2 leaders for every civ

[Lockesdonkey]

If there is to be a modern leader, I beleive they should not still be alive. I regret suggesting Margaret Thatcher earlier...

In any case, if England is to have a decent leader from the Victorian Era, it shouldn't be Victoria herself (she really didn't do very much) but rather one of her capable Prime Ministers, Benjamin Disraeli (if the developers prefer an imperialist or like the Conservatives) or William Gladstone (if they prefer a guy who was more of a builder or like the Liberals).

Furthermore, I think that they should have a leader from the Soviet Union to represent Russia. Russia was a power twice--under the Czars and after World War II as the USSR. I think it would be a good idea to have leaders from both periods, so Russia should be Catherine and Khrushchev (I would say Gorbachev, but he's still alive, and judging by a poll I ran earlier this year in World History, Khrushchev got the second-most votes for best leader of the USSR, after Gorbachev).

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I think disraeli would be very good but although vikky didn't personally do much she was a symbol of that peak of the british empire and would work well as a symbol.

I agree that both periods of russian history should be reflected and I think that lenin should be the communist one but any of the first three would be good. I don't think kruchev though because he never actually increased the power and gorbachev failed to keep the soviet union together so I don't think he should despite his achievments.

Before if anyone thought I did not like Churchill you will be shocked at my loathing of thatcher (crosses oneself) that woman is the worst thing that has ever happened to england and the worst leader and is generally thought of in that way by the british people. Almost ever problem with modern britain can be traced back to decisions made under her premiership. Railways are a joke because she privatised them, the NHS is on the verge of collapsing because of her asset stripping and her laughable economic policies created a boom and bust britain which resulted in about 10 million unemployed. She is evil and I think she never even cared about the state of britain just to make money and to get re-elected.

 

[jkp1187]

I agree -- no living leaders. Just is weird, kind of like they way they're naming ships/subs in the USN after Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, or Reagan (his aircraft carrier was named when he was still alive.)

I'd think, once again, that either Stalin would be an appropriate Russian/Soviet leader, regardless of his crimes, simply because he captures the imagination and was both a symbol of the system, Russo-Soviet aggressiveness, and is well-known. Besides, I used to shake a little bit when I saw ol' Uncle Joe appear on the screen in Civ I demanding something or other. Judging from how Ghenghis Khan acted, of course, just having a leader in the game isn't necessarily "honoring" that leader, either. :-D

Also disappointed that Churchill isn't on the list (though, I hope, things could still change at the last minute. Wouldn't be hard to whip up some new graphics and a bio at the 11th hour, I'm sure,) for all the reasons that you can imagine. Victoria was just a figurehead, after all (unlike Elizabeth I, who kicked some *ss when she had to.)

that woman .... is evil and I think she never even cared about the state of britain just to make money and to get re-elected.

Sigh. If we always call someone who merely disagrees with us, politically, "evil", then the word itself is devalued, and it means nothing when we use the word to describe actual evil like...well...Stalin.

Peace.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I know she is not evil but I still stand by the rest of what I said and my hatred of her does go beyond merely disagreeing with her politically as I really don't think she cared about the state of britain. I diagree with major, heath etc but she is the only prime minister I truly despise because I believe they did try to improve britain in their own way which is different from my political views.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Khrushchev maintained Soviet power and was excellent at outbluffing the West. His actions convinced the American public that the Soviet Union was had a far better nuclear arsenal than it really did, and convinced the Americans that the Soviet Union could win the arms race, given time. He started the serious research into space, beleiving that it would prove an exellent psychological weapon (it did, to an extent), and on the advise of several advisors, he gave the order for Soviet schools to emphasize science in their curriculums (partially, perhaps, because he knew how much better things could have been had he gone to school--even while he was Premier, he could barely write, which was one of the things that his enemies used against him), which is why you see so many engineering jobs outsourced to Russia. He wanted detante, but he also wanted it on the best possible terms for the Soviet Union. However, some of his moves, such as the placing of missiles in Cuba, were not particularly wise, and were not popular among the CPSU leadership. So they engineered his downfall.

However, Khrushchev instituted enough reforms that Gorbachev had a chance--a slim one that slipped out of his fingers, but a chance--to reform the Soviet Union. Gorbachev could have made the USSR a democratic socialist state, just as the name says it is--but he was besieged by both the right, by the Communists and the army, and the left, by Sakharov and Yeltsin and the future oligarchs. Gorbachev was advocating a middle way, and tried desperately to hold the Soviet Union together and so make it a world power--for alone among the former leaders of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was a true patriot. Had he succeeded, we might not see some of the nasty things going on today--Chechen separatism, the repressive regimes of Central Asia, not to mention Afghanistan would still be a magnet for would-be terrorists itching to "liberate" Central Asian Islam.

 

[Superkrest]

your analysis of those leaders is superb...ive always liked gorbechev and hated how he was looked down on...he was the first in a long line that cared deeply for his country and its people...know all to well that they couldnt stay communist and pure democracy would break them(oh...it did? lol)..but yes...he is alive..so i think he shouldnt be in the game...yet..maybe civ 7.lol. i do also like stalin or khruschev...simply becuase they were the opitimy of everything the west feard of the russian giant... mean .. unweilding ...ruthless..and very very powerful

 

[Atrebates]

I know she [Thatcher] is not evil but I still stand by the rest of what I said and my hatred of her does go beyond merely disagreeing with her politically as I really don't think she cared about the state of britain. I diagree with major, heath etc but she is the only prime minister I truly despise because I believe they did try to improve britain in their own way which is different from my political views.

Thatcher sure as hell cared, I don't remember her premiership, but she believed in a better Britain- Her policies were more often than not designed with this goal in mind than popularity, breaking the trade unions for instance, alleviated their crippling effects on the economy; precipitating the boom. How much of her (supposedly, no arguing here, it's off-topic enough as it is) disasterous policies originated with her?
Anyway 2 last points, Britain's international standing rocketed under Thatcher, prob helped end Cold war- that is important to Civ. And she was better than Labour opponents at the time, No nuke deterrent would have been bad for USSR relations- no control. However I am against modern leaders.
(and 'almost all problems', hey you were honest enough to say you're a labour supporter and therefore biased but that's extreme propaganda, what about the fundamentals of an independant Bank of Eng)

Krushchev's Virgin Lands Scheme was disasterous and he misunderstood what could be achieved post Stalin and his policies, but otherwise I agree that his broad aims and ideas were fairly good- he is overlooked, but percieved blinking in Cuba rules him out because he is not seen as powerful and because he screwed up too often over too broad an area.
Gorby was great though, couldn't agree more, he was misunderstood and this led to disorder, a great shame for Russia

 

[Superkrest]

i dunno so much that kruschev blinked(the Americans did sign a secret deal to remove there missles from turkey) but i did forget about the virgin land scheme...i just think that overall he would ,along with countless others be a better choice for russias leader...i just cant take that homely catherine seriouse.

 

[Atrebates]

Hey, I said 'percieved blinked'[sic] the secret deal couldn't be revealed and that screwed him big-time, the Red Army weren't happy with falling back to their ICBM or looking weak. I think Lenin + an 'old Russia' leader would be best, but I am not Russian so can't say what 'feels' best for Russia

 

[Tiger_Nation]

Britains international standing deteriorated hugely under Thatcher (crosses self) we became americas poodle and are still despised by Europe on the whole. As for better than labour opponents at the time, well, labour were a mess at the time I agree. The disaterous policies were outlined in one of my previous posts. Her government was almost solely commited to spending as little as possible and selling off government assets which means they are now, like I have said, a joke. Once her government had the idea of charging VAT on food and clothes just so they could anounce a tax cut to win the next election.

 

[Superkrest]

has anyone found it(maybe its been said and i missed it.) if there are not gonna be two leaders for every civ? or have they just not devoloped them yet?

 

[Civrules]

There will be 26 leaders and 18 Civs. So there will not be two leaders for every civ.

 

[Superkrest]

ok...thats what i thought..i just wasnt sure if thats what they had..so far..or if thats what it was gonna be...thank you

 

[OLX]

It may be the case that only 9 Nations out of 18 have 2 leaders, But does it not leave open the potential for 2 or more leaders to be available through mods for Every Nation in the game. I myself would like to see more leaders for most of the Nations in the game, Preferably the other significant ones for the western and Far Eastern Nations.

 

[Superkrest]

i think they could have come up with one for each nation. i wonder why they didnt. i cant imagine it was for the moders benifit lol

 

[DAv2003]

Gorby was great though, couldn't agree more, he was misunderstood and this led to disorder, a great shame for Russia

Really, I don't think that Gorb shouldn't be a leader. Lenin would be far better as he actually didn't screw up something he tried to save.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Mohammed will never be a leader in the game. IIRC, Muslims do not allow pictures of him.

don't see how that's a problem. we do.

 

[Himalia]

Posted in error. Please delete this Mr.Moderator

 

[Lockesdonkey]

don't see how that's a problem. we do.

This proves that you are an ignorant fool (and I'm calling you that because I'm too polite here to say what I would say to you to your face) and don't know what you're talking about. This is highly offensive, and anyone trying to be remotely tolerant would avoid using a picture of the Prophet's face at all costs. There are no words (that I can use here) to describe how insulted Muslims would be, and how disrespectful that would be on the part of the developers to Muslims.

 

[Xen]

its somthing to add to the x-pack, though its rather cheap.

if the designers of games woudl ever pause and actually ask soem specialists, which dosent seem to happen often abotu somthing- somthing that I'm sure most historians and archeologists would do for free over an e-mail- they could very easilyl tie up loose ends like this; another way would be to bring in people konwledgable about history into the betas (and listen to them) but it smore liklly that pigs will grow wings and fly before that happens