
Canute
Catherine II
Charlemagne
Charles De Gaulle
Churchill
Cleopatra
Cunobelin
Cyrus
Darius I
Dido
Eleanor Roosevelt
Elizabeth I
Franklin Roosevelt
Frederick II
Genghis Khan
Gilgamesh
Gunnhild
Hammurabi
Hannibal
Hatshepsut
Henry the Navigator
Henry VIII
Hiawatha
Hippolyta [mythical]
Huayna Capac
Indira Gandhi
Isabella
Ishtar [deity]
Joan of Arc
Joao II
Julius Caesar
Kublai Khan
Lenin
Livia
Louis XIV
Mahatma Gandhi
Mansa Musa
Mao Zedong
Maria Theresa
Mehmed II
Montezuma
Mursilis
Napoleon
Nazca [fictional]
Osman I
Pacal II
Pachacuti
Pericles
Peter I
Philip II
Qin Shi Huang
Ragnar Lodbrok
Ramesses II
Sacajawea
Saladin
Scheherezade [fictional]
Shaka
Shakala [fictional]
Sitting Bull
Smoke-Jaguar
Stalin
Suleiman I
Suryavarman II
Theodora
Tokugawa Ieyasu
Victoria
Wang Kon
Washington
William of Orange
Wu Zhao (Wu Zetian)
Xerxes
Zara Yaqob

Apart from the ones in the list, any historical or contemporary (not fictional) leaders can be nominated - political leaders, military leaders, religious leaders, statespeople, heads of state, heads of governments, ministers, advisors... anyone in a position of political, military or religious power.

The popularity of a proposed leader will be measured by the number of nominations/endorsements. The one with the most endorsements will be crowned King/Queen of Wishlistland.

Edit: in case you haven't noticed I stopped updating this long ago.

Emperor Meiji of Japan.
President Thomas Jefferson (USA).
Emperor Trajan of Rome.
Tang Taizong of China.
Lorenzo the Magnificant (Italy).
Deng Xiopeng of China.

-

EUROPE
England, Athelstan, Henry II
Germany, Otto the Great, Frederick II (emperor, not king), Charles V
Russia, Svyatoslav, Yaroslav the Wise, Ivan the Terrible
France, Philip Augustus
Poland, Boleslaw Chrobry
# Scandinavia, Cnut
Lithuania , Gediminas
Rome, Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great
Arabs, Umar, Abd-al Malik and Harun al-Rashid
Persia, Khusrau Anushirvan (or another great Sasanian), and Tamerlane (or Ismail I if preferred)
Spanish, Alfonso the Battler
China, Taizong
India, Akbar
Khazars, Joseph
Mapuche, Lautaro

Canute, Alexander and Pericles are disqualified for already being in a Civ game.

United States
Theodore Roosevelt
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson

That's all for now. :)

If they include England as a civilisation again, I think it would be cool to include Ælfred the Great with him being fairly popular it may happen. :king:
Though not as well known having Shivaji as a leader of India would be nice, it's not like India has many leaders known worldwide.

I think Marcus Aurelius could be a good Roman leader.

Rome : One of Five Good Emperors except Nerva (Especially I want to see Hadrian)
China : Tang Taizong
Arab : Harun al-Rashid
Persia : Shapur I can be a candidate (if Sassanid is included)
Germany : Otto I, Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (if HRE is included)
India : Jawaharlal Nehru
Khmer : Jayavarman II
Celt : Vercingetorix
Korea : Sejong (if Korea is in the game)
Ottoman : Selim I, (Ataturk?)

Scandinavia: Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) A Swedish king

Nelson Mandela perhaps :)

Btw do you think we will see the Vatican as a city-state? (A pope as a leader, but would feel a bit strange without religion in the game)

France: Clovis, Vercingetorix, Francis 1st
Spain: Charles Quint
Vikings: Erik
Russia: Ivan - Rasputin - Nicolas
Egypt: Akhenaton -
Arabia: Al Mansur - Al Malik
Inca: Atahualpa - Viracocha
Polynesian: Kamehameha
Papuan: Rajapapua
Tupi: Cunhambebe
Arawak: Agueybana
Inuits: Angakuq
Haida: Koyah
Maori:Hone Heke
Moche: Sipan
Kongo:Nzinga
Belgium: Leopold

I want Emperor Meiji for Japan.

And if there's Tokugawa, make him Ieyasu at least.
Otherwise it's like having "Caesar" for the Romans. (CIV 3)

This thread is for picking Civ5 leaders - up to three leaders for each civilization you expected and/or wanted to be included. However, you must NOT pick a leader which has already been included in a civilization game. This means, the following are automatically disqualified:

Abraham Lincoln
Abu Bakr
Alexander
Amaterasu [deity]
Asoka
Augustus Caesar
Bismarck
Boadicea (Boudica)
Bortei (Borte)
Brennus
Canute
Catherine II
Charlemagne
Charles De Gaulle
Churchill
Cleopatra
Cunobelin
Cyrus
Darius I
Dido
Eleanor Roosevelt
Elizabeth I
Franklin Roosevelt
Frederick II
Genghis Khan
Gilgamesh
Gunnhild [likely fictional]
Hammurabi
Hannibal
Hatshepsut
Henry the Navigator
Henry VIII
Hiawatha
Hippolyta [mythical]
Huayna Capac
Indira Gandhi
Isabella
Ishtar [deity]
Joan of Arc
Joao II
Julius Caesar
Kublai Khan
Lenin
Livia
Louis XIV
Mahatma Gandhi
Mansa Musa
Mao Zedong
Maria Theresa
Mehmed II
Montezuma
Mursilis
Napoleon
Nazca [fictional]
Osman I
Pacal II
Pachacuti
Pericles
Peter I
Philip II
Qin Shi Huang
Ragnar Lodbrok
Ramesses II
Sacajawea
Saladin
Scheherezade [fictional]
Shaka
Shakala [fictional]
Sitting Bull
Smoke-Jaguar
Stalin
Suleiman I
Suryavarman II
Theodora
Tokugawa Ieyasu
Victoria
Wang Kon
Washington
William of Orange
Wu Zhao (Wu Zetian)
Xerxes
Zara Yaqob

Apart from the ones in the list, any historical or contemporary (not fictional) leaders can be nominated - political leaders, military leaders, religious leaders, statespeople, heads of state, heads of governments, ministers, advisors... anyone in a position of political, military or religious power.

The popularity of a proposed leader will be measured by the number of nominations/endorsements. The one with the most endorsements will be crowned King/Queen of Wishlistland.

Now, in which version of Civilization did unknown leaders like Scheherezade, Livia, Grunnhild, Cunobelin, Nazca and Sacaweja feature? Not a regular version of civ, since I have never even heard of them..

Why is Harun al-Rashid getting all this love? He was a terrible ruler!

Now, in which version of Civilization did unknown leaders like Scheherezade, Livia, Grunnhild, Cunobelin, Nazca and Sacaweja feature? Not a regular version of civ, since I have never even heard of them..

Civilization II.

Scheherezade is from a story, Livia is Augustus Caesar's wife, Gunnhild (female Viking leader) is probably made up, Cunobelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunobelinus) was a Celtic Briton ruler, Nazca (female Aztec leader) is also made up AFAIK, and Sacajawea (female Sioux leader) is historically incorrect.

Why is Harun al-Rashid getting all this love? He was a terrible ruler!

Maybe.. because of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights? :rolleyes:

Civilization II.

Scheherezade is from a story, Livia is Augustus Caesar's wife, Gunnhild (female Viking leader) is probably made up, Cunobelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunobelinus) was a Celtic Briton ruler, Nazca (female Aztec leader) is also made up AFAIK, and Sacajawea (female Sioux leader) is historically incorrect.

IIRC, there were one male leader and one female leader per each civilization in CivII. Maybe that was a reason why fictional figures or deities were picked up.

Wasn't Tang Taizong in the Chinese version of Civ 4? Or am I just imagining things based on HuaynaCapac357's old avatar?
Maybe.. because of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question?r=75).

IIRC, the reason CivII included these figures is that there were one male leader and one female leader per each civilization in CivII.

Yep.

They couldn't find female leaders for some civilizations - Babylon, Greece, Sioux, Persia, Japan (though there were quite a few Japanese empresses to choose from), Aztecs, Zulus, etc. So they used mythical figures or fictional ones or just made one up (eg. Shakala).

And, my mistake, Gunnhild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnhild) was an actual historical leader

Wasn't Tang Taizong in the Chinese version of Civ 4?

He is (in place of Mao :mischief: ) though not in any other versions so I didn't count him.

Celtia - Caractacus, Vercingetorix
England - William I, Richard I, Henry VIII, Eleanor of Acquitaine
France - Louis VII
Greece - Leonidas
Japan - Hachiman, Meiji
Rome - Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian
Spain - Charles V & I, Phillip II
USA - Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt

I wonder why no one has nominated Confucius for the Chinese. Although he was never a king or general, scholars are equally competent ruling civilizations. A lot of medieval and imperial chinese adminstrative practices can be attributed to his teachings (or how later ppl interpreted his teachings).

Ito Hirobumi. Yes, I do have an obsession with suggesting him.

Simon Bolivar would be cool...but he would require a new civilization.

Henry IV would be pretty neat, too, and perhaps William the Conquerer or Richard.

Oh, and this thread needs more Hitler.

Why is Harun al-Rashid getting all this love? He was a terrible ruler!

In the reign of Harun ar-Rashid, the Arab Empire reached its peak in science, culture, and economy.

Poland
Mieszko I
Casimir III The Great
Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Poland/Lithuania)

Scandinavia
Sven Forkbeard
Margaret (Queen Margrethe I)
Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II Adolf)

Israel
David
Salomon
Joshua

Assyria
Tiglath-Pileser I
Tiglath-Pileser III
Ashurbanipal

Sumeria
Sargon of Akkad

Babylon
Nebuchadnezzar II

India
Chandragupta Maurya

England
Richard I (the Lionheart)

Germany
Frederick Barbarossa

If a choice must be made between more leaders or more civs I'd prefer the latter. To find Civ4 including three leaders for America, England, France and Russia while so many potential civs/countries/empires are left out of the game is frustrating to say the least.

Leaders I missed in Civ4


USA - Thomas Jefferson.
England - Henry II
Mongolia - Ogedei Khan obviously.
Rome - lots and lots of rulers to choose from... Sula, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, list goes on.
Arabia - Muhammad. Period. Nevermind fanatics.
Ottomans - Osman I The creator of Empire. Must be in, period.
Persia - Xerxes.
Holy Roman Empire - Barbarosa, for gods sake.

In the reign of Harun ar-Rashid, the Arab Empire reached its peak in science, culture, and economy.
Respectively, wrong, maybe, and maybe, depending on how you define "culture" and "economy". And none of them had much to do with his actions.

Id like to see Hitler as a leader for germany. I mean i know its controversial, but for civ4 our unique unit was the panzer and we got assembly plants as buildings. And while it is for all the wrong reasons hitler is the most well known german leader, and he had a massive impact on the world as we know it. I think its wrong that they purposefully dont include him due to his henious crimes when so many other leaders have committed equally or even worse crimes, i mean stalin is in the game isnt he.

Also, which frederick is the frederick german leader? Frederick II of Prussia?

wilma mankiller could be interesting for the native americans, i guess.

Egypt: Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) or, why not, Ptolemy I Soter.
Greece: Themistocles or Leonidas.
Rome: Marcus Aurelius or Gaius Marius.
England: Oliver Cromwell.
Russia/USRR: Trosky.
Inca: Manco Inca or Tupac Amarú.
Aztecs: Izcoatl.
Americans: Teddy Roosvelt.
Babylon: Burnaburiash II.
Spain: Charles I.

And, in the (unlikely) case any of these civs are included:

Brazil: Pedro II.
Hittites: Hattusili.
Gran Colombia: Simon Bolivar.

I really, really want to see Marius and Themistocles make it into the game... they were such great leaders, but are constantly overshadowed by more prominent figures like Alexander, Pericles, Caesar and Augutus.

Rome- Marcus Aerelius or Constantine
USA- Thomas Jefferson
Russia- Yaroslav the Wise
Vikings- Rurik

Id like to see Hitler as a leader for germany. I mean i know its controversial, but for civ4 our unique unit was the panzer and we got assembly plants as buildings. And while it is for all the wrong reasons hitler is the most well known german leader, and he had a massive impact on the world as we know it. I think its wrong that they purposefully dont include him due to his henious crimes when so many other leaders have committed equally or even worse crimes, i mean stalin is in the game isnt he.

Yeah, and Mao, and Gengis... but Hitler is still somewhat of a taboo... we don't need bad media attention and controversy around Civ V..

Besides, there are numerous great german leaders apart from him.

marius would be a nice addition for rome, but chances are he won't be in there because it was still a republic. and dom pedro ii sounds too much like peter, so manuel deodoro is probably more likely for brazil, if it's in an expansion.

Yeah, and Mao, and Gengis... but Hitler is still somewhat of a taboo... we don't need bad media attention and controversy around Civ V..
Im pretty sure the average civ player is level headed enough to understand, was rather hoping the rest of the world would be too :P I mean im german and i wouldnt mind in the slightest, but i guess we just have to let some things go


Besides, there are numerous great german leaders apart from him.

Cant argue with that

Sulla is nowhere near a great leader. If people are claiming that C. Julius Caesar ain't good enough, then Sulla should never even be considered, as he simply isn't in the same league.

I'll try and stick with Civs that have been in before (so no Ashurbanipal II for Assyria):

Ancient:
Rome - Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, Scipio Africanus, or Marius (tried to pick a good variety of Republic and Imperial figures)
Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar (while the Chaldeans aren't the Babylonians we'd normally think of for classical Babylonia, he's certainly a famous historical figure).
Celts - Vercingetorix (I'd probably stick with Brennus, but, if we had to pick somebody new, he'd be a good choice).

Western:
America - Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt (I think if the President appeared on Mount Rushmore, he would be a good choice).
Spain - King Charles I (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Equally German, but the new world empire he owned is associated with Spain).
Scandinavia (yeah, Vikings in some games, but I'm trying to broaden them from their pagan roots) - Gustavus Adolfus (very important King for Sweden, associated with the 30 Years War)
Ottomans/Turks - Ataturk (similar to the Scandinavians, it depends on how broadly you classify them).

Eastern:
Japan - Meiji (the Meiji restoration was an important time for Japan and gives them more representation than feudal Japan)
Korea - Sejong (another important Korean leader, probably more important than Wang Kong)

Scipio Africanus was a famous general of the Roman republic. He wasn't a world leader in any sense.

Egypt: Ptolemaeus I,
India: Akbar
China: One of the Ming emperors
Greece: Solon, Pyrrhus
Persia: ???
Rome: Trajanus, Hadrianus, Constantinus, Scipio Africanus
Japan: Meiji
Ethiopia: Haile Selassie
Arabia: ???
Spain: Carlos I, El Cid
France: Napoleon III, the Louis that went on the crusades
Britain: William the Conqueror, George III/IV
Germany: Barbarossa
Russia: Cruschchov, Ivan the Terrible
Inca: ???
Mongols: Ogodei Khan, Guyuk Khan, Timur
Turkey: Ataturk
America: Thomas Jefferson

How was George IV a remotely good or defining leader of the UK? There are so many better choices than him. I'll give you his father, simply because of his extremely long reign and historical importance to a group of trans-Atlantic rebels :)

Apenpaap, you couldn't really call England "Britain" if William the Conqueror were leader (nor Elizabeth I for that matter), just like you couldn't have Peter the Great as leader of the USSR (even though you could have Stalin as leader of Russia and Churchill as England!).

I picked George IV mainly for the era he represents. And IMO British Empire is a more approppriate name then English Empire.

George III would be a far better representative of the Georgian era. After all, Queen Victoria came to the throne not seven years after George IV died.

marius would be a nice addition for rome, but chances are he won't be in there because it was still a republic.

Marius was never a true leader of Rome. He was leader of the part of Rome and his side got defeated. While I do sympathize with him way more than I do with Sulla, but I dont think he deserves to be in. With all due respect :)


Sulla is nowhere near a great leader.

While it's not easy to measure "greatness", I would argue that Sulla was far greater than half of the leaders who made it into Civ4. Montezuma II? Bah... Sury? Meh.... Gilga & Ragnar? They probably didn't even exist :D
That said, I do agree that he's nowhere near Julius... and nowhere near dozens of other great Roman leaders, for that matter. I included him just for variety. Maybe someone from Roman Kingdom period could make it in, too ;)


Yeah, and Mao, and Gengis... but Hitler is still somewhat of a taboo... we don't need bad media attention and controversy around Civ V..
There's one more thing apart from mass hysteria why, I think, Hitler does not deserve to be in. He wasnt nowhere near great person. He was just an idiot in the right place at the right time. If not the really great generals like Erwin Rommel and other really clever people around him, history would have been different.

On the other hand, Temujin a.k.a Genghis Khan was a Great Person with capital G and P :) He personally changed everything and created what became unstoppable force. Sure, there was Subutai and others, but no one can deny Temujin's personal traits. While Hitler had none. Last but not least, Hitler got defeated. Stalin was victorious. Temujin removed the phrase "we lost" from Mongolian dictionary altogether :D

Scipio Africanus was a famous general of the Roman republic. He wasn't a world leader in any sense.

He was elected Consul in 205 BC. This means he also would have been a Senator. The Roman Republic didn't have "leaders" in the sense we think of them until Marius and Sulla started trying to screw with the system. I was going to suggest Gaius or Tiberius Gracchi, but they're even less qualified I guess, in your view (they weren't military leaders at all).

Respectively, wrong, maybe, and maybe, depending on how you define "culture" and "economy". And none of them had much to do with his actions.

Most of the leaders of Civ did bad and, even, terrible actions. Lincoln ordered to kill Native Americans, Isabel ordered to kill conversed Jews, Caesar killed Gauls, etc.

"Culture" means to build the library Bayt al-Hikma, to pay artists, writers, and scientists (in his reign the camera obscura was invented), and to give them his protection.
"Economy" means to build better roads for the trade, to make coin of good metals, and to improve the agriculture systems.

Do you need more reasons? ;)

Consuls only served for year in every ten, if that, if I recall correctly. Choosing a leader based on a couple of years' joint leadership seems a little silly. More to the point, the Roman Republic glorified military leaders, as you probably well know.

I really think Marius qualifies quite well to be a Civ Leader. He defeated Yugurta (well, some credit to Sulla for that one), he also stopped the teutons and the cimbrians in Varcellas and Aquas Sextias, he was ellected Consul six times, four of them consecutive, and he did so going trough every grade of the cursus honorum.

Also he reformed the roman military, militarizing the plebs and reforming the tactics, creating the basis of what will later become the imperial legionary forces.

Consuls only served for year in every ten, if that, if I recall correctly. Choosing a leader based on a couple of years' joint leadership seems a little silly. More to the point, the Roman Republic glorified military leaders, as you probably well know.

That's why I tried to pick a Consul who had influence when he wasn't in office. Keep in mind that, the rule was that Consuls were the generals. If Scipio was commanding an army, he was either consul or proconsul. Plus, he was hailed as the savior of the Republic. Rome leaned towards collective rule (or at least collaborative rule), which limits most figures before the first century BC. People like Cato would be cool too.

Considering Civ2 had Jeanne d'Arc, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest somebody like Scipio. Technically, in Athens, rule was done by the assembly and the chief government positions were drawn randomly and only for a year. But Pericles managed to be the most influential person in the assembly and he did it by being a General, not an Archon.

EDIT: I'll echo the comments about Marius being a solid candidate. He was part of the trend that led to Caesar. But, in addition to holding consulships and having military success, his reform of the military was a nice accomplishment.

Then again, suppose we assume Caesar is going to be in the game no matter what. I don't see what Marius brings (both in representation of Rome or in personality traits) that differs significantly from Caesar.

Considering Civ2 had Jeanne d'Arc, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest somebody like Scipio.

And Cleopatra, too. Two fails... Yes, if we rely on what was already in, we can reasonably include anything and anybody :) And for that matter, Marius and Scipio would certainly qualify for any other nation without doubt. Hannibal is in, after all, and he was no more ruler of Carthage than Scipio of Rome. But the thing is, Rome had just too many great, real leaders. Lots of competition, you know :) Hannibal had no such competition, most of people couldn't even name any other Carthaginian apart from him...


Then again, suppose we assume Caesar is going to be in the game no matter what. I don't see what Marius brings (both in representation of Rome or in personality traits) that differs significantly from Caesar.

Caesar was the sole ruler of Rome. De facto and de jure. Marius was not. Moreover, he ended up being defeated by Sulla. Defeated with the help of the new army system he himself created. This is what differs him from Caesar. Significantly :)
Edit: Sorry, I probably got you wrong :) Yes, as a leader-in-game he wouldnt be much different. Speaking in Civ4 terms I would suggest Marcus Aurelius with Industrial/Philosophical (wadaya mean "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!"? :D)

I'd agree that Gaius Marius would be an interesting alternative to Julius or Augustus, but I would like to see Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius make an appearance too.

I see some people suggested Ataturk :) Yeah, while he certainly is one of my favorite historical persons, he was the one who ended Ottoman Empire. Doesn't make much sense to make him the leader of Empire he himself ended, does it :) Other than that, yes, he certainly deserves to be in Civ and he was far greater leader than most of persons who got included.

And Cleopatra, too. Two fails... Yes, if we rely on what was already in, we can reasonably include anything and anybody :)

Well, fail is certainly a matter of perspective. The game likes to pick well-known people. It's why Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus were the people they picked. If I were to make a prediction it's that, if Egypt has a female leader in this game, it will be Cleopatra again. The point being that we have no idea how narrowly they're going to construe the idea of a "leader".

And for that matter, Marius and Scipio would certainly qualify for any other nation without doubt. Hannibal is in, after all, and he was no more ruler of Carthage than Scipio of Rome. But the thing is, Rome had just too many great, real leaders. Lots of competition, you know :) Hannibal had no such competition, most of people couldn't even name any other Carthaginian apart from him...

The thing is, as far as diverse and successful rulers, Rome doesn't have as many as you think. There are only a handful of types of Roman Empires it seems (the first few that tried to keep up the pretense of Republic, the ones who basically wanted to be referred to as "Lord" and dominated everyone, the Christian Emperors). And most of these guys suck. The only ones that pop up as noteworthy tend to be guys who inherited/took over the throne and then went on to reconquer a territory or push back barbarians who were threatening a border. Even then, you're still dealing with Imperial Rome. Rome's greatest successes were as a Republic. Why shouldn't that be represented with a leader?

Caesar was the sole ruler of Rome. De facto and de jure. Marius was not. Moreover, he ended up being defeated by Sulla. Defeated with the help of the new army system he himself created. This is what differs him from Caesar. Significantly :)
Edit: Sorry, I probably got you wrong :) Yes, as a leader-in-game he wouldnt be much different. Speaking in Civ4 terms I would suggest Marcus Aurelius with Industrial/Philosophical (wadaya mean "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!"? :D)

FWIW, I think I mentioned Marcus Aurelius (along with Constantine) as someone who represented a unique period of Roman history that was diverse from the Caesar/Augustus time and the Republican time. He did screw up the system they had going for them by making his son the next Emperor, but how was he supposed to know his son would try and fight Russell Crow inside the Colosseum?

I see some people suggested Ataturk :) Yeah, while he certainly is one of my favorite historical persons, he was the one who ended Ottoman Empire. Doesn't make much sense to make him the leader of Empire he himself ended, does it :) Other than that, yes, he certainly deserves to be in Civ and he was far greater leader than most of persons who got included.

Yeah, I go back and forth on Mustafa Kemal. Certainly, if he's in, the Ottomans have to be renamed the Turks. That goes against what the Ottomans themselves tried to do (they tried to create a sense of "Ottomanism" in the Empire to include as many different groups as possible). But in a practical sense, it was still an Empire ruled by a group of Turks.

3 times Hot Chick for every civ. You know you want it. Worked fine in civ3 and civ4(where implemented)

Sir George Grey for the New Zealand Civ - Even when he wasn't Prime Minister/Governor General he still had a finger in every pie from the 1840s to 1890s :D

France:
Philippe-Auguste
Henri IV (?)

Ottoman Empire:
Murad IV and Selim I 'the Grim' and Abdul Hamin II or Mahmud II(?)

Japan:
Meiji and Yoritomo (?)

Germany (with the goal of including Austria here since they don't seem to have a good chance of their own civ anytime soom): (There are many 'good' Austrian leaders that could go here. Possibly not great.) and Wilhelm II

Aztecs (Though I dislike their inclusion): Montezuma I and Itzcoatl

India: Akbar the Great and Chandragupta Muarya

? means that I don't know whether they should be included. THey had some good points, but I don't know if it either outweighs their bad OR makes them more 'deserving' than others.

Damnit, I was just about to say Scheherezade, Shakala, and Wu Zhao.

Wow this thread really is out there. We are just throwing names out there now. I am college educated and fairly well read but I have never heard of any of these people we are nominating. I want to throw Hitler and Nero out there for two reasons. Number 1 both are very common names and much more renouned than many of the leaders currently in the game. Number 2 they both headed up the most powerful nations at their time period even if for only a small time, and number 3 I would love to smash them to a pulp :-)
Three other names I will throw out that I haven't seen come up are Gorbachev and Woodrow Wilson (but I think he may have been in a previous version) and Truman.

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter. The few i would like to see are:

John F. Kennedy (America)
Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong
Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Thats all that i can think of that should be in it.

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter. The few i would like to see are:

John F. Kennedy (America)
Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong
Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Thats all that i can think of that should be in it.

Saying Jefferson didn't do anything except talk and then nominating John F. Kennedy is the definition of irony.

I am not too particular as to which leaders are included, but for the US I would at least like to see:

Teddy Roosevelt.
Thomas Jefferson.
Woodrow Wilson would be an interesting one I think. He would also provide an alternative to FDR as a leader who presided over the country during one of the World Wars.


Also, an idea, that I know would never make it into the game, would be for each civ to have a few leaders, a couple of the leaders per civ would be great, but one would be a "loser" by most measures. That way, during a game not every civ is represented by a wonderful historic leader. Of course, the leaders for the AI I presume would be randomly selected before each game, so some civs would end up with these bad leaders. This would provide some interesting game-play as not every civ would be ruled by a wise or effective leader each time. Again, I don't know how seriously I think this should be implemented - its just an idea I was kicking around to emulate realism in the sense that some civs would flounder as others flourised due to leadership strengths and weaknesses.

Portugal - Afonso Henriques; Marques de Pombal; João I
USA - JFK
Russia - Ivan, the Terrible
Mongols/India - Akbar; Shahabuddin Mohammed Shah Jahan
China - Confusius (would be fan)

Germany (with the goal of including Austria here since they don't seem to have a good chance of their own civ anytime soom): (There are many 'good' Austrian leaders that could go here. Possibly not great.) and Wilhelm II


If we could include the Austrians as part of Germany, we could go with Maria Theresa. Always good to include a female leader when we can.

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter.

Yeah, doubling the size of the United States isn't an accomplishment. His administration was fraught with diplomatic difficulties with the British and the French (especially the British), but he managed to overcome them in a peaceful way. He also led to a successful expansion of US merchant power by his actions in Trinity. In many ways, I'd say he was similar to

John F. Kennedy (America)

Except he accomplished a lot more and had more terms as President.

Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong

Akhenaten is historically important for his attempt to introduce monotheism (whatever his motives were), but he was a disaster for Egypt. The Priests of Amun were simply too strong and all he did was bring political termoil to his Kingdom.

Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Stalin undoubtably accomplished a lasting legacy of greatness for the Soviet Union. He modernized the country, annexed the Baltic states, and created buffer puppet states that spread Soviet influence at least as great if not greater than it had ever been before. Sure he did a lot of things that are simply unforgivable on a human level, but those things tend to balance out. Hitler on the other hand led to a Germany that was weakened and partitioned. The only reason the nation has recovered is because it's been economically strong since the Industrial Revolution. The controversy doesn't outweigh the accomplishments because the accomplishments weren't all that great to begin with.

Here are some leader that weren't in any Civ game and which I'd like to see.

France: Henry IV and Napoleon III
Germany ( including Austria): Maximilian I and Wilhelm II
Rome: Trajan and Manuel I Komnenoi
Greece: Themistocles and Antiochos III
Spain: Charles I
USA: Theodore Roosevelt
Japan: Meiji

Also why do people keep asking for Hitler? He wasn't a good politician nor a good general. He lost WWII and his actions resulted the partition of Germany and later all of Europe. Firaxis wouldn't include him since if they did the game would be banned in Germany and Germany is a very big market.

Rome: Marcus Arelius, Hadrian, Cincinnatus

USA: FDR, Thomas Jefferson

England: Richard II the Lionheart

Tropico: the Avatar

Akbar of the Mughal empire as a whole new civilization.

Richard I was the Lionheart. Richard II was the grandson of Edward III and ruled two centuries later.

Nelson Mandela perhaps :)



+1

Since the continent of Africa only ever gets one civ anyway, re-name it sub-Saharan Africa and represent it by Shaka and President Mandela. He is the only modern leader who has already achieved timelessness imv

Not our Queen or doesn't she qualify as a modern leader? :P

I believe she's both modern and ancient, having ruled since shortly after time began (or so it feels). :)

what about this?

marco van basten of netherlands, since he is the most famous dutch.

Spot the obvious trolling post just above mine.

Spot the obvious trolling post just above mine.

i don't know what "trolling" means so i have to discard your comment. it was a good joke, however, sure some won't like

this thread raises the question if a leader you can pick should have been a good one or just a famous one

i mean, hitler is suggested quite often but as a leader he managed to ruin his country in the span of less than a decade

other leaders were in charge when their countrys flourished but had little to do with it themselves

yeah. i'm sure africa had many great leaders who were more important than shaka. the west just knows a little about him and shaka was their pick for africans. this is similar.
soem leader picks were fine but some weren't.

what about this?

marco van basten of netherlands, since he is the most famous dutch.
so if firaxis wants to put famous persons as leaders, best choice for dutch would be marco van basten by far. yes, that was a joke but there was also a message in it.

Great discussions here.

Anyway, the score:

Thomas Jefferson is winning so far, though Emperor Meiji is a close second. Other popular leaders: Marcus Aurelius, Theodore Roosevelt, Jalaluddin M. Akbar and Karl V/Carlos I

You guys tend to know a lot of history. Loads of leaders i haven't heard of or at least couldn't have come up with myself.

First of all i can't help but mention my amazement when i saw 'joan of arc' on the list. Really???
Who came up with that?? I've only played civ4 extensively. I have played 3 and 2 but i was kinda young at the time and didn't delve into it at all so don't remember much.

Ok a couple of suggestions (forgive me if i can't mention anyone from mongolia or aztecs or a civ like that...) BTW going into the sevopedia and reading the civ histories might also give some idea's.

Ok here are a couple suggestions on my part:

Egypt: Snofru (the guy from the bend pyramid), Thutmose
Rome: Hadrianus, Trajanus, Tiberius
Holland: (hmm we never had any good 'leaders' it seems and they were all called willem) Jan de Wit was 'stadhouder' if i remember correctly. A more modern name is Willem Drees put he is post WW2 died in 89 i think.
England: Henry the 8th (hehehe) with traits 'drunk' and 'womanizer' giving you a -2 happiness in every city and -2 diplo with all leaders
USA: Thomas Jefferson is an obvious choice but what about Woodrow Wilson, thougt he had a ' similar' plan as FD Roosevelt in the 1910s? John Adams is also possible.
Russia: Ivan the terrible
Some others i have heard like Nebuchadnezar, Chandragupta, Meji, Alfonso etc.

As to the leaders i wouldn't mind NOT to return:
Sitting Bull (along with the 'civ'), Tokugawa, Stalin, Mao

First of all i can't help but mention my amazement when i saw 'joan of arc' on the list. Really???

Jeanne d'Arc is the French leader in Civ3.

This is her in the Modern Era:

http://apolyton.net/civ3/reviews/apolyton/day3/day3-joan-thumb.jpg

I gotta say I have reservations about Cœur de Lion as leader of England. A decent military leader with lots of prestige because of his crusading, he is famous today. But he was a terrible king whose irresponsible rule largely led to the disasters of the reign of John.

Henry II, his daddy, was a great king. As was Henry I. And does no-one agree with me that England ought to have one pre-conquest king (even if it is the third leader in some future xp)?

You mean someone like Canute, Alfred or Aethelstan? There aren't many choices :)

Rome: Diocletianus and Marcus Aerelius

As to the leaders i wouldn't mind NOT to return:
Sitting Bull (along with the 'civ'), Tokugawa, Stalin, Mao


Bah. While I disagree with you on Sitting Bull, Stalin and Mao, at least I can see reasons behind that. But Tokugawa? Why on Earth you don't want him back? :)

How about a little Prestor John from the mysterious Christian empire of the East? :P

as civilization wants to remain popular with its own characteristics, i'm sure it won't damage the balance it has on ways of politics, religions and nationalities. civ saga tries to represent most of the world with a rather objective view on history.

it seems some friends just comment about leaders according to their own political views and/or hatreds, but none of you should expect civ saga to spread your own political views. it is published all over the world.

for example; you like them or not, always some of the historical socialist leaders will be in the game.

i mean, alkthough most fans of this game are euro/american christians, still different cultures of the world has a great part in the game and also they are not made weak leaders, are they?
is gandhi a weak leader?
mao was very strong in civ4 vanilla as well. etc.

But Tokugawa? Why on Earth you don't want him back?
Just a matter of taste... Didn't like the way he looked at me!
Besides given the swedish article there are now like 9 leaders known. Mao and Toku won't be back. I read somewhere else that Stalin will though. Too bad very much prefer Catherine. If they stick to the 1 leader/civ for vanilla i think we will be lacking in female leaders. Although this is realistic it's still too bad. Just hope they won't throw in Cleopatra/Hatshepshut really there have been dozens of great pharaohs and they pick women just because of famousness and for having more female leaders. Surely there are better choices like catherine. I suppose we can virtually fill in Isabella, Elizabeth and Hatshepshut now.

Jeanne d'Arc is the French leader in Civ3.

This is her in the Modern Era:

Haha!! She is actually bald... Thought they only shaved of her hair after she was in prison. Really makes me wonder why anyone would pick joan of arc over napoleon/louis xiv etc...

Just a matter of taste... Didn't like the way he looked at me!


Hmm with this approach, I can say I don't want Surya back. I don't like the way he looks at me. I just get afraid that he will bite me :)

Hmm with this approach, I can say I don't want Surya back. I don't like the way he looks at me. I just get afraid that he will bite me

Come to think of it i second that!! But then again i can't imagine the Khmer being in Vanilla!!

Ethiopia: Haile Selassie
Vikings: Canute the great, Leif Ericson, Harald Fairhair or his son Eirik Bloodaxe
Egypt: Ramses II, Cheops
Porrtugal: Afonso Henriques

Canada
Trudeau

China
Yellow Emperor
Confucius

Cuba
Fidel Castro

Sweden
Unknown, but they were powerful

France
Marquis de Lafayette

India
Nehru

Japan
Meiji

Mexico
Pancho Villa
Zapata

Spain
Abd ar-Rahman I

UK
Cromwell?
Lord Baden-Powell

US
Thomas Jefferson
Theodore Roosevelt
Andrew Jackson

Huh? Robert Baden-Powell? What the hell would he be doing as a world leader? Even the regicidal republican Cromwell should be an English leader long before Baden-Powell!

Canada
Trudeau

China
Yellow Emperor
Confucius

Cuba
Fidel Castro

Sweden
Unknown, but they were powerful

France
Marquis de Lafayette

India
Nehru

Japan
Meiji

Mexico
Pancho Villa
Zapata

Spain
Abd ar-Rahman I

UK
Cromwell?
Lord Baden-Powell

US
Thomas Jefferson
Theodore Roosevelt
Andrew Jackson

-------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
Charles XII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_XII
Gustavus Adolphus http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden

UK
Did you mean Oliver Cromwell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

Pope Julius II (rome)-militaristic and religious
Adolph Hitler (germany)-militaristic
Nelson Mandela (south africa)-political
Cleopatra (egypt)-political and militaristic(?) and religious
Odysseus (greece)-political and militaristic and religious
George W Bush (america)-political and militaristic

else than great economist or military leaders, i also respect some other leaders who have tried to reform and modernise a falling empire. the success of leaders like Suleiman I is very obvious while the latter is not famous much.

so mahmud II of ottomans is such an example. he made many reforms. 1 of the reforms that could be interesting for you; he finally disbanded the janissary troops which have been decaying and revolting frequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_II

Japan: Oda Nobunaga
China: Taizong
Mongolia: Tamerlane
India: Chandragupta II of Gupta (Akbar would be really good too, but I prefer a non-Muslim for India)
Arabs: Caliph 'Umar
Persia: Khosrau Anohshirvan (since the Achaemenids are all taken), or possibly Shah Abbas
Sumeria: Gudea of Lagash
Turks: Ataturk (since the best Ottoman sultans are all taken)
Egyptians: Thutmose III
Greeks: Peisistratus of Athens, or possibly Periander of Corinth
Romans: Marcus Aurelius
French: (St.) Louis IX, or possibly Henri of Navarre
Germans: Adolf H*^@%$
Russians: Ivan the Great
Spanish: Sancho III of Navarre
English: Lord Palmerston (NOT PITT THE ELDER!!;))
Americans: Jefferson
Aztecs: Ahuitzotl
Inca: Pachacuti

a fun little exercise. I think my favorites are Pachacuti Inca and Taizong for China.

England/Scotland:
Charles II, "The Merry Monarch", restored after the failed Commonwealth under Lords-Protector Cromwell and Son. A Phi/Cre leader, Charles reopened the theatres, and supported scientific endeavour. He also sought toleration of Catholics and Protestant dissenters (such as Baptists and Quakers), although parliament were less than co-operative on this front.

Germanic Leaders:
Barbarossa (Holy Roman Emperor)
Franz Josef or Metternich (both modern Austro-Hungarian leaders)
Henry the Lion (Duke of Saxony) or Henry the Fowler (Duke of Saxony & King of Germany)
Thus far, German leaderheads have included Frankish, Prussian and Austrian leaders. Saxons are the missing link. Including a Saxon and reintroducing Austria, whilst keeping Frankish and Prussian leaders would cover the four major German power centres since the conquest of Rome. (Renaming the Holy Roman and German Empires to Frankish and Prussian Empires to facilitate the entries of Austria and Saxony would remove the anomaly of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire appearing as rivals within the same game.)
Henry the Fowler is argued, by some, to be the first Holy Roman Emperor, although he was not crowned as such. Henry the Lion was a powerful prince in during Barbarossa's reign. He held a vast contiguous duchy including Bavaria and Saxony (which encompasses multiple modern-day Länder). He was ultimately deposed for refusing to assist Barbarossa's campaign in Italy, for which he earned the resentment of other German princes after the Empire's humiliating defeat.

Russia:
Yeltzin: Whilst I think Putin or Gorbechev shaped modern Russia to a greater extent, a dancing Boris Yeltzin leaderhead would be much more entertaining. Defeating Yeltzin would so much more challenging than Putin. I see that jolly man dance and I just can't bring myself to push the button. How can I defeat my rivals when they make me smile?

Mongolia:
The Mongolian Empire overran so much of Eurasia, but for much of its history was made up of various Khanates, of which many were more powerful in their own right than most of the rivals they would encounter in this game. To see Mongolia represented by two or three separate civilisations would appear appropriate. The most appropriate addition, in my opinion, would be the "Timurid Empire", led by Timur the Lame (Tamerlane).

Russia:
Yeltzin: Whilst I think Putin or Gorbechev shaped modern Russia to a greater extent, a dancing Boris Yeltzin leaderhead would be much more entertaining. Defeating Yeltzin would so much more challenging than Putin. I see that jolly man dance and I just can't bring myself to push the button. How can I defeat my rivals when they make me smile?




I would be careful about Gorbachov or Yeltzin. Including them could result an attack on the Firaxis HQ by a mob of angry Russians. :D

Persia: Shapur I, Nader Shah, and Mohammad Mosaddegh
USA: Theodore Roosevelt
Polynesians: Kamehameha I
Ethiopia: Haile Selassie I

I would be careful about Gorbachov or Yeltzin. Including them could result an attack on the Firaxis HQ by a mob of angry Russians. :D

I'm surprised that hasn't already happened, after the inclusion of two Tsarist leaders in Civ IV. ;)

Thomas Jefferson- USA
Athelstan, Edward I, III- England
Emperor Wu Han or Wei (both are cool)- China
Meiji- Nippon
Francisco Franco- Spain

Aethelstan would be a good leader for an English civilisation. Get a pre-Norman non-Danish ruler in, I say!

France - Napoleon III
He's indirectly sort of responsible for the unification of both Germany and Italy. First president, last monarch of France. Had a cool quote to Bismark:
"I will forgive, history will forgive you, but my people will never forgive your people."

France:
Henry IV
Francois I

Holland- Willem von Oranje

You mean the Netherlands. Holland is only one part of the Netherlands.

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter. .......

On the contrary, I think Jefferson is strategic leader. The States' big country mainly dued to him.

India - Rajaraja Chola Dravidian Emperor; the Shiva bronze for Hinduism was created by his kingdom, the Cholas controlled a vast empire across India and South East Asia and the cultural achievements during his period is world renowned. Dravidian culture is mostly known as Indian culture, but the Dravidians were never represented by their great kings. Please Firaxis, do something about this. It's barbaric to give the credit of their achievements to Europeans. WE WANT A DRAVIDA KING.

korea - king taejo (choson)

France: Clovis, Vercingetorix, Francis 1st
Spain: Charles Quint
Vikings: Erik
Russia: Ivan - Rasputin - Nicolas
Egypt: Akhenaton -
Arabia: Al Mansur - Al Malik
Inca: Atahualpa - Viracocha
Polynesian: Kamehameha
Papuan: Rajapapua
Tupi: Cunhambebe
Arawak: Agueybana
Inuits: Angakuq
Haida: Koyah
Maori:Hone Heke
Moche: Sipan
Kongo:Nzinga
Belgium: Leopold

:mad::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: wtf i get INCA but wtf is it with kong,tupi,mapuche,papuan, or inuit......those ar just a bunch of ugly useless natives

Please keep the discussion civilized

India: Chandragupta II of Gupta (Akbar would be really good too, but I prefer a non-Muslim for India)

And thus we come to the heart of the problem with making India just one civ. The Tigris Euphrates area is always treated as multiple civs. Imagine how we'd feel if the Vikings, Germans, Dutch, English, and Austrians all got lumped into one "Germanic" civilization.


French: (St.) Louis IX, or possibly Henri of Navarre
Germans: Adolf H*^@%$

A French civ led by Henri of Navarre would be a very different France. Good call! On the other hand if I was German you'd be on my "list" and I don't mean "Christmas Card List."
Please do not attack other users


Americans: Jefferson

Ugh. Imagine a US with agricultural and philosophical traits. What would even be the point in being American any more?

That really depends on what you consider the point of being American is.

America- Theodore Roosevelt
Arabia- Harun al-Rashid
Aztecs- Itzcoatl
China- Kangxi
Egypt- Khufu
England- Alfred the Great
France- Philippe Auguste
Germany- Frederick Barbarossa
Greece- Solon
Incas- Manco Capac
India- Chandragupta II
Japan- Meiji
Mali- Sundiata
Mongolia- Ogedei Khan
Persia- Abbas
Rome- Marcus Aurelius
Russia- Ivan IV
Spain- El Cid

What about some Lawerance of Arabia, i mean he was a military leader and he was very instrumental in the independence of many arab states

wtf i get INCA but wtf is it with kong,tupi,mapuche,papuan, or inuit......those ar just a bunch of ugly useless natives

I think we'd all appreciate it if you didn't spout ugly, useless racism.

flaming - warned

Any flaming/trolling/spamming or other non-civilized discussion stops here.

Turkish Empire: Mustafa Kamal Attaturk.
Mongolian Empire: Timur the Lame.
Polish Empire: Józef Piłsudski

Russia:Ivan the Terrible
Yaroslav the Wise
Dmitriy Donskoy (Dmitriy of the Don)

:mad::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: wtf i get INCA but wtf is it with kong,tupi,mapuche,papuan, or inuit......those ar just a bunch of ugly useless natives

Please keep the discussion civilized

I just discover this answer to my post ...:confused:

I don't make a difference between "civilization" and "natives". What you called "natives" are just civilizations that are less advanced on the tech tree (they don't have discover Gunpowder or metal casting, for example).

I'm pleased to have (and to fight) civilizations like aztec, inca, sioux or maya because I think that "age of discovery " with exploration and colonization of a "new world" is the funniest part of the game. That's why I think there are not enough "natives" in the game. I want more!

And some of them would filled some "always empty" areas on the world map:
tupi in amazonia, inuits on polar area, polynesian for the pacific area...

Spain: Philip II

Apart from the various ancient greek states rulers, like Leonidas, Pyrrhos, Kassandros, Seleucos, Ptolemy etc there could be an industrial one, Eleutherios Venizelos. Associated with Greece doubling its size for a while tripling it.

Greece : Leonidas or Solon.
Byzantine Empire : Herakleios.
Cuba : Fidel Castro.
Germany : Adolfo Hitler.
Israel : Theodor Herzl.
Russia : Lenin.

I would also want to see some great peoples to have a bigger role and part in the game. Maybe one for each empire.
For example figures like Sokrates, Aristotle, Homer, Galileo Galilei, Einstein, Voltaire, Marx, che Quevara, Marco Polo and many more where also so important in human history as some leaders.

Anyway i cant whait any longer...bring out civ5..!!!

USA- Eisenhower, Ben Franklin and Obama
Scotland- William Wallace and Robert the Bruce
Denmark- Hans Christian Anderson
Cuba- Fidel Castro
Sweeden- Karl XII
The Hunns- Atilla
England- Edward Long shanks and Henry VIII
Cherokee- Ostenaco
Byzantium- Basil II
Celitia- Brian Boru
Canada- Trudeau
Poland- Sobieski
Rome- Nero
Russia- Nicholas The Conqueror
China- Han
Egypt- Khufu and Menes
France- Charles II and Rudolph
Germany- Adolf Hitler

in the expantion:
Romainia- Vlad the impaler
Israel- Herzl
Greece- Leonidas of sparta
Japan- Sujin
Italy- Mussalini

USA- Eisenhower, Ben Franklin and Obama
Scotland- William Wallace and Robert the Bruce
Denmark- Hans Christian Anderson
Cuba- Fidel Castro
Sweeden- Karl XII
The Hunns- Atilla
England- Edward Long shanks and Henry VIII
Cherokee- Ostenaco
Byzantium- Basil II
Celitia- Brian Boru
Canada- Trudeau
Poland- Sobieski
Rome- Nero
Russia- Nicholas The Conqueror
China- Han
Egypt- Khufu and Menes
France- Charles II and Rudolph
Germany- Adolf Hitler

in the expantion:
Romainia- Vlad the impaler
Israel- Herzl
Greece- Leonidas of sparta
Japan- Sujin
Italy- Mussalini

YES i absolutely think we need to see Hitler in this game! I'm sure the Civ-makers have been afraid of making him because he was a nazi and blah blah blah, but come on - Stalin and Mao weren't much better - so make him!

not going to happen - since they actually want to sell the game :mischief:

Which shows (as I've said countless times) how sad humanity is. Really, it's been 70 years, get over it. Why are we happy with Stalin, Napoleon, and Mao, but not with Hitler?

Jose de San Martin of Spain, Affonso I King of the Kongo and President James Madison.

Hitler doesn't deserve to be in the game based on his accomplishments, never mind morals. He led a country for 13 years, lost a war...and that's it.

He conquered Poland (not that great a feat), conquered France (who fell for a trick for the second time and who'd concentrated military spending for the last 20 years on buliding an outrageously large and intricate but seriously outdated defense system) and came close to doing some other stuff...

Not that great a leader all in all.

EDIT: also no cultural impact really.

Which shows (as I've said countless times) how sad humanity is. Really, it's been 70 years, get over it. Why are we happy with Stalin, Napoleon, and Mao, but not with Hitler?

Stalin massively improved Russia by industrializing it. Napoleon conquered Europe and has been iconic with France ever since. Mao is responsible for modern China and is certainly iconic as well (although I don't think he's a great leader choice either). Hitler is not only responsible for the massive negatives, but the positives aren't great either. He brought Germany (a nation that has been economically powerful for centuries) out of a depression. He held a brief hold over much of Europe, which was then lost due to his crappy decisions. He left Germany with less territory than it had before. That's about it.

Stalin massively improved Russia by industrializing it. Napoleon conquered Europe and has been iconic with France ever since. Mao is responsible for modern China and is certainly iconic as well (although I don't think he's a great leader choice either). Hitler is not only responsible for the massive negatives, but the positives aren't great either. He brought Germany (a nation that has been economically powerful for centuries) out of a depression. He held a brief hold over much of Europe, which was then lost due to his crappy decisions. He left Germany with less territory than it had before. That's about it.

Hitler made alot of jobs, took Germany from a country with an unemploy-rate of nearly 33 %, he made a small nation into a Superpower and ruined all of europe with hid madness. Clearly this mad man should be interesting to have in CIV - think about what he could put us through :D

And that he isn't worthy of being made in CIV? Well why the hell is Montezuma? All he did was getting OWNED by the Spanish. Hitler surely did more than him, in a modern age and way "cooler". NO IM NOT PRO-NAZIST, but Hitler is one of the men who deserves to be made in CIV because what he did was horrible and we need to learn. Why hide him and forget everything? So american ;) nah just kidding - anyways

Hitler must be made!

I don't really think you can compare Napoleon to Hitler. Napoleon at least was civilized.

Hitler made alot of jobs, took Germany from a country with an unemploy-rate of nearly 33 %, he made a small nation into a Superpower and ruined all of europe with hid madness. Clearly this mad man should be interesting to have in CIV - think about what he could put us through :D

And that he isn't worthy of being made in CIV? Well why the hell is Montezuma? All he did was getting OWNED by the Spanish. Hitler surely did more than him, in a modern age and way "cooler". NO IM NOT PRO-NAZIST, but Hitler is one of the men who deserves to be made in CIV because what he did was horrible and we need to learn. Why hide him and forget everything? So american ;) nah just kidding - anyways

Hitler must be made!

You know that the story about Hitler creating jobs for the entire population is false do you? He didn't create jobs, what he did was remove all women and Jews from their jobs and he gave those jobs to older men. He also kept younger men from jobs by either conscripting them into the Wehrmacht or the worker army. So all in all, Hitler didn't create that many jobs, he just lowered the amount of people he would have to employ.

Montezuma is usually picked as the Aztec leader because we haven't enough knowledge of any other famous Aztec leader. But when it comes to Germany there is a large amount of famous and competent leader ( unlike Hitler) to chose from.

Jose de San Martin of Spain, Affonso I King of the Kongo and President James Madison.

Jose de San Martin doesn't meet the requirements set by the OP. Jose de San Martin is in Civ4Col.

Hitler made alot of jobs, took Germany from a country with an unemploy-rate of nearly 33 %, he made a small nation into a Superpower and ruined all of europe with hid madness. Clearly this mad man should be interesting to have in CIV - think about what he could put us through :D

A couple things. One, Germany wasn't a small nation. It was a superpower before WWI and is still a major power. He took an impoverished nation and brought it out of the depression. As pointed out elsewhere, he didn't necessarily create more jobs, but, even if he had, that's not saying much. An industrial powerhouse like Germany once was would surely have snapped out of the depression eventually.

And that he isn't worthy of being made in CIV? Well why the hell is Montezuma? All he did was getting OWNED by the Spanish. Hitler surely did more than him, in a modern age and way "cooler". NO IM NOT PRO-NAZIST, but Hitler is one of the men who deserves to be made in CIV because what he did was horrible and we need to learn. Why hide him and forget everything? So american ;) nah just kidding - anyways

Hitler must be made!

First off, is the Montezuma in the game Montezuma II or Montezuma I? Certainly, Montezuma's accomplishments are hard to deny. If it is Monty II, I'd argue that it's simply for name recognition. Germany had plenty of other leaders with name recognition who did more good for the country than Hitler.

The point im trying to say is that we cant be afraid of wanting Hitler in CIV, by using examples that he didn't do enough?

I'm sure thatHitler is one of the most famous, if not the most, leaders of all time. Would be fun to have as a char. in-game and see what happens.

A better candidate for a new German leader would be Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany. In power for 14 years, brought a stable democracy to Germany, established a good relationship with France after 3 wars in the preceding 75 years and started the Wirtschaftswunder.

You know that the story about Hitler creating jobs for the entire population is false do you? He didn't create jobs, what he did was remove all women and Jews from their jobs and he gave those jobs to older men. He also kept younger men from jobs by either conscripting them into the Wehrmacht or the worker army. So all in all, Hitler didn't create that many jobs, he just lowered the amount of people he would have to employ.

Usually the argument is he turned around the economy, not necessarily created jobs. I don't even know if the language about "creating jobs" was used in Germany at the time, its more of a Keynesian thing. From a Nazi perspective, they reshaped the economy in a way that it would be productive, and they felt that was the right thing to do to make it more productive.

I agree though that its not important to put Hitler in the main game. Not because of moral grounds -- Stalin is in the game, and he was as brutal / immoral as Hitler. Although if there were a WWII scenario it would be interesting to see him.

United States
Theodore Roosevelt
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson

That's all for now. :)

Those are good choices, but I still hate how Presidents are picked out as having special status. In the 19th century, the three most powerful political figures in the US were Senators : Clay, Calhoun, Webster. And we really need to get back to a strong legislature instead of worshiping the executive.

To be fair, since the executive was one man, it makes more sense to single him out for a game.

Hmm, im gonna have to go with Elizabeth for us britz, lincoln for the americans, napoleon for french...

What some of those are already in, well then i guess that makes me a winner.

Well, I would seriously like to see the Crown of Aragon with both James I the Conqueror and Peter III the Cerimonious as leaders

Other than that, I have had an idea with the leader of Spain. You could have, instead of just Isabella, the two catholic monarchs that would work on a simbiotic way. A similar but more humoristic thing could be done with the byzantine empire, in which the 'legitimate' leader would be Justinian, but before taking any decision or accepting any deal he would first ask his wife theodora (who is known for playing a very important role in the goverment of the byzantine empire during justinian's monarchy) what to do

America - Woodrow Wilson/Theodore Roosevelt
England - Edward I/Henry V
Russia - Ivan III (The Great)
France - Louis IX (Saint Louis)/Charles VII (The Victorious)
Roman Empire - Septimus Severus/Vespasian
Arabs - Baybars
Spain - Charles III
China - Xuande
India - Ramchandra Pant
Greece - Polycrates
Japan - Go-Komatsu
Egypt - Narmer
Germany - Wilhelm I/Frederick William I