Abraxis
☮
Macedonia, Greece... just different words for barbarians
Previous Civ's like Civ IV bunched together Mao's China with Ancient China, which are altogether different despite having the same name.
I think it is a mistake to get too caught up on the "historical accuracy" issue. Pretty much all the leaders picked are sterotyped, but it was an attempt to create different ways to play the game, not trying to recreate history. Why else would I get China, and have the US show up as a neighbor?
As to the male/female issue, I think it is strictly marketing.
Groups that were at no point cultural leaders in the world, and often had no writing, agriculture, or other hallmarks of civilization are given a civilization in the game. Shaka, Hiawatha, Atilla and Pocatello beat me to the space race, and it's impossible for me to forget that I'm playing a game.
I think it is a mistake to get too caught up on the "historical accuracy" issue. Pretty much all the leaders picked are sterotyped, but it was an attempt to create different ways to play the game, not trying to recreate history. Why else would I get China, and have the US show up as a neighbor?
I would love for the game to not rely on the 3D depictions of the leaders, something that becomes rather old and tedious a few games in.
1. If you play Civilization for realism then you're playing the wrong game. 2. If you somehow like the notion of playing against America in 2500 BC but detest the thought of a leader representing a nation that didn't exist for another ~4000 years then something seems a bit off.
3. The immersiveness of civ is having the ability to waste a ton of hours in it without even realizing it. The majority of users do it here, so I'd say they get pretty immersed, despite having the burden of speaking to leaders from various civilizations.