Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians.What about Queen Elizabeth II of the Australians? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians.What about Queen Elizabeth II of the Australians? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently? What if Alexander of Mycenea didn't die at age 30 whatever? Perhaps he would have conquered Rome. What if the Mongols didn't fight with each other before invading Europe? What if the Byzantines had held off the Ottomans at Constantinople? What if the Persians had conquered the Greeks? What if Hitler had attacked Russia before France? Etc, etc, etc. Each civ in the game has the chance to become a power, just like in real life. You might play a game where Hammurabi gets wiped out early because he started near Darius who immortal rushed him. Just like in real life. Shaka might be very backwards and get invaded by England and beat. Just like in real life. But these things are only possibilities. That's why I don't mind having civs like the Aztecs and the Zulu in the game.
Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians.
Unattractive female leaders.
It doesn't enter the realm of alternate history unless you're playing on an Earth map.And of course, in our alternate history in Civilization, they could be the official rulers of their civilization.
Where do you think Sharwood went?Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?
Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?
She didn't have too. In 1999 we voted not to become a republic.
It doesn't enter the realm of alternate history unless you're playing on an Earth map.
Since when was I talking about your point?I can't see how that does anything but to support my point...
He kill anyone who he thought might stand in his way.
sigh at this thread. Some of you guys take this stuff way too personally. And don't seem to understand the point of Civ games. The point of civ games that the developers like to say is it is alternate history. Thusly, whether a civilization such as the Shakas never really developed into anything is not relevant. The point is what if they were able to materialize and form a long lasting and cultural civilization?
I suppose this is what happens when you include specific leaders. People will have prejudices. This game isn't about what these leaders did in real life, they are just figureheads. It allows for more immersive gameplay when you can see a face to talk to during diplomacy.
So by my argument, every leader is fine by me. I have no qualms with any of them. Diversity is a good thing. Who the hell wants a bunch of european civs with China thrown in for good measure? Maybe Japan and India, but the rest of the world hasn't done squat. Many were little more than loosely joined tribes or in some cases little more than barbarian hordes. As I said, I don't want to see the same faces every damn game.
So I welcome the Zulu. Although they do attack me far too often, but last game they never attacked, and they were right next to me.
I just wanted to make one more argument for modern leaders. Most aren't worth mentioning. They came in did their job, and then left. But there were a few that really revolutionized the system. FDR is one case of this. While you may disagree with his policies (I do), you can't deny how much change he has done to the economic system of the U.S. Then there is Hitler. He lasted about the same time as FDR, but his changes weren't long lasting. As his govermental system was disbanded after 45. But you could argue without them, those changes would have never occurred. But for practicality reasons (game needed mods for german play etc) he shouldn't be in the game.