Leaders we don't want.

well this thread is quite ugly. Thanks to anyone that corrected Aquila SPQR on his views of the American Civil War.. IMO completely wrong. If you think the ACW wasn't about slavery, honestly you don't know squat about it. Saying a civil war is unnecessary is just nonsensical, and then to somehow point the blame on Lincoln, well you just don't know anything about it. The CSA had already ceded and formed its own government months before Lincoln even took office.

the Falcon said:

"Why, hi there, honest Abe. How about some one-on-one diplomacy?"

Click to expand...

Really???

no thanks. And no thanks to Shaka, Mao, Stalin, Charlemagne, Darius, and a few others that just aren't that appealing to play as to me. Charlemagne could be ok I guess, just don't use the Burger King guy as the model this time around.

Lesse... hmm. No Churchill because he was ridiculously bigoted against Indians, and no Gandhi because a) He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney, and because he flat-out refused to believe anyone else couldn't get a united Indian nation free from the British. Nehru'd be better, IMO. ARE there any non-corrupt competent Roman rulers? And at the risk of being obvious, no Hitler!

OwieB2003 said:

Lesse... hmm. No Churchill because he was ridiculously bigoted against Indians, and no Gandhi because a) He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney, and because he flat-out refused to believe anyone else couldn't get a united Indian nation free from the British. Nehru'd be better, IMO. ARE there any non-corrupt competent Roman rulers? And at the risk of being obvious, no Hitler!

Click to expand...

Dude, every single leader ever has skeletons in their closet. Who do you want, Mother Teresa? (who has skeletons in her closet, as well... so my point is reinforced)

Gandhi! Every time he is in the game I make it my objective to conquer him first

NO MORE ELIZABETH. I admit she was a great leader but I'm just plain sick of seeing her. If she is in the game, fine; but if the developers get a silly idea like having only one leader per civ; PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT ELIZABETH I TUDOR. Personally, I'd like to see Alfred the Great, Edward I/III, or Dick the Lionheart. GOD SAVE THE KING

Joan of Arc is silly. Make it Louis XIV; and Napoleon was fun to see too.

Saladin for the Arabs is dumb. The man was a Kurd and there are plenty of Arab leaders to choose from. I'm very happy that other guy was confirmed as the leader.

I'm kind of sick of Isabella too for the Russians. Yaroslav the Wise and Vladimir the Great were way cooler.

OwieB2003 said:

He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney

Click to expand...

Hardly. He clashed constantly with Congress, and he was largely excluded from the political processes leading up to independence and the decision to partition India (which he opposed).

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?

Click to expand...

This is true, but by that rationale we could include anybody and anything. Because what if Eskimos had conquered both Americas?

There sure might be other reasons to include Zulu apart from greatness. Now that I think of it, nostalgia would be one of them too I'm so used to Zulu being in every Civ game I'd probably even miss them in Civ 5 should they not get included

i won't want singapore as a city state in this game.. 'cause i don't think i'll sleep very well knowing there're people here planning to nuke it just to piss off u.s. of america or something.

I can't believe the fighting over Abraham Lincoln and slavery. He is considered one of the top three most famous presidents alongside both FDR, and George Washington. If you don't want him added then you can have your own opinion. I almost guarantee most people would disagree with you. Specific people not being added is a moot point right now. We have no idea what actual things can happen in the game. If your civilization can have a civil war with itself, then perhaps Abraham Lincoln might be a perfect solution to it.

Cleopatra, who wasn't a real leader.
Gandhi, same reason.

Mythical leaders like Jingu for Japan.

Lesser known leaders replacing more notable leaders (Hatshepsut instead of Ramses, for example.)

Any leader that ruled after the 70s (The last leader I'll accept is Nixon.)

Cleopatra wasn't a real ruler? You're going to throw out Queen Victoria, Otto von Bismark and all other constitutional rulers and politicians then?

Dachs said:

Since when was I talking about your point?

Click to expand...

Since the moment you quoted my post and responded to it?

phungus420 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Click to expand...

My reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Creating a caricature of an opponent's position in a debate is called a "straw man" argument, as per the Wikipedia article I linked. Not writing off the Zulu people as a bunch of uncivilised animals does not imply hating European culture and "the white man," except perhaps in some paranoid far right fantasy world. Argue with things people have actually said, please.

I'll say no more because I don't want to get drawn into personal arguments on the internet.

Gameplay wise Gandhi is pretty awful, he never builds much of an army and is very easy to conquer. If he was neighbouring someone like Shaka or Gilly, then that match would become pretty difficult for the human player.

Historically though Gandhi was important for India, so as long as India is in, Gandhi has to be one of the leader. It would be better if he could build a reasonable army.

I don't want ANY of the real life historical leaders. The leader/civ should have its special powers and characteristics for sure, but the game should just generate a random name that sounds appropriate for the civ in question. And give the player the option to change/customize the name.

Just my humble opinion.

Imagine the thread that would start if your two American leaders were:
a) Hillary Clinton
b) Sarah Palin

That would never happen. It's a pointless idea.

Brennus and Boudicca leap to mine, although that really comes from my general desire to see an overhaul of the entire way in which the Celtic civ is represented. The former is a semi-legendary warlord from a long-extinct branch of the culture, the latter a petty monarch and short-lived rebel from an ultimately junior branch. An Irish or Scottish monarch of greater standing- Brian Boru, perhaps, or Robert Bruce, would be greatly preferable. Of course, this would require the redefinition of "Celt" in the game to mean something more than "Ancient Gaul/Briton" (a set of cultures which do not leap to mind as a necessary inclusion), but one can always hope.

Metal_Casting said:

Historically though Gandhi was important for India, so as long as India is in, Gandhi has to be one of the leader. It would be better if he could build a reasonable army.

Click to expand...

I disagree; while Gandhi was doubtlessly important, and a leader of great significance, he was never a great ruler or statesman, as most leaders in the game are; his recurring presence in the game, I'm sorry to say, has always struck me as reflecting the ignorance of the Westerner in regards to Indian history. If nothing else, the implication that the history of an entire civilisation is best represented by referencing it's relationship with Europe is slightly insulting.

And, of course, many of the obligatory female leaders from Civ2, but that rather goes without saying. They were always a little bit desperate.

Aquila SPQR said:

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.

Click to expand...

That would disqualify most rulers of our history, you know, and the whole British Empire while we are at it (they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes).

they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes

Click to expand...

M... never heard of it. Any sources please? At the times UK ruled the world... to say that Darwin was not widely accepted would be an understatement.