So why is Augustus the only 'great leader' that gets to play?

I just realized that, looking at the score ranking chart, the top 5 leaders are all from playable civs - but Augustus is the only one actually used as the leader in the game (i.e. they went for Nebuchadnezzar II over Hammurabi for Babylon, Washington over Lincoln for America, Napoleon over Charlemagne for France, etc.)

It's a little odd in some respects - maybe they should've gone with Julius for Rome?

And Wałęsa for Poland. He's the one behind Polish unique ability, you know, dear Firaxis. Also, he's a gold mine for catch phrases.

Well, saying that Charlemagne was French is something of a stretch... but yeah, I agree with you it is a little odd...

Makavcio said:

And Wałęsa for Poland. He's the one behind Polish unique ability, you know, dear Firaxis. Also, he's a gold mine for catch phrases.

Click to expand...

Oh my God. No, only not Wałęsa. He was not statesman, not ruler, not political leader, no giant conqueror. He was national hero until 1990 in the way Joanna d'Arc was, and later he became the perfect example of destroying his reputation (his disgustind attitude of "Me AND ONLY ME and NOBODY ELSE destroyed communism, and I don't agree on ANYONE being famous for that, because I am the SOLE HERO!" and so on...)

In the West Wałęsa has currently MUCH better reputation than in Poland.

In my opionin Augustus makes more sense. I mean Julius was a military commander, rebel, & dictator. Who was murdered by his own Congress.
Augustus however was an administrator and a commander, beloved by his people to the point of being a god in their Faith & a reserved spot as a Consul. In his words: "I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble." If there was any ruler who was the essence of greatness it would be Augustus Ceasear born Octavian, ruler of the Roman Republic, who was beloved to the point of becoming an Emperor, the great expansionist, founder of an empire that would last near 2000 years.

Silverman6083 said:

In my opionin Augustus makes more sense. I mean Julius was a military commander, rebel, & dictator. Who was murdered by his own Congress.
Augustus however was an administrator and a commander, beloved by his people to the point of being a god in their Faith & a reserved spot as a Consul. In his words: "I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble." If there was any ruler who was the essence of greatness it would be Augustus Ceasear born Octavian, ruler of the Roman Republic, who was beloved to the point of becoming an Emperor, the great expansionist, founder of an empire that would last near 2000 years.

Click to expand...

Seeing as leaders are picked for being interesting as opposed to actually being a good leader now, maybe Julius does have some rational? I'm sure that there's more interesting leaders of Rome, but Julius isn't the worst choice.

Krajzen said:

Oh my God. No, only not Wałęsa. He was not statesman, not ruler, not political leader, no giant conqueror. He was national hero until 1990 in the way Joanna d'Arc was, and later he became the perfect example of destroying his reputation (his disgustind attitude of "Me AND ONLY ME and NOBODY ELSE destroyed communism, and I don't agree on ANYONE being famous for that, because I am the SOLE HERO!" and so on...)

In the West Wałęsa has currently MUCH better reputation than in Poland.

Click to expand...

You are a typical pole
Walęsa was fighting communism when there were tanks stationed on Polish streets and the people who put in the words you mention into his mouth, were either abroad or were cooperating with Russians. Many cowards, who began their anti-communist crusade only after Wałęsa's victory, now try to rob him of the credit he deserves. The industry of lies is ridiculous and you are an excellent example of its products. It's really hard for me to understand how in hell are you able to see Wałęsa not as a political ruler and a statesman, but he somehow you relate him to Joanna d'Arc.

I can understand Wałęsa and his struggle for his legacy when people, who back then were de facto communists' lap dogs, are expanding their smear campaign. He's one of the greatest people of the XXth century, together with such people like Gandhi, Havel or Mandela, and he already gets recognition in the game as one of the greatest leaders (hall of fame). The same is true for other iterations of the game.

My suggestion was a joke, because it would be extremely unwise to use a living person in the game. I guess there would also be some serious legal issues.

For people who may not know anything about poland, let me explain that poles fiercely hate other poles who have achieved anything in their lives. Businessmen are thieves for them, accomplished sportsmen are losers, and they do not hate anyone as much as the small group of them who gets international recognition.

Viregel said:

Seeing as leaders are picked for being interesting as opposed to actually being a good leader now, maybe Julius does have some rational? I'm sure that there's more interesting leaders of Rome, but Julius isn't the worst choice.

Click to expand...

It would be great if the game introduced 2-3 leaders per civilization. One could be the poster child of his/her faction (with a proper parity of sexes, ofc ), the other might be the greatest leader (it's always debatable) and the 3rd one could be an "interesting" one. There is an extremely low chance for this to happen, because in Civ5, it would require a lot of work to create all animations and record voices inn all the languages already used in the game.

Moderator Action: Your attacks on Krajzen in this post are not at all acceptable. Please keep your disagreements civil and within the spirit of productive discourse.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Makavcio said:

You are a typical pole

For people who may not know anything about poland, let me explain that poles fiercely hate other poles who have achieved anything in their lives. Businessmen are thieves for them, accomplished sportsmen are losers, and they do not hate anyone as much as the small group of them who gets international recognition.

Click to expand...

Whoa there. I'm not very knowledgeable about Polish history, but that right there is serious disrespect.

Makavcio said:

It would be great if the game introduced 2-3 leaders per civilization. One could be the poster child of his/her faction (with a proper parity of sexes, ofc ), the other might be the greatest leader (it's always debatable) and the 3rd one could be an "interesting" one. There is an extremely low chance for this to happen, because in Civ5, it would require a lot of work to create all animations and record voices inn all the languages already used in the game.

Click to expand...

I was thinking 4, 1 leader for Ancient-Industrial and 3 leaders for Freedom, Order, Autocracy respectively. Problem is, it's hard to find a remarkable leader from all 3 ideologies for every civ. Honestly I would say 1 leader for 4000 AD to 2050 is actually the best choice, it feels like actors playing in the movie of "Civilization".

Pythakoreas said:

I was thinking 4, 1 leader for Ancient-Industrial and 3 leaders for Freedom, Order, Autocracy respectively. Problem is, it's hard to find a remarkable leader from all 3 ideologies for every civ. Honestly I would say 1 leader for 4000 AD to 2050 is actually the best choice, it feels like actors playing in the movie of "Civilization".

Click to expand...

Or just change their hats like in civ 3!

I think Augustus was considered to be the top leader by Firaxis was because he radically changed the Roman Empire. The Republic was failing miserably and he had to implement a strong executive role over the Empire. The statement that Augustus was an able commander is wrong though. When he went into battle, every single time, he became sick and withdrew from the battlefield. Mark Anthony and then Agrippa did all the military work for him and even gave Augustus credit for his success. But yes, Augustus was an effective administrator and shrewd politician.

bbbt said:

I just realized that, looking at the score ranking chart, the top 5 leaders are all from playable civs - but Augustus is the only one actually used as the leader in the game (i.e. they went for Nebuchadnezzar II over Hammurabi for Babylon, Washington over Lincoln for America, Napoleon over Charlemagne for France, etc.)

It's a little odd in some respects - maybe they should've gone with Julius for Rome?

Click to expand...

Dude there are a least 100 other threads just like this all saying "the leader I wanted isn't in game" But yours is the first one that actually has a valid point. Whats up Fraxis?

I think August representing the Roman Empire is well deserved. If you look at the history many emperors after august, have been assassinated or just were plain idiots. He was probably the best Emperor of Roman Empire. The only one else that had a succesful rule was Trajan.

I agree, Augustus is most definitely the best choice for leader of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar (the Roman Geezer) was certainly a great leader militarily, but honestly he wasn't very good when it came to actually governing Rome.

I'm not disagreeing that Augustus is the better leader - that in fact is the point. It's odd that they, by the standards of the ranking, consider Hammurabi a better leader than Nebuchadnezzar II, but Hammurabi doesn't get to play.

It's more the idea that you could play in a match against Rome, annihilate him, and then based on score get, say Lincoln - so it's like, "Yeah, we know you just destroyed Augustus in the game, but you're still not as good a leader as him."

It'd be better to keep Augustus out of the game if he's on the ranking list, so he remains this 'unsullied' standard, in game terms.

And in general, they don't always go for the 'best' leader for a civ - as examples, Catherine and Theodora were both great rulers, but it's hard to argue that they had more impact that Peter the Great or Justinian I respectively.

Silverman6083 said:

In my opionin Augustus makes more sense. I mean Julius was a military commander, rebel, & dictator. Who was murdered by his own Congress.
Augustus however was an administrator and a commander, beloved by his people to the point of being a god in their Faith & a reserved spot as a Consul. In his words: "I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble." If there was any ruler who was the essence of greatness it would be Augustus Ceasear born Octavian, ruler of the Roman Republic, who was beloved to the point of becoming an Emperor, the great expansionist, founder of an empire that would last near 2000 years.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't Shakespeare name a play after him?

Also, his empire barely lasted 400 years.

Which text file are the names listed? I want to add/edit some of the names out because I found that some leaders deserved to be on the list.

Responding to the OP: Variety.

A lot of those leaders have been in previous versions. I'm happy it hasn't been the same every time. I guess if 5 is your first Civ experience it would seem odd but it's nice to change 'em up some. I do wish India and France would get changed up more. I think the only time they had different leaders was in 4 where there were multiple options. I mean Ghandi was great and all (we'll leave the political v. spiritual leader debate out of this) but would anybody feel like it was a Civ game without him? Anybody?

VicRatlhead5199 said:

I mean Ghandi was great and all (we'll leave the political v. spiritual leader debate out of this) but would anybody feel like it was a Civ game without him? Anybody?

Click to expand...

Nope. Especially not if he doesn't like throwing Nukes around.

bbbt said:

It's a little odd in some respects - maybe they should've gone with Julius for Rome?

Click to expand...

It's a matter of balance and variety. They built England as a naval and espionage power, which makes Elizabeth an obvious choice, and vice versa. Had they wanted a more commercial/expansionist and cultural powerhouse that is stronger in the late game, Victoria would have been a better choice, while a more military/diplomatic England might call more for Churchill.

They built France as, mostly, a cultural power, with military overtones. That makes Napoléon not that bad a choice, since he stands between the ancient régime France and republican France and the modern culture emerged in his rule (and during the second Empire). Louis XIV is a good alternative, for a less modern France but more influential still culturally. François 1er would be a good choice for a more expansionist/exploration focused France or a cultural France centered more in the Renaissance era. St.Louis would have made a great leader if they focused France more on religion/crusade.

But civs don't exist on their own, they need to be balanced as whole to keep them unique and varied, which also influences a great deal their choice of leaders and focuses/themes. Many "obvious" or standing-out historical leaders and national themes would be too similar to ones being used for other civs in the game.