Civilopedia: Leader(s)

[Civciv5]

Mao Zedong was a terrible leader,Qin Shi Huang or any other Chinese leader (except Cixi) would be a better choice.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: If you wish to discuss new leaders for existing civs (or new civs), please do so in the Ideas & Suggestions subforum.

 

[kungming2]

hmm... some of those lack imagination...

China: I'd like to see Qing, who founded China.

Qin Shihuang would definitely be a great choice - though that would make China have two fairly ruthless people for leaders: Wu Zetian and Qin Shihuang.

Other great choices would be Emperor Wu of Han who expanded early China's borders and implemented many national projects, or Emperor Taizong of Tang, who was a very cosmopolitan leader in the seventh century. The only problem is that non-Asian audiences are probably not as familiar with these two emperors.

Either choice would be better than Mao though. I've never liked the fact that both him and Stalin were included in Civ4, considering the millions who died as a result of their failed policies.

 

[Peng Qi]

The formatting of the leader screens seems to imply that different leaders will have different UAs but not UUs or UBs. So with that established, here are a couple off the top of my head.

America: Nixon. UA; Bureaucratic Chaos- Spies gain veterancy twice as fast. +2 while at peace per era.
Arabia: Mohammad. UA; Blasphemous Depiction- Game gets banned in Middle East, developers become jihad targets.
...wait that's no good. Let me try again.
Saladin. UA; What is Ours- Your units gain a 20% combat strength bonus near cities you have ever controlled.
Babylon: Hammurabi. UA; Founder of Law- Citizens in your capitol do not generate . Courthouses cost half as much to build.

 

[That nerdy kid]

I don't think that Nixon would be a good choice at all. There are many great leaders in
American history, and I think that Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jefferson would be best.

 

[ampmclock]

Who is Meiji? Ins't that a time period?

Also, GREAT list. Some of the ideas and people choices on there are inspired. Especially Egypt's.

As for Peng's list, yeah, I hope to NEVER see Nixon in a Civ game. Honestly, I know it's kind of silly, but I'd be dissapointed if they included FDR in the game. I'd much rather see Lincoln, Teddy Rosvelet, or JFK. just saying.

 

[Lyoncet]

Arabia: Mohammad. UA; Blasphemous Depiction- Game gets banned in Middle East, developers become jihad targets.

Interesting you should mention that, since that's one of the reasons some have speculated we've never seen a Japanese emperor. They had a similar taboo about being seen or depicted. It lead me to wonder if they could be portrayed, say, silhouetted through a curtain. Although that could get annoying to look at, and I also think they weren't supposed to be heard either.

For Muhammad, they could just do what the Daily Show did and censor him with a picture of hunk of ham.

Who is Meiji? Ins't that a time period?

It was, yes. But the period was named after Emperor Meji.


[edit]You know Camikaze said we should be discussing this elsewhere but didn't lock or move the thread. Are we still supposed to be posting here, or just on another topic or what?

 

[Peng Qi]

As for Peng's list, yeah, I hope to NEVER see Nixon in a Civ game. Honestly, I know it's kind of silly, but I'd be dissapointed if they included FDR in the game. I'd much rather see Lincoln, Teddy Rosvelet, or JFK. just saying.

As much as everyone hates Nixon for what he did, he was probably the most effective president since Teddy Roosevelt at changing peoples' minds in radical ways in order to get what he wanted to get done done. I mean, the man made the entire south vote for him despite the fact that the south had been solidly Democrat since Democrats and Republicans even existed. Have you ever seen his Electoral Map? It was one of the most crushing victories that has ever been seen, and almost certainly the most crushing victory of a non-incumbent (although I haven't looked that up). He's also responsible for creating a lot of the lines of international communication our country still uses today.

Plus, wouldn't it be hilarious to open diplomacy in a Civ game and see Richard Nixon?

Also, nothing wrong with disappointment over adding FDR. There is, after all, increasing consensus that the things he did may have actually lengthened the depression. Plus, he did blatantly attempt to constantly circumvent the Constitution.

 

[Heisenburg]

Different Leader heads for every civ in every new era would be brilliant, but maybe to much to ask.
ENGLAND:
King Richard I for the Medieval Era
King Henry VIII or current leader for Renaissance Era
Victoria for Industrial
George VI for Modern or Elizabeth II

And same story for other Civs.
And yes i know that the last two are British Monarchs but who cares.

 

[ampmclock]

Yeah, and George Washington, honestly isn't the most exciting leader to me, either. I feel like with the first set of Civ 5 leaders they really tried to remain as iconic as possible, which was smart. Still, though, I personally just don't give a about that guy as much as I do Lincoln, Teddy and JFK.

Also, if they DID decide to put out a DLC pack of nothing but extra leaders, I would hope they wouldn't change any of the UAs. That's just way too many new UAs and one or two of them are bound to be game breaking.

BUT if they DID do that...
Lincoln: UA - Emancipation: Plus 30% combat damage against annexed and puppet state cities.
Teddy: Walk Softy: +20% combat damage against all Civs that declared war on you.
JFK: What You Can Do For Your Country: Workers have +20% building speed. Total Unhappiness gets -5%

 

[Liex]

I would hope it would be merely an aesthetic change, it would give players more personality to their choices when playing online, and would be easy to make, because it would not change the game play at all

But what's the point in that? So we can look at Teddy's youthful face instead of Washington's in the Single-player? So we can look at a different leader icon in the multiplayer? I don't think the leader screens are that easy to make, so they would go all the trouble just for an aesthetic change..

AND I think a lot of people would buy them.

I wouldn't be so sure: " More Civs or different Leaders for the future? "

 

[Peng Qi]

Yeah, and George Washington, honestly isn't the most exciting leader to me, either. I feel like with the first set of Civ 5 leaders they really tried to remain as iconic as possible, which was smart. Still, though, I personally just don't give a about that guy as much as I do Lincoln, Teddy and JFK.

If you don't think that Washington ranks among the greatest presidents this country has ever had, I postulate that you don't know anything about him. Have you ever heard about his conduct during the American Revolution? Sure, he was a pretty lousy tactician, but he regularly rode his horse back and forth in front of his battle lines. His jackets frequently needed mending because bullets would regularly fly through the jacket without hitting his flesh. Congress offered him a symbolic monarchy, but he declined. The only reason we don't think of him more highly today is we have no recordings or videos of him and he wasn't particularly concerned with self-aggrandizement.

 

[Camikaze]

You know Camikaze said we should be discussing this elsewhere but didn't lock or move the thread. Are we still supposed to be posting here, or just on another topic or what?

Moderator Action: I'd thought there might be room for other discussion (specifically, whether or not it was likely that second leaders would be released). But apparently not.

It'd be appreciated if people would heed moderator warnings in future.

Thread closed. Take it to Ideas & Suggestions, specifically here, please.