Civ4 Leaders Mod

[Llotyhy]

Thomas Jefferson is also a nice idea, Truman perhaps... Clinton might be a good president, but he's too recent to add... and I'm not even going to start about George W.

Polk however, made a great contribution, and is also nice because he can be given the trait expansive... Also, it doesn't offend either one of the American political sides if I add him.

Jefferson will be in one day though... probably.

 

[Jecrell]

I like how you currently have Abraham Lincoln and George Washington -- two founding fathers. To fit along with the war era it might be good to pair up with Roosevelt and Truman -- two WWII presidents. James K. Polk ... I just don't see any desire to really play as him though.

But seriously -- politics are fairly annoying -- for the sake of additions I would say if you had to add in Clinton add in George (W or H) as well. It's funny how George W. Bush is as touchy a subject as Hitler on the internet these days... some people take this too seriously.

But I will say that the most impossible task is to find a picture of George W. Bush on the internet that is neither silly or photoshopped.

 

[kirkjr13]

sorry, probably a basic question but..

..is it possible to have the benefits of this mod (like being able to lead english as a male leader!!) but also use another mod. I'd love to be able to play as churchill, but also have the changes made in the realism mod.

 

[Llotyhy]

Whatever happens, I'm not going to add George W... Hitler and Stalin were obvious that unlike their past, they should be in the mod... but George W. is just a step too far for me in that aspect, because that would be hurting people that live today... not 50 years ago.

Plus, if I'm going to say here in Netherlands that I added George W. to my mod I'm probably not going to survive to tell the tale...


On the other question - Sure that's possible! You'll have to copy the files from this mod to the folder with the other mod you're using, and then you'll have both in one.

 

[Jecrell]

Whatever happens, I'm not going to add George W... Hitler and Stalin were obvious that unlike their past, they should be in the mod... but George W. is just a step too far for me in that aspect, because that would be hurting people that live today... not 50 years ago.

Plus, if I'm going to say here in Netherlands that I added George W. to my mod I'm probably not going to survive to tell the tale...

You don't want to explain why no GWB -- just say no. I can understand that. We don't want to get into a political debate, but let's just say we agree to disagree on comparing Hitler to George W. Bush. All I was saying is GWB is a touchy subject like Hitler -- not that he's commiting a holocaust (I hope that's not what you're implying), but let's not continue discussing that. -- I just needed to get that off my chest.

Also I think your mod is going to need some custom dialog to fill in that gap when you first meet new leaders. Have you thought about that yet?

 

[Llotyhy]

I didn't mean that... I meant both Hitler and GWB are touchy subjects, just that Hitler was in the past and GWB in the present and therefor not wise to include imo.

About the custom text, yes, I've thought about that... but I can imagine it's a great deal of work... dunno, will have to look into that.

 

[Ad Hominem]

Hey Llotyhy

I think you should give a Byzantine leader to the Greeks, the Byzantines are a part of Greek legacy just like Charlemagne and his Frankish empire are a part of French history - precisely the same arguments apply.

Despite that, Basil and Alexios are both Greek of birth and culture.

Wouldn't you like to add a modern leader as well? Venizelos is a very significant political leader of Greece. He doubled the size of the country (tripled it at a point, but then he lost an election and the country got royally screwed - but that's another discussion). He is contemporary of Kemal "Ataturk". I can provide you with a very good picture of the man, if you like to include him.

 

[Tactician Zhao]

Polk however, made a great contribution, and is also nice because he can be given the trait expansive... Also, it doesn't offend either one of the American political sides if I add him.

Thank god someone else has the insight to see how great my boy Polk was

In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

 

[Llotyhy]

Hey Llotyhy

I think you should give a Byzantine leader to the Greeks, the Byzantines are a part of Greek legacy just like Charlemagne and his Frankish empire are a part of French history - precisely the same arguments apply.

Despite that, Basil and Alexios are both Greek of birth and culture.

Wouldn't you like to add a modern leader as well? Venizelos is a very significant political leader of Greece. He doubled the size of the country (tripled it at a point, but then he lost an election and the country got royally screwed - but that's another discussion). He is contemporary of Kemal "Ataturk". I can provide you with a very good picture of the man, if you like to include him.

I'd rather add Venizelos than a Byzantine leader, cause I have a feeling they might be in an expansion again... however, this will be after the list of leaders I've posted a few posts up, so it will take a while.

Thank you for your thoughts on it though!

 

[Jecrell]

About the custom text, yes, I've thought about that... but I can imagine it's a great deal of work... dunno, will have to look into that.

It isn't too hard -- but if it would take time away from your project then it wouldn't be a high priority. If you'd like I could get to work on writing some custom dialog -- all I need are some minor specifications.

Like, do you want these things to be more concise and mature than the regular Civilization IV dialog? (Not "Would you like a salad? I made it myself" - Caesar kind). And, if the dialog is written -- how deep would you like the customization? I believe I can construct it so that each individual leader will have a large degree of various responses based on their individual characters.

It is something I'll be experimenting with in my Carthage mod as well.

 

[Llotyhy]

Would be so great if you would help me with that!

They don't have to be too serious, I like the humor-approach of Civilization in general, though the salads are a bit over the top... But sentences like 'All the cool civs have universal suffrage' are quite fun.

If we are going to do this, most importantly, all leaders should have an opening sentence... apart from that, the more the better, but I don't know how difficult it is to think up sentences to be said by Mali Kings for example...

So, would be great!

Nice that this little project is growing in size a lot.

 

[niffweed17]

Niffweed, for your civic list:

Have fun... I'll completely copy what you'll decide, so go ahead! Thanks in advance!

happy to oblige.

it should be noted that some of the following leaders have the same civic as those from their nation. i have varied them where there is almost any way to do so, but it will be noticed that many of the rulers have the same civics as their equivalents as included in the game.

some of the civics given here are more general, because i have tried to vary them. they may refer to policies of their leaders which may have not been perfectly accurate in terms of the way the policy was handled in the game and/or in history. nonetheless, they do show certain tendencies of having this characteristic.

Marcus Aurelius of Rome- slavery
Ogedei Khan of Mongol- serfdom
Franco of Spain- police state
Wu Zetian of China- organized religion
Thutmose III of Egypt- slavery
Themistocles of Greece- universal suffrage
Xerxes of Persia- bureacracy
Harun al-Rashid of Arabia- hereditary rule
Tupac Inca Yupanqui of Inca- organized religion
Ahuitzotl of Aztec- theocracy
Charlemagne of France- nationhood
Mansa Wali Keita of Mali- hereditary rule
Minamoto no Yoritomo of Japan- vassalage
Chandragupta of India- caste system

Version 1.2 (probably within two weeks)
Lenin of Russia- state property
Charles de Gaulle of France- nationhood
Ludwig II of Germany- nationhood
Augustus of Rome (i recommend the name be changed to octavian of rome- free market
Timur of Mongol - i recommend that this be removed and/or changed to india, since although timur/tamurlane claimed to be descended from genghis khan, it is generally believed that this claim is false. nonetheless, if you must include him, give him police state.
Kangxi of China- mercantilism
Toyotomi Hideyoshi of Japan- environmentalism
Samudragupta of India- caste system
Cleopatra of Egypt- slavery
William I of England- vassalage
Pelayo of Spain- representation
James K. Polk of America- mercantilism
Al-Mansur of Arabia- theocracy
Dionysios of Syracusae of Greece- police state

 

[Llotyhy]

Very very nice list! I will change Augustus into Octavian... but does anyone else have a good alternative for Timur, or shall I limit the Mongols to 3leaders, like Aztec, Inca and Mali?

 

[niffweed17]

i would say no. personally, i think that there are 7 or 8 aztec rulers who deserve to be here, as well as 4 or 5 inca leaders.

in actuality, i think that mongolia's inclusion in the game is somewhat dubious. there are many civs i could think of, and just look around the forum for anyone else's opinion, that could have gone in place of mongolia. (mali is a more reasonable choice despite being less noteworthy because it is one of only two african representatives)

anyway, since mongolia does exist, it might be reasonable to give them yet another leader at some point (such as guyuk khan), but there's no reason that it need be hurried to be included in the next edition.

 

[Jecrell]

I don't completely understand the reasoning of why Augustus should be changed to Octavian. While it is historically evident that there was a time he used that name -- Augustus Caesar is much easier to recognize and isn't his name used almost exactly like that during the end of game ranking?

I mean it would be like calling Tokugawa, Takechiyo --

 

[Llotyhy]

Problem with Aztec and Inca leaders is that after about three you get to the point where no one recognizes the leaders they can play with or against... With Mali this is impossible after the second, but I wanted every civ to have at least three...

On Augustus, was that his name as an emperor or was it more like a title?

 

[niffweed17]

indeed, the name of augustus was simply a title. his actual name was octavian.

nonetheless, i don't think it matters all that much.

Problem with Aztec and Inca leaders is that after about three you get to the point where no one recognizes the leaders they can play with or against...

with mali, and really the aztecs as well, i agree with you.

however, the inca had some notable rulers who i think you are omitting... and in my opinion the leaders that you've included are some of the less common ones.

i believe you had huayna capac, pachacuti, and tupac inca yupanqui. i think that, especially in place of yupanqui, viracocha, huascar and atahualpa could easily have been used.

 

[Jecrell]

indeed, the name of augustus was simply a title. his actual name was octavian.

nonetheless, i don't think it matters all that much.

It doesn't matter that much, but Augustus Caesar was the name he was known for at the time. He wasn't being called Octavion during Pax Romana -- so I don't really think it qualifies so much as a title as a name. Although it certainly can be defined as a title as much as a Japanese name change can be called a title.

The difference won't be life altering to call Augustus Caesar as Octavion -- I just personally feel Augustus is more suitable.

 

[Llotyhy]

indeed, the name of augustus was simply a title. his actual name was octavian.

nonetheless, i don't think it matters all that much.



with mali, and really the aztecs as well, i agree with you.

however, the inca had some notable rulers who i think you are omitting... and in my opinion the leaders that you've included are some of the less common ones.

i believe you had huayna capac, pachacuti, and tupac inca yupanqui. i think that, especially in place of yupanqui, viracocha, huascar and atahualpa could easily have been used.

I agree on Viracocha, but Huascar and Atahualpa made the empire the mess it was in which allowed the Spaniards to conquer it in the first place... I mean, waging a civil war and then being defeated by 120 soldiers or so doesn't seem all that impressive to me...

Viracocha will be added one version or another though... maybe even in 1.2 instead of Timur, will think about that...

 

[niffweed17]

i know, they made a mess of the empire, and eventually led to its destruction. thats why they're famous.

just like montezuma II, who failed to see hernan cortes for who he really was. montezuma I and ahuizotl were two of the most capable emperors in aztec history, but the most famous is montezuma II for screwing up.