Why I think Spain didn't get a 2nd leader:

Bast

Bast

Protector of Cats
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
6,230
Location
Sydney, Australia
... Isabella was such a good leader that they couldn't think of anyone else to fill her shoes. I think so too.

She was great except for her handling of the Moors and Jews. It's a big flaw but she was a religious fanatic. Other than that she was great.
 
Bast said:
... Isabella was such a good leader that they couldn't think of anyone else to fill her shoes. I think so too.

She was great except for her handling of the Moors and Jews. It's a big flaw but she was a religious fanatic. Other than that she was great.
Click to expand...

I think there are other great leaders, like Charles I and Philip II, the problem is that they are very much like Isabella. Also very much religious fanatics.
 
The leaders added in BtS are also reasonable , as Sneaky said Charles I and Philip II were also religious fanatics, so perhaps their addon wouldn't have added somuch to civ4.
A Japan leader in my opinion would have been more reasonable, cconsidering Japan weight during history.
 
Bast said:
... Isabella was such a good leader that they couldn't think of anyone else to fill her shoes. I think so too.

She was great except for her handling of the Moors and Jews. It's a big flaw but she was a religious fanatic. Other than that she was great.
Click to expand...


Franco would have been perfect. And he would have fit nicely with the WW2 group of leaders.... An isolationist religious fanatic -- a sort of Tokugawa for Spain.
 
They should have add some Habsburger....so one could play the same leader with HRE and Spain.
Charles V. would have been awesome.
(imperio en el que nunca se pone el sol)
 
I think Charles V would have been excellent, but then of course he was also Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, which could get confusing... ;) And then there's Philip II, who also ruled Portugal for a while. After that, Spain's leaders started to go downhill. I'm sure Franco is a bit too controversial. Between rulers of multiple civs, mediocrity, and controversy, they might have decided to just give up!

My personal favorite, however, would be Sancho the Fat of Castile. His claim to fame was getting kicked off his throne by his followers because he was too fat to ride a horse. He fled to the Muslim court at Cordoba, was put on a diet by a Jewish physician, and returned home to reclaim his crown!

What traits would he be, though... definitely Expansive, for the whole weight thing. :)
 
prestermatt said:
I think Charles V would have been excellent, but then of course he was also Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, which could get confusing... ;) And then there's Philip II, who also ruled Portugal for a while. After that, Spain's leaders started to go downhill. I'm sure Franco is a bit too controversial. Between rulers of multiple civs, mediocrity, and controversy, they might have decided to just give up!

My personal favorite, however, would be Sancho the Fat of Castile. His claim to fame was getting kicked off his throne by his followers because he was too fat to ride a horse. He fled to the Muslim court at Cordoba, was put on a diet by a Jewish physician, and returned home to reclaim his crown!

What traits would he be, though... definitely Expansive, for the whole weight thing. :)
Click to expand...

LOL :lol: I wondered if you were making that up, but it was all true. How cool. :goodjob:
 
The problem with Isabella is that she never ruled Spain She was Queen of Castille. When her husband Ferdinand II (The kning of Aragon died) She became The Queen of Castille and Aragon. It wasn't till her son took the throne that Spain exsisted as a country.
 
Will9 said:
The problem with Isabella is that she never ruled Spain She was Queen of Castille. When her husband Ferdinand II (The kning of Aragon died) She became The Queen of Castille and Aragon. It wasn't till her son took the throne that Spain exsisted as a country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "Spain" is a tricky issue, even today. Along with Ferdinand, the two of them ruled both Castile and Aragon, though as separate kingdoms. I'm sure the developers didn't want to confuse people by having "Ferdinand and Isabella" as one leader, and they probably picked Isabella rather than Ferdinand because she helps round out the female leaders. (Plus, as the main ruler of Castile, she was a bit more responsible for the significant events of the time: Columbus, the expulsions, etc.)

By the way, it was Isabella who died first. Ferdinand ruled both kingdoms after that, though I believe that even then they were technically separate.
 
Yea well Fredrick the Great ruled Prussia not Germany, and Alexander ruled Macedonia not all of Greece, so i tihnk Firaxis will do what they want and have a bit of leniancy.
 
Darius is nothing compared to Cyrus, but they still added him.
Kublai Khan is nothing compared to Genghis, but they still have him.

It's a very inconsistent argument, especially because most people would say Philip II was a better ruler than Isabella.
 
Kublai Khan is nothing compared to Genghis, but they still have him.
Click to expand...

compared to many other leaders, Kublai IS something, but you're right, compared to Genghis, he's nothin. :)
 
Isabella was a great ruler of Castille, but Ferdinand wasn't a slouch either, he was a great military mind, and very talented at raising funds for his wars, which was something a lot of kingdoms weren't so good at. It was their TEAM that made Spain have such a great start.

I could easilly see adding him in as a financial agressive, financial charismatic, or financial Imperialistic. The last being my favorite to represent spains vast expansion overseas, and the wealth it brought in, as well as his earlier penny pinching ways during the war in Granada.

Financial Imperialistic would make Ferdinand a great counterpoint to Ragnar, who is the other great seafaring power with a war oriented trait.
 
Nice avatar Bast, Anna Paquin playing Isabella in Amistad.:goodjob:

Since they can't leave 3 trait combos unused there will be 3 Easter egg leaders for existing Civs, Spain, Japan, and an additional Native American.:mischief:
 
I think Isabella is like tomato on pizza. Serious, there's a reason why I always have her in my custom games.

No common religion = I know whom I'll be attacking to expand.
Common religion = now there's my ally when I'll be needing her!
 
I would prefer Charles V, or perhaps the same guy as Charles X (I'm pretty sure its X, not I) of HRE (since it might be more accurate than Carolus Magnus)
 
sneaky said:
I think there are other great leaders, like Charles I and Philip II, the problem is that they are very much like Isabella. Also very much religious fanatics.
Click to expand...

Well, Phillip II was important but was an AWFUL leader for Spain. He probably single-handedly ended Spanish hegemony. He bankrupt the country and lead to the horrendous Armada loss. Yech!

Charles is a good pick but people might not like that he cared more about his HRE as Charles V.

Breunor
 
prestermatt said:
I think Charles V would have been excellent, but then of course he was also Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, which could get confusing... ;) And then there's Philip II, who also ruled Portugal for a while. After that, Spain's leaders started to go downhill. I'm sure Franco is a bit too controversial. Between rulers of multiple civs, mediocrity, and controversy, they might have decided to just give up!

My personal favorite, however, would be Sancho the Fat of Castile. His claim to fame was getting kicked off his throne by his followers because he was too fat to ride a horse. He fled to the Muslim court at Cordoba, was put on a diet by a Jewish physician, and returned home to reclaim his crown!

What traits would he be, though... definitely Expansive, for the whole weight thing. :)
Click to expand...

Prester,

Did you confuse yourself? He was Charles I of SPAIN, Charles V was his 'other' foreign name.

Breunor
 
LightSpectra said:
Darius is nothing compared to Cyrus, but they still added him.
Kublai Khan is nothing compared to Genghis, but they still have him.

It's a very inconsistent argument, especially because most people would say Philip II was a better ruler than Isabella.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt too many people would favor Phillip II over Isabella? Why would you say this? He really lead Spain to ruin.

Breunor
 
Charles V was significantly ruler of Castile during the golden age of the conquistadors, the conquest of Aztec Confederation and the Incan Empire. He was however primarily Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of Germany, hence why the Aztecs were told to submit "to the Emperor", and hence why people call him "Charles V" and not "Charles I".

Philip II might have been a good candidate ... he actually ruled all of Hispania, that is, all of the Iberian peninsula. Alfonso VI the Brave could be a good, earlier alternative. There are a large number of earlier Hispanic kings who would also be great selections.

BTW, Isabella was not the religious fanatic her psycho characterization in Civ 4 makes her out to be; she had the same kind of piety that most medieval rulers in the Christian and Islamic world had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R82
Is it normal on Noble for AIs to be woefully unprepared for war?
Replies
3
Views
1K
awpioreubhnfgvv346260
A
T
AI League 2.0
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
Thrasybulos
T
tedhebert
I wonder if leader level achieved is a good reflection of their respective strengths ?
Replies
4
Views
790
disjointaccount
disjointaccount
davelisowski
New game after almost a decade - lose on AP diplomatic victory...
Replies
1
Views
1K
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
vorlon_mi
Losing at Sovereign : Patch 1.2.4, AI, and Sandbox Reflections
Replies
2
Views
527
Uberfrog
Uberfrog
Back
Top Bottom