2 leaders for every civ

[SuperBeaverInc.]

(Wasn't Catherine German!)

Yes she was, but she led Russia, not Germany.

 

[Xen]

Urederra - You're right! I forgot that Spain owned half of the New World! Of course, I don't know if it would be fair to have two Renaissance leaders of Spain. Isabela or Charles and, maybe, El Cid. That Age of Empires II campaign went to my head.

Or Phillip II, who led spain when it controlled all of Iberia (All od Spain and Portugal), and otherwise led the SPanish empire at its zenith of power

Xen - Is that Jesus Christ of The Romans!? No, I see: Julius Caesar.

it's Caesar, baby

Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible sound great. Ivan's probably in because Peter and Catherine are contemporaries (Wasn't Catherine German!)

Catherine was German, but she, and the nation she ruled over, considered themselves russian, through and through.

 

[Urederra]

Isabela or Charles and, maybe, El Cid. That Age of Empires II campaign went to my head.

El Cid was a soldier, not a ruler. It would have been a good Great Leader. (In fact, at the end of his live he was expelled from the country, the king thought that he was too dangerous for him).

I use to change the name of the knight who gives me the first great leader to El Cid when I play as Spain.

Well, and the problem with Spain is that their golden age didn't last too long, so the two leaders have to be very close in time. Maybe they can choose Alfonso X, nicknamed The Wise. So you have different traits.

He established at Toledo (the original one, in Spain, not the one in Ohio ) a traslation School where the ancient knowledge from the greeks, middle east and asia that the arabs compilated was translated to latin, Allowing that knowledge to be known in Europe, which ended with the European dark ages.

According to Isaac Asimov Toledo was the most important scientific world city during the XIII (?) century. (I know, I know, he is not a reputable historian, but he wrote some very good books about history of science)


I copy a link for you to read if you are interested...

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

Regards.

 

[Crayton]

I'm reading Asimov right now! "Foundation's Edge"
El Cid would make a Great Leader. Who would be the best pre-renaissance Spanish ruler? Alfonso the X? Pompey? Cordova was probably the cultural center of the world at that time also. Hey! How about Francisco Franco? He ruled longer than both Mussolini and Hitler.
Philip the II ruled all of Iberia! Could they change "Spain" to "Iberia"? I know the language is different; but, how similar are the cultures?

 

[Urederra]

I'm reading Asimov right now! "Foundation's Edge"
El Cid would make a Great Leader. Who would be the best pre-renaissance Spanish ruler? Alfonso the X? Pompey? Cordova was probably the cultural center of the world at that time also. Hey! How about Francisco Franco? He ruled longer than both Mussolini and Hitler.
Philip the II ruled all of Iberia! Could they change "Spain" to "Iberia"? I know the language is different; but, how similar are the cultures?

WOW, so many questions...

I read the original trilogy of Foundation long time ago and I enjoyed it very much. I also read Foundation's Edge, It is not as good as the original trilogy, and I think there is another book about the Foundation, but is not even written by Asimov, although it has his name. Asimov wrote some books about history of science, very easy to read and quite amusing, like almost everything Asimov wrote.

Back to topic, Pompey wasn't spanish. Pompey was a roman militar and governor, so it belongs to the romans, although played a significant role in the history of Spain during the first century B.C. And, well, actually, my hometown, Pamplona, was founded by him. .

As I told you in my previous post, I would choose Alfonso the X, just because he would have different traits as the couple Isabella/Ferdinand, which I think they should be as one couple of leaderheads. Alfonso would be scientific and maybe cultural (don't know exactly how the traits would work in Civ IV) and the happy couple Isabella/Ferdinand could be seafaring and religious, or expansionistic. (Or whatever would be translated into civ IV)


Phillip II is also a good spanish golden age leader, but I wouldn't choose him if you previously had chosen Isabella or Ferdinand. Too close in time and too similar in traits. The conquistador is the UU, we have seen a screenie where there is a city producing conquistadors, so one of the leaderheads is gonna be one of those three (Isabella, Ferdinand or Phillip II). My guess is that is gonna be Isabella alone, just because she is a woman, and there are not many female rulers in the game.

Franco has the same problem as Stalin or Mao. Many people in Spain don't like him. But, in my opinion, he can be a modern spanish leader. He prevented Spain from falling under communism, by establishing other dictatorship, but, as Solzhenitsin said, better that than communism.

I don't mind the idea of including Iberia instead of Spain, but I guess the portuguese don't like it at all. Culturally Spain and Portugal are similar, especially if you compare Portugal and a region in northwestern Spain called Galicia, where even the languages, portuguese and gallego (galician?) are so similar that they can comunicate to each other very easily.


Regards.


P.S. No, I do not run the bulls.

 

[I am the Future]

a cool thing to do if each civ had 2 leaders would be a revolution allowing a conversion of leaders. I guess that it isnt entirely historicly acurate Exe. Wasington and FDR but it still would be a cool idea. maybe connect it to a specific goverment option just an isea

 

[Atrebates]

Interesting idea, although I'm not keen on it myself.
I would guess this would not be allowed as it is like having 4 traits on standby, let's say Victoria (miltaristic, expansionist) + Henry VII (commercial, Industrious) are Britain's leaders. You could beat the cr*p out of those on your landmass with Victoria and then use Henry's abilities to maximise production.
Close to history (esp. the reverse, warlike leaders when needed) but too close to cheating in my book

 

[I am the Future]

That isnt entirely what i meen because during or after you are kicking the crap out of the people on your island a revolution might get started sending you into a 4 turn anarchy at the end of which you have a new leader. SO maybe tie it to citizen hapiness

 

[GoodGame]

IIRC, as a soldier he was such an great leader/tactician that after he was expelled, it was decided they better hire him back.

El Cid was a soldier, not a ruler. It would have been a good Great Leader. (In fact, at the end of his live he was expelled from the country, the king thought that he was too dangerous for him).

I use to change the name of the knight who gives me the first great leader to El Cid when I play as Spain.

Well, and the problem with Spain is that their golden age didn't last too long, so the two leaders have to be very close in time. Maybe they can choose Alfonso X, nicknamed The Wise. So you have different traits.

He established at Toledo (the original one, in Spain, not the one in Ohio ) a traslation School where the ancient knowledge from the greeks, middle east and asia that the arabs compilated was translated to latin, Allowing that knowledge to be known in Europe, which ended with the European dark ages.

According to Isaac Asimov Toledo was the most important scientific world city during the XIII (?) century. (I know, I know, he is not a reputable historian, but he wrote some very good books about history of science)


I copy a link for you to read if you are interested...

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

Regards.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

As an english guy who is a labour supporter I will try to be balanced in this post but I do not like Churchill and think he did nothing for the country. As prime minister he did nothing good at all. When in charge of the navy he messed up also. As chancellor he messed up the economy with the gold standard. He damn nearly turned the general strike into a full blown revolution and world war two (without turning this into a huge historical debate) hardly went off without a hitch did it.
It has to be either Victoria (although she was a nasty piece of work) Elizabeth (although an idiot who really ran the country fairly badly) Henry V (never made any mistakes except dieing early) Lionheart (maybe) or modern world leaders like Atlee or Wislon (sic).

Also for Russia a lot of people seem to be saying Stalin but if it is politically correct to pick one of the commy leaders Lenin was far more important and succesful as a leader.

As for the US I suppose you would choose one of Washington (terrible general and only rebelled because he didn't bcome a colnel) or Abe and either FDR (you can argue till your blue in the teeth about whether his economic policies worked but the US did eventually improve without becoming a dictatorship) or Kennedy (didn't do that much but is very popular and a good symbol).

Also for Germany you could either get one of the old Holy Roman Emporers (not Germany but close enough) Ebert (maybe) or would you call Charlemane German or not (probably not German I suppose more Eastern France)

For the ottomans Ataturk could be a decent choice

For Japan I don't know who their post war leader was but he defenately deserves this from the recovery they made.

I know some of my ideas are a little obscure and unlikely but I'm just trying to bring forward some unmentioned candidates.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

How about Alexanders dadd for the greeks second he was effecetive and good but probably too close to be good though.

 

[mitsho]

Because Philip II. (alexander's dad) was Macedonian too. The macedons (to put it like this, not entirelly pc) were just one 'tribe' of the Greeks. Either have Alexander OR Philipp AND someone else, Pericles is just one name screaming out into the Air...

Then onto Ebert, I studied a lil bit into him and think he would be an ok-leader, because he was really the most accepted man in between-wars-Germany, and if he hadn't died that early, he may have slowed up or even stopped Hitler (accent on may, there are many different opinions on that...). But he's - again - too close to Bismarck, in that case timewise, not geographically. So, we can have Bismarck OR Ebert and Friedrich Barbarossa OR Friedrich II. (der Staufer). Of course, there are some more medieval (and Renaissance) choices for Germany.

Ataturk would be a good option for the Turks. I've been recently in Turkey and was amazed of the incredible mass of Ataturk-Stadium/Street/Bridge/National Park/etc... Ataturk everywhere, and that's why some Turks may be a bit offended if he is presented 'badly'. And you can't add the Armenians then ... ().
But, Osman shouldn't be an Ottoman leader. Ok, his name is the name of the civ, but there are other sultans that did more, and he is already included by the name of the civ...

mfG mitsho

 

[frekk]

As an english guy who is a labour supporter I will try to be balanced in this post but I do not like Churchill and think he did nothing for the country. As prime minister he did nothing good at all. When in charge of the navy he messed up also. As chancellor he messed up the economy with the gold standard. He damn nearly turned the general strike into a full blown revolution and world war two (without turning this into a huge historical debate) hardly went off without a hitch did it.
It has to be either Victoria (although she was a nasty piece of work) Elizabeth (although an idiot who really ran the country fairly badly) Henry V (never made any mistakes except dieing early) Lionheart (maybe) or modern world leaders like Atlee or Wislon (sic).

Personally I'd prefer William the Conqueror or maybe Edward I. Elizabeth is a good pick too though, as it's during the Tudor period that England became a cultural power. Or Victoria, because she's sort of a symbol of the British Empire at its height of world power.

I don't really like the idea of any post-Imperial British leader, especially not Churchill, for the simple reason that it was during Churchill's time that Britain lost her status in the world. I don't like Montezuma as a leader for the Aztecs for the same reason.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I don't think you could have william in because although in a sense he is as english as everyone nowadays but he wouldn't class as english to myself at least. Also I think the modern leaders shouldn't be in either. Although maybe David Lloyd (is that how you spell it) George was pretty good and far enough back in time.

Another problem with Ebert is that although he was very good for Germany you could hardly describe him as great in the sense of civilization at least.

As for Montezuma he is really only there because he is most well known.

Also for the Romans how about Garibaldi, not roman but Italian?

Lastly, for the Greeks how about the leader from the Illiad, I've forgotten his name but he is famous, probably a real life figure and definately a greek.

 

[frekk]

As for Montezuma he is really only there because he is most well known.

I know, but it seems a pretty lame excuse on the developer's part. Shouldn't the game be an opportunity for people to learn something about history rather than just reinforcing incorrect things they already know? They could put Axayacatl or Tenoch or Itzcoatl in, people would think "who the heck is that?", they'd look in the Civpedia, and lo and behold, they'd learn something.

 

[Atrebates]

or modern world leaders like Atlee or Wislon (sic).

WHAT??! Wilson is no way a great leader, Clement Attlee is hardly monumental (world leaders?)
Churchill bashing is hardly fair, WWII was greatly aided by him both in moral terms and in how he ran the chiefs of staff (You expect a smooth WW?). However despite his charisma I would not place him as leader.

-Victoria-Yes
-Elizabeth- Not great but fairly impressive, oversaw the beginnings of great English power, not necessarily a Civ leader esp. with Victoria in the picture.
-Richard the Lionheart- Incredible military campaigns, despite other problems he is worthy (famous too... a bonus)
-Henry VII-previous + established tudors
-Henry V- beat the French ... repeatedly and humiliatingly (ok,the wars cost money and did the treasury no favours but still...) that's a good English leader
-William the Conqueror-Not very English really
(see post #55 for expansion on most of this)

Oh yeah, although I don't think modern leaders appropriate, how about Thatcher (joke) she did way more for Britain than anyone since 1945

(the Illiad leader-Odysseus)

 

[mitsho]

No, Agamemnon (or his younger brother Menelaos) was the leader of the greek side in the illiad (that's the name of the 'book'/story). Odysseus/Ullyses was one of the lesser 'generals'.

and NO, Agamemnon is no good greek leader, he's fiction. Would you want King Arthur to lead Britain, Romulus Rome or Siegfrid (Ring der Nibelungen) Germany? Heck, people got mad that Joan of Arc lead France! (which of course, wasn't right either).

mitsho

 

[Tiger_Nation]

agamemnon was the one i meant and i don't think he is fictional and I think there was probably some sort of King Arthur.

and I recognise wislon was not very great but a nice guy and one of the best of a bad bunch of prime ministers post war

Atlee in my opinion is the best ever British ruler and was voted best ever prime minister but I agree he did nothing monumental on the world stage.

Also for Churchill I do not expect a smooth war as that is in many ways a contradiction in terms but many things could have been better, Market Garden, Norway Invasion, Dresden, not bombing Auchwitz etc. To be fair he did well on the whole but it was 6/10 stuff at best hardly inspired. He is famous mostly for the charisma and speeches and if we were picking leaders on that Henry V is by far the best choice (I know he really didn't say those speeches though).

 

[mitsho]

agamemnon was the one i meant and i don't think he is fictional and I think there was probably some sort of King Arthur.

You just said. I think too that there was some sort of King Arthur, and that makes him fictional. Because how do you represent a person you do not know how he looked like, what he acted, what his biography data are, etc. and - that is important - where there are thousands of opinions what he was! You're getting into trouble.

Then, Arthur would better be the leader or a Brito-Roman civ, not britain...

and besides, I want a historical game. civilization is about reshaping history. and not inventing it which happens with a King Arthur in it.

And my last argument. Do you really want a obscure semi-fictional leader when you have several better choices for that civ? Gilgamesh for the Sumerians only works because he is as fictional as any other possible Sumerian leader.

mfG mitsho

 

[Tiger_Nation]

you don't know what half of the civ leaders look like but it doesn't stop firaxis making pictures of them however I am with you that Arthur should not be the leader for england which is why I did not say he should be. I was merely commenting upon a previous post.