If additional leaders are released for existent Civs, like Winston Churchill for England or Peter the Great for Russia etc, then how will the Unique Ability/Unit system allow for this to happen in a meaningful way?

Would the new leader have to have a new unique ability or a new unique unit of their own? The set-up we have for civ 5 is different to 4 so it will be a little strange as the UA/U's in the first generation have been tailored to represent the 'civilization' and not the specific individual leader.

That being said, I think it would be cool if, for example, Churchill was released as an alternate leader for England but instead of the Ship of the Line he gets the Spitfire or something relevant like that. But what about UA's?

Or does this iteration of Civ spell the end of multiple leaders for civilizations in the vanilla version?

I think that's an awesome idea - loads of countries have experienced vastly different rulers and regimes. I reckon each leader should have a unique ability and each civ should have a selection of UU/UB, 2 of which can be chosen before the game.

This another one of my Civ v hates. Civ IV offered much more variety in regards to AI personalities and graphics (instead of being sick of the same old faces and voices).

To be honest, if theres only one leader per civ, whats the point of having a leader at all. Instead of calling a player Washington, just call it America

Civs 1 and 3 had one leader each and they were fine. Civ2 added a second leader, but it was to have gender equality and they frequently flat out made up leaders. Civ4 was the only one who used multiple leaders effectively. Essentially, for most of Civilization, leaders are to give personality to interactions and that's about it.

Anyway, Civ5's system is poorly set up for multiple leaders. UUs, UBs, UIs, and UAs are all tailored to the Civ, not to the leader. The biggest differences could be personality, but that's hardly worth the investment for.

Personally, I'd encourage modding alternate leaders for Civs for those who are interested, but I would prefer Firaxis work on other things.

I think the UA is really the thing that defines the Civ. New leaders could have their own UBs and UUs that still fit within the theme of that civ. I'm sure most cultures have more than one UB and UU historically that could be added with a new leader.

I can see that possibly happening in an expansion, but that's it. The UUs, UBs, and UAs typically have nothing to do with the leader - they have to do with particular high points of the civilization's history. As such, you can't across the board say "well the UA/UU/UB has to do with the leader, so that's what should change with the leader." Bismarck was about half a century pre-panzers, a good half-millennium post-Landsknechts, and roughly one thousand years after the phrase Furor Teutonicus applied to the Germanic tribes. And unless I'm mistaken, while Washington was around during the early days of the Manifest Destiny and the minutemen, I don't think he ever oversaw the bombing of the English fleets, nor did Harun al-Rashid finance his regime with oil exports.

For that reason, you'd either need to 1) add something that each leader brings to the table, which means a new aspect/aspects unique to each civ, which probably means expansion, or 2) make it so that the leader only brings their AI personality to the table, which would be a really poor decision in my opinion because for us humans, there'd be no difference between picking Louis XIV and Napoleon. Which would be odd. And disappointing.

And I agree with Louis XXIV; one leader per civ is fine. Two would be nice, but making a huge deal out of it is silly IMO, as is trying to bring in other Civ games as examples. Especially when you say that CiV lacks compared to the others because there's not enough variation in the voices.

Ooh! I love this idea! I think it'd be best if each faction had one UU, but each Leader added his own UU or UB along with a UA. I actually have a list of a lot of the existing civs already.

This another one of my Civ v hates. Civ IV offered much more variety in regards to AI personalities and graphics (instead of being sick of the same old faces and voices).

To be honest, if theres only one leader per civ, whats the point of having a leader at all. Instead of calling a player Washington, just call it America

Civ IV offered much less variety. All its leaders were combinations of the basic traits. Just check Bibor's Leader chart to say how much more complex - and effectively unique - each Civ 5 leader is.

This makes it unlikely that they will have alternate leaders any time soon. They may as well invent a new civ, and make some more DLC money while they're at it.

The point of having one leader as opposed to none is that it's more fun. If you don't know what I mean, check out the Most Hated AI polls - it's all about inferred personality.

if there were more leaders per civ, they would probably just have different abilities.

The only way I could see it working out is having different UAs but the same UUs. Of course, not all civs would have second leaders so I'm against it. Why not new civs with different UAs and UUs?

And unless I'm mistaken, while Washington was around during the early days of the Manifest Destiny and the minutemen, I don't think he ever oversaw the bombing of the English fleets.

George Washington died before there was any talk of expanding past the Mississippi.

The UA should be leader-specific; the UU/UB should be generic to the civ. It looks to me like that was the design intent, too ... notice on many screens you get the leader mini-pic AND the civ icon ... so clearly they have designed it with multiple leaders in mind per civ.

I also agree that some of the UAs don't match the leader in question (e.g. Washington).

The UA should be leader-specific; the UU/UB should be generic to the civ. It looks to me like that was the design intent, too ... notice on many screens you get the leader mini-pic AND the civ icon ... so clearly they have designed it with multiple leaders in mind per civ.

I also agree that some of the UAs don't match the leader in question (e.g. Washington).

The worst UA/Leader combination I can think of is Napoleon and Ancien Regime, which he hated.

George Washington died before there was any talk of expanding past the Mississippi.

Bah, you're right. It looks like he died 3-4 years before that vein of thought entered the American collective conscious.

Anyways, people who are saying that the UA should stick with the leader really need to explain how that would work. So many of the abilities don't actually match the leader (like I said, you'd have to go back 1500 years to get a German leader who coincided with Furor Teutonicus), and they'd really be limiting themselves if they had to work within the constraint of making a new leader to match the UA of a civ whose present leader was out of sync. Just off the top of my head, England, France, America (thanks DaveMcW), Arabia, Germany, China, Spain, and Babylon would all have to be given new leaders, and those new leaders would be constrained by matching up the ability. A few of them would be hard to fit in anyways. Who would you get to represent the Seven Cities of Gold, which came about not long after Isabella's death, or Manifest Destiny (you're not getting Lincoln or FDR out of that one). Which modern oil tycoon are you going to give Arabia's bonus to, especially when the Caliphate had ceased to exist long before the region started trading in petroleum? If they do multiple leaders (not sure it would be the greatest way to allocate their resources in the first place), I really don't see how they could differentiate them with just the existing tools.

A few of them would be hard to fit in anyways. Who would you get to represent...Manifest Destiny (you're not getting Lincoln or FDR out of that one).

monroe. but i agree with everything you've said.

Teddy has a bit of a frontiersman attitude, but he was born too late to take advantage of it. There's a lot of Presidents people are indifferent to, like Polk, who fit in exactly. Maybe Andrew Jackson, but he would be controversial for many.

That's the problem. Not that Jackson's too controversial, but that if Firaxis were to add new leaders and make their distinction the UA, they'd really end up struggling with leader choices. Yeah, Monroe fits Manifest Destiny fine (he's actually the first one who came to my mind too), but why on earth would he be the USA's second leader over Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts? Plus, it would be odd to have two leaders in the same civ that came so close together chronologically. Which is the same problem that Spain would have; either you give Isabella a UA that has nothing to do with her whatsoever, or you give them the only leader that would fit the time frame: Joanna the Mad, who directly succeeded Isabella.

Yeah, not good choices.

Here's a list of potential multi-leader civs and their unique ability. What do you think?


America-
George Washington-Founding Fathers (25% more great people generation).
Abraham Lincoln-Emancipation (Workers have a 20% efficiency, 10% more citizen birth but Plantations cost 1+ more gold to upkeep).

Arabia-
Harun Al Rashid-Trade Caravans (As it is in game).
Saladin-Defense of the Holy City (Units receive a 33% combat increase when defending within two tiles of the capital).

Aztecs-I’d keep them as they are.

China-
Wu Zeitan-Art of War (As it is in game)
Mao Zedong-Great Leap Forward (Factories and manufactories have a 33% larger output).

Egypt-
Ramses-Monument Builders (As it is in game)
Cleopatra-Royal Charm (All new nations you meet begin with a friendly attitude).

England-
Elizabeth-Sun never sets (As it is in game)
Churchill-Finest Hour (Golden Ages now give units 25% combat strength bonus).

France-
Louis XIV-La Ancien Regime (As it is in game).
Napoleon Bonaparte-La Grande Armee (Units gain experience at 33% higher rate).

Germany-
Frederick the Great-Prussian Army Doctrine (Units receive +1 movement in their territory).
Bismarck-German Unification (City states are more likely to gift units).

Greece-
Pericles-Athenian Navy (Naval Units are 25% cheaper to make).
Alexander the Great-Hellenic League (As it is in game).

India-
Gandhi-Population Growth (As it is in game).
Other-Any thoughts?

Iroquois-
Hiawatha-Great Warpath (As it is in game).
Pontiac-Lightning Raids (Units can pillage and continue to move if they have movement points left OR, my other thought was earning 15 gold with each pillaging act).

Japan-Any thoughts?

Mongolia-Any thoughts?

Ottomans-Any thoughts?

Persia-
Darius-Archimededic Legacy (As it is in game).
Xerxes-Royal Highway (Roads add +1 movement).

Rome-
Augustus-Glory of Rome (As it is in game)
Julius Caesar-As the Romans do (50% less unhappiness in every annexed city).

Russia-
Catherine-Siberian Riches (As it is in game)
Stalin-Red October (Units are 15% quicker to build and 25% cheaper to buy).

Siam-Any thoughts?

Songhai-Any thoughts?

Those are some good ideas. I'm personally against including Saladin (even though he was an awesome guy) since he wasn't so much a leader as a military man, but that's just me. Also some people think that since he was Kurdish he shouldn't represent Arabia, but I think that's a little picky.

For Japan, you could go with Meiji. The Japan he represents is pretty significantly different from Oda's, so you could get a nice contrast. As for the Ottomans, the problem with them isn't that they lack for good leaders (Mehmet II was a fine choice in CIV), but that you're never really going to find anyone who comes close to what he represents; the guy had just about everything going for him militarily, politically, and culturally. I was actually shocked that he wasn't included as the Ottoman leader in vanilla CIV.

Egypt-
Ramses-Monument Builders (As it is in game)

While Ramesses was a decent builder, shouldn't this ability really be given to someone like Cheops?

England-
Elizabeth-Sun never sets (As it is in game)


Elizabeth predates the Empire where the sun never set. Someone like Victoria or Benjamin Disraeli maybe.

However, Elizabeth would work well with some kind of piracy ability to represent people like Sir Francis Drake.
ETA: English Sea Dogs. 20 gold for every ship killed, 2 gold per turn for every city blockaded.

Iroquois-
Pontiac-Lightning Raids (Units can pillage and continue to move if they have movement points left OR, my other thought was earning 15 gold with each pillaging act).

Pontiac wasn't Iroquois, he was Ottowa. If you want an interesting Iroquois leader, I'd recommend Decanosora. Essentially, he walked a diplomatic tightrope between France and England always maneuvering for an Iroquois benefit. He did so by acting as the protector of Indian tribes (standing up for Susquehanna and Delaware interests as well). When he was replaced, his successors worked with the British to crush the Delawares, but this led to their downfall as well (and dragged them into the Seven Years War).
Ability: Great Covenant Chain. Automatically friends with any City-State that is allied with a Civ you have a Declaration of Friendship with.

Japan-Any thoughts?

Although symbolic in the same sense Victoria was, Meiji would be the most logical.
Meiji Restoration would be the unique ability. Not sure what, though, maybe double great person points during a Golden Age.

Ottomans-Any thoughts?

Would it be appropriate to use the post-Ottoman Turks and have Attaturk as the leader?

I greatly admire Ataturk as one of my personal heroes, but I think it'd be inappropriate to have him lead the Ottoman empire. Though he fought in the great war for them in the post war period he lead the movement to set up the secular state of Turkey in which the Ottoman Empires ruling elite and their descendants were declared persona non grata.

Also, I was under the impression that Ramesses was the most famous builder of the pharaohs?....could be mistaken though.

I think there are some cool ideas in there, and I especially like some of the names you've come up with for their abilities.

Ramesses built monuments like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/Alidar/Ramsesmonument.jpg

Khufu built ones like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/Alidar/Pyramids.jpg

However, Ramesses was the most prolific of New Kingdom builders so, if you want to, it's not too much of a stretch. I think my point was the abilities are given far more generically to the Civ because it's the Civ as a whole that were responsible for their fame in this regard, not one man. But I realize that, when you have multiple leaders, you need to find some way to set them apart.

That photo of giza is awesome!

pfff everyone knows the pyramids were built, like, at least ten thousand years ago ;)

Absolutely love those clear blue skies in those Egyptian photos. :)

Concerning the topic: Meiji for Japan would be a great choice, except in Japan it's apparently forbidden to represent the Emperor, or something? I think Firaxis would avoid presenting him for that reason. Of course, they could still release the game in Japan but not include Meiji, as the Chinese apparently did with Mao in Civ 4?

The Songhai could have Sunni Ali Ber as another leader, since he was the civ's progenitor.

For Egypt? Definitely Hatshepsut! You could have her leaderscreen showing her on a barge, or watching a ship depart for Punt perhaps.

China? Kangxi would be a good option, not Mao. Kangxi was the longest-lived Emperor, formed China's Banner armies, and was quite successful on the whole. Mao was a tyrant who bled his people dry. His "Great Leap Forward" (an ironic title if ever I saw one) killed off many and resulted in unworkable iron, rather than useful steel. Of course, you could always cop out and choose Qin Shi Huangdi, the First Emperor of China, who made the famous Wall of China, was politically ingenious, and had a huge terracotta army made to protect him in the afterlife.

Mongolia--Kublai Khan. In my opinion he was the 2nd best Khan after Genghis, most of the others sucked at maintaining political control. Kublai failed to invade Japan (twice) and had some other military disasters, but he did conquer southern China, which Genghis didn't quite accomplish. And he met the Polos and liked foreigners in general, so Kublai seems like a decent option. Show him hunting in his palace grounds or something, I guess.

For India you could have the Mughal ruler, Akbar, who aside from his Star Wars-inspiring name, was a truly accomplished king militarily and culturally. Religiously, he was quite interesting, and made his own religion in an attempt to unify all world religions.

Kublai and Genghis are fairly similar, no? That's the problem with Mongols. What about Qin Shi Huang again for China?

Kublai and Genghis are fairly similar, no? That's the problem with Mongols. What about Qin Shi Huang again for China?

Well, Kublai was Islamic wasn't he? So if religion makes a comeback he could be given bonuses in that area to make him significantly different to Genghis.

I can't see going past Emperor Qin and his terracotta soldiers for China.

personally, i'd like to see cao cao for china, but i'm not really expecting that.
one of the first couple of ming emperors would probably be pretty cool, though i'm not sure what the ability would be.

UU = Eunuch

Although symbolic in the same sense Victoria was, Meiji would be the most logical.
Meiji Restoration would be the unique ability. Not sure what, though, maybe double great person points during a Golden Age.

Whatever the ability, you'd probably want something that applied over the whole game like Bushido does. I'd actually advocate something like manufacturing-based buildings take fewer hammers to build and possibly military units cost half to upgrade.


Would it be appropriate to use the post-Ottoman Turks and have Attaturk as the leader?

Probably not if you're calling it the Ottoman Empire. Wouldn't that be akin to making Suleiman a second leader for the Arabian Caliphate?

I think if Firaxis creates more leaders they need to add a new game mechanic like leader diplomatic ability. Let players choose UA from a selection of Civ specific options.

Probably not if you're calling it the Ottoman Empire. Wouldn't that be akin to making Suleiman a second leader for the Arabian Caliphate?

Ataturk is at least the same nationality. Wouldn't it be closer to using a British monarch (like Victoria) for England or, at worse, a Pope for Rome?

My choices for second leaders:

Americans: Abraham Lincoln
Arabs: Saladin
Aztecs: Ahuitzotl - a big empire builder
Babylonians: Hammurabi
Chinese: Qin Shi Huang
Egyptians: Cleopatra - based on sheer fame
English: Alfred the Great - this guy was a major stud
French: Louis XIV
Germans: Frederick Barbarossa
Greeks: Pericles
Incans: Huayna Capac
Indians: Ashoka or Akbar
Iroquois: Logan - apparently this guy has some notoriety
Japanese: Tokugawa Ieyasu
Mongols: Kublai Khan
Ottomans: Mehmed II
Persians: Cyrus the Great
Polynesians: Hono Heke - this one's hard, but he was apparently a famous Maori chief
Romans: Julius Caesar
Russians: Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great
Siamese: Naresuan
Songhai: Mansa Musa - just to acknowledge that Mali and Songhai are essentially the same civ
Spanish: Philip II, although El Cid is also really cool
Vikings: Cnut the Great

Logan is Mingo. He's kinda sorta Iroquois (no offense to anyone who's Mingo, I believe we have one poster). Essentially, the Mingo are to the Iroquois what the Americans are to the English.

maybe canassatego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canassatego) could be a second iroquois leader, though i'm still not expecting any second leaders.

Actually, he's the guy I was referring to when I said the Iroquois abandoned Decanesora's smart policies of using the Covenant as an Indian League and started siding with the British to subjugate other tribes. Interestingly enough, the Walking Purchase is something universally agreed by white Pennsylvanians to have been a fraud, but heavily debated by historians (with opinion varying for many reasons).

That being said, the height of Iroquois territorial power after the Ohio River Valley fell was at this point, under Canassatego. He's not a bad candidate. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decanesora) is the wikipedia article on Decanesora, which isn't very good. Basically just makes him sound pro-French, which wasn't the case. He essentially pursued Iroquois neutrality to play both powers off each other. Under his influence, there was actually a brief moment where both the French and the English were technically allied to each other through the Iroquois (which, of course, wasn't supposed to happen. Indian alliances were viewed by both crowns as recognizing royal authority over the tribe).

Basically, if you want one warmonger and one peaceful diplomat, having both Canassatego and Decanesora wouldn't be bad. Poor Hiawatha, though. His constitution is pretty cool.

Here's a few thoughts on the DLC:

Babylonia-
Nebuchadnezzar-Ingenuity (As it is in game).
Hammurabi-Code of Laws (Courthouses and Libraries each add +1 Happiness in any city).

Denmark-
Haralald Bluetooth-Viking Fury (As it is in game)
Margret of Denmark-Kalmar Union (City States friendship increases at half the money and the amount of money you receive when you meet them is twice the amount).

Incas-
Pachacuti-Great Andean Road (As it is in game).
Huayna Capac-Incan Riches (Trading posts produce +1 gold, Gold recourses produce double the amount).

Mongolia-
Genghis Kahn-Mongol Terror (As it is in game).
Kublai Kahn-Mongol Dynasty (Newly captured cities produce 50% less unhappiness and unrest is cut by half).

Polynesia-
King Kamehmaha-Wayfinding (As it is in game).
Queen Liliʻuokalani-Royal Tradition (Capital City generates 25% more culture, and each monument generates +1 Culture each).

Spain-
Isabella-Seven Cities of Gold (As it is in game).
Phillip II-Great Armada (Upon Recruitment, each naval unit receives one free upgrade).

Oh, and a little thing I noticed in this picture: There's a pyramid in one of the clouds!:lol:

Well, Kublai was Islamic wasn't he? So if religion makes a comeback he could be given bonuses in that area to make him significantly different to Genghis.

I can't see going past Emperor Qin and his terracotta soldiers for China.

Woah, no Kublai wasn't Islamic. In fact, he actually actively persecuted Muslims during his reign -- something very few Mongol leaders did.

Nonetheless, I think Kublai could easily be presented as the "builder" version of the Mongols. While warlike, Kublai, at least against Genghis Khan, is more associated with the post-Mongolian conquest of China and economic leaps of global scale that was done under the Yuan and subsequent dynasties. In fact, it was Kublai Khan who founded the Yuan dynasty. In Civ 4, for example, I believe he was Aggressive/Cultural for this reason.

Moved to Ideas & Suggestions. :)

I greatly admire Ataturk as one of my personal heroes, but I think it'd be inappropriate to have him lead the Ottoman empire. Though he fought in the great war for them in the post war period he lead the movement to set up the secular state of Turkey in which the Ottoman Empires ruling elite and their descendants were declared persona non grata.

I think the real inappropriate thing in all Civ games and expansions that included Ottomans so far is that it is called Ottomans. It is like having "Ming Dynasty" as a civ, rather than the Chinese. In this case it should have been called the Turks, and then it would make sense to have both Suleyman and Ataturk. Ataturk's UA would possibly be some sort of defense bonus to land units within friendly territory, or some research bonus to techs that are known by two other civs.

Mao Zedong-Great Leap Forward (Factories and manufactories have a 33% larger output)

A military or population related bonus might be more appropriate, and it's strange that you'd name it after his greatest failure.

India-
Gandhi-Population Growth (As it is in game).
Other-Any thoughts?

Chandragupta Maurya
Asoka
Chandragupta I
Harsha
Krishnadevaraya
Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar
Shivaji
Jawaharlal Nehru
Indira Gandhi

Ottomans-Any thoughts?

Osman Gazi
Orhan Gazi
Murad Hudavendigar
Bayezid Yilderim
Mehmed Fatih

Siam-Any thoughts?

Trailok
Naresuan
Narai
Phya Taksin
Rama III
Rama V

Songhai-Any thoughts?

Sonni Ali


Those are some good ideas. I'm personally against including Saladin (even though he was an awesome guy) since he wasn't so much a leader as a military man, but that's just me.

Most leaders those days were military men. And he was Sultan of Egypt and Syria, not merely a general.

Also some people think that since he was Kurdish he shouldn't represent Arabia, but I think that's a little picky.

Yekaterina Velikeya was German.

Meiji Restoration would be the unique ability. Not sure what, though, maybe double great person points during a Golden Age.

The Meiji Era was characterized by rapid industrialization, so something to do with factories or the military make sense.

Would it be appropriate to use the post-Ottoman Turks and have Attaturk as the leader?

No.

Concerning the topic: Meiji for Japan would be a great choice, except in Japan it's apparently forbidden to represent the Emperor, or something?

I would suggest Ito Hirobumi, though that might mean you lose a substantial portion of the Korean market.

Kublai and Genghis are fairly similar, no?

Not at all. And they ruled a good 40 years apart.

Well, Kublai was Islamic wasn't he?

No.

I can't see going past Emperor Qin and his terracotta soldiers for China.

The terracotta tomb was meant to be secret. It'd be strange for him to meet foreign envoys there. ;)


Woah, no Kublai wasn't Islamic. In fact, he actually actively persecuted Muslims during his reign -- something very few Mongol leaders did.

By persecute do you mean he employed them as advisors, administrators, engineers and artisans, and allow them to settle in various areas of China?

He passed some anti-Muslim measures, but then who weren't persecuted by Kublai at some point?

I think the real inappropriate thing in all Civ games and expansions that included Ottomans so far is that it is called Ottomans. It is like having "Ming Dynasty" as a civ, rather than the Chinese. In this case it should have been called the Turks, and then it would make sense to have both Suleyman and Ataturk. Ataturk's UA would possibly be some sort of defense bonus to land units within friendly territory, or some research bonus to techs that are known by two other civs.

The character of the Ottoman Empire was (for most of its existence) remarkably different from the Republic of Turkey which succeeded it. I'm not sure if that's enough to justify making it a separate civilization as distinct from "Turkey".

i wonder if it's because there are so many different turkish groups. but then again, there have been civilizations in the games called "native american" and "polynesian".

For Polynesia, I'd far prefer another island's leaders, so not to make it Hawaii-centric. Maybe someone like Te Rauperaha or Hone Heke, both were famous Maori chiefs, one conquering much of New Zealand, the other fighting the British by... chopping down a flagpole.
Te Rauperaha: UA - Children of Tumatauenga: Melee units start with Survivalism I and Sentry, enemy melee units lose 10% strength when invading Maori territory, and embarked units can defend themselves.
I'd really like to see Meiji as Emperor of Japan, and I think a building production is less type UA would be better. As a UU too, instead of the Samurai (As I think the Zero fits better with this timeline) we could include Ashigaru as a cheaper, and slightly more powerful (18 strength, to match Samurai) musketeer, with a bonus when in groups.

it's not really hawaii-centric. the leader is hawaiian, but the unit and improvement aren't. so i'd prefer maybe a tongan leader if there were going to be more than one.

A better idea for how to include multi-leader civs might be to give each civ a different leader (with different AI) Per Era... but no differences in bonuses.

That would help with the idea that you are struggling against "the French" rather than Napoleon. (it would be Louis in Mideval, Napoleon in Renaissance, DeGaulle Industrial)

Some civs might have the same leader for muliple Eras. [especially for Modern/Future Era civs]

it's not really hawaii-centric. the leader is hawaiian, but the unit and improvement aren't. so i'd prefer maybe a tongan leader if there were going to be more than one.

If Leader 1 was Kamehameha I and Leader 2 was Queen Liliʻuokalani then the leaders would be Hawaii-centric. Who would you have as a Tongan leader, bearing in mind Aho'eitu would probably not work given he's in the scenario

A better idea for how to include multi-leader civs might be to give each civ a different leader (with different AI) Per Era... but no differences in bonuses.

That would help with the idea that you are struggling against "the French" rather than Napoleon. (it would be Louis in Mideval, Napoleon in Renaissance, DeGaulle Industrial)

Some civs might have the same leader for muliple Eras. [especially for Modern/Future Era civs]

That's actually kind of cool, but it seems like that would be a lot of work for the animators for relatively little gameplay payoff. Plus you'd have some weird stuff going on when Gandhi succeeds Asoka and suddenly that massive Indian horde has nothing to do but twiddle their broadswords.

But +10 for originality on that idea! :goodjob:

the Mongols could also have Kublai, and remember, they don't all need 2 leaders.

If Leader 1 was Kamehameha I and Leader 2 was Queen Liliʻuokalani then the leaders would be Hawaii-centric. Who would you have as a Tongan leader, bearing in mind Aho'eitu would probably not work given he's in the scenario

Could go with Momo. Although I don't see why, just because a scenario has one leader, the game itself couldn't also have that leader.

If Leader 1 was Kamehameha I and Leader 2 was Queen Liliʻuokalani then the leaders would be Hawaii-centric. Who would you have as a Tongan leader, bearing in mind Aho'eitu would probably not work given he's in the scenario

i actually missed the post where he said Liliʻuokalani, but i don't know of any other tongan leaders. i actually just said tonga because that was the first thing i thought of, but i don't see any reason why aho'eitu couldn't be used, either.

That's actually kind of cool, but it seems like that would be a lot of work for the animators for relatively little gameplay payoff. Plus you'd have some weird stuff going on when Gandhi succeeds Asoka and suddenly that massive Indian horde has nothing to do but twiddle their broadswords.

But +10 for originality on that idea! :goodjob:

well, they did that in rhye's and fall so it's not exactly original, but yeah.

What about Cuauhtémoc as a second Aztec ruler?

For Siam, i'd keep ramkhamhaeng and his UA and add Mongkut, he's known as the father of science so a bonus for science perhaps or possibly King Chulalongkorn?

Maybe Naresuan could have the Naresuan's elephant UU, and Rammy has something different?

By persecute do you mean he employed them as advisors, administrators, engineers and artisans, and allow them to settle in various areas of China?

He passed some anti-Muslim measures, but then who weren't persecuted by Kublai at some point?


Yes, actually. That is what I meant -- that he persecuted Muslims to some degree-- more than most Mongols. Did I mean he committed genocide? Not at all and I never said that. I realize exactly the good and the bad he did for Muslims throughout his empire. I simply said he persecuted them -- which is true. It doesn't mean he didn't support them either. My point was that he wasn't a Muslim.

Really, I said exactly the same sort of thing you just did when you said "but then, who weren't persecuted by Kublai at some point?" and begin listing all the many people who lived well during Kublai's rule -- which was many.

You really didn't need to be condescending whatsoever.

Naresuan's UA might be a bonus for annexed cities?

maybe sonni ali should have river warlords as his ability since he was a conqueror and askia could maybe have a city-state ability since he apparently wasn't as good of a conqueror, at least not on his own.

We could combine Iroquois and America into the same civ, and in the process remove some of their worthless unique units and abilities.

maybe sonni ali should have river warlords as his ability since he was a conqueror and askia could maybe have a city-state ability since he apparently wasn't as good of a conqueror, at least not on his own.

You'd need to change Askia's background though, can't have a peaceful guy doing fanciful tricks with a sword and a burning fortress in the background

Yeah, the whole inclusion of Askia as a bloodthirsty warmonger is probably one of the biggest affronts to history and reason in the game. It almost seems like they made the background, then realized that his reign was characterized not by bloodletting and violence but by trade, scholasticism, and bureaucratic reforms, but they already had this really cool background so they made him Montezuma II. That's not to say that he didn't start his share of wars, but come on. His in-game representation bears so little resemblance to the actual figure it hurts.

OK endrant. Point is yeah, let's change the background. :p

Ottomans
Osman Gazi
Orhan Gazi
Murad Hudavendigar
Bayezid Yilderim
Mehmed Fatih
The first four don't have as much significance (but Beyazid "the Lightning" is cool), they are merely the first four sultans of Ottomans. Mehmed II (Fatih = the Conqueror) is the only one worth adding here, based on his effect on the history of Ottomans and the world.

The character of the Ottoman Empire was (for most of its existence) remarkably different from the Republic of Turkey which succeeded it. I'm not sure if that's enough to justify making it a separate civilization as distinct from "Turkey".
And there wouldn't be justification to call it Turkey either, that's why I suggested calling it Turks and include several medieval Turkic civs in central Asia (Gokturks, Uighurs, Karahanids, etc.), plus Seljuks, Ottomans, and Modern Turkey. Similar to the fact that China includes ancient dynasties, medieval empires, and communist China. One might argue Ottoman Empire had lots of non-Turkish subjects, but same is true for British Empire, Russia, etc.

The first four don't have as much significance (but Beyazid "the Lightning" is cool), they are merely the first four sultans of Ottomans.

You could argue Orhan, Murad and Bayezid laid the necessary foundations for The Conquest and the foundations for imperial government on which Mehmed II later built on (especially Murad). And Osman kinda started the Osmanli line in the first place.

Please return the discussion to something related to Civ or take it to the history forum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43).

It's clear that, even if the Ottomans were renamed the Turks, their Civ would mostly represent the Ottomans. Best hope you could get is adding the Seljuks (as well as Attaturk). Modern day Turkey is a successor state, though (especially WWI-era Ottomans with the Young Turks, there was a definite transition period, even if it was a pronounced, dramatic time).

Anyway, I don't see the big deal with a rename. I also don't see the big deal with bending things a bit. Stalin could be a Russian Civ leader, Victoria could be an English Civ leader with little contradiction (even if USSR isn't technically Russia and the United Kingdom isn't England).

And if you renamed the Ottomans 'The turks' you'd have another group complaining that it's called Turkey and not Ottomans, like Denmark and the Vikings

There are always groups complaining. I'm just trying to diversify leaders. Like Oda Nabonaga and Meiji are very different. Oda and Tokugawa would not be.

people already complain that the ottomans should be called turks, so i'm sure people would complain that the turks only represent the ottomans and turkey. although i guess technically ataturk could be an ottoman leader because wikipedia says that turkey didn't become become a republic until 1923 and he was prime minister for about a year while it was still technically the ottoman empire.

US: Washington and Lincoln/or Roosevelt
England: Elizabeth and Alfred/or Churchill
Germany: Bismarck and Charlemagne/ or Frederick/or Maria Theresa
France: Napoleon and Louis XIV/or De Gaulle
Spain: Isabella and Philip II
Rome; Augustus and Trajan/or Constantine
Greece: Alexander or Pericles
Russia: Catherine and Peter/Ivan III
Denmark: Harald and Cnut
Ottoman: Suleiman and Mehmed
Egypt: Ramesses and Hatshepsut
Arabia: Harun and Saladin
Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar and Hammurabi
Songhai: Askia and Sonni Ali
Persia: Darius and Khosrau
India: Gandhi and Ashoka/or Akbar
Siam: Ramkhamhaeng and Naresuan/or Narai
Polynesia: Kamehameha and Tuitatui
China: Wu Zetian and Kangxi
Japan: Oda and Meiji, if possible or Empress Koken, or Prince Shotoku
Mongol: Genghis and Kublai/or Hulagu
Iroquois: Hiawatha and Joseph Brant
Aztec: Montezuma I and Cuauhtemoc
Inca: Pachacuti and Huayna Capac/or even Tupac Amaru

I'd love to see naresuan's leader screen if they ever make this (Extremely unlikely :() with naresuan riding or standing beside an elephant!

Personally i'd rather see Tokugawa for Japan.

Tokugawa is too similar in style to Oda Nobunaga, Meiji would be very different