Choose the features of your favourite civilization

[grant2004]

Here's a strange suggestion. What about Andrew Jackson and John Adams as American leaders in addition to the already confirmed Washington? They're certainly not as great of presidents as the standard Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. But I think they could be given a significantly different personality which would make gameplay more interesting.

I'd imagine Adams being very diplomatic with a domestic economy on the cottage model leading to a technologically and economically sophisticated America which pushes for trade with the rest of the world.

Jackson on the other hand would be very militaristic, his domestic economy would focus more on farming, population and production. This would result in an America which lags slightly in tech, but is aggressive and imperialistic.

The standard Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt trio just seems to bland to me, I attribute a lot of the same personality traits to these three leaders, and would expect them to lead America in a very similar manner.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Here's a strange suggestion. What about Andrew Jackson and John Adams as American leaders in addition to the already confirmed Washington? They're certainly not as great of presidents as the standard Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. But I think they could be given a significantly different personality which would make gameplay more interesting.

I'd imagine Adams being very diplomatic with a domestic economy on the cottage model leading to a technologically and economically sophisticated America which pushes for trade with the rest of the world.

Jackson on the other hand would be very militaristic, his domestic economy would focus more on farming, population and production. This would result in an America which lags slightly in tech, but is aggressive and imperialistic.

The standard Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt trio just seems to bland to me, I attribute a lot of the same personality traits to these three leaders, and would expect them to lead America in a very similar manner.

I would like to see Franklin Roosevelt replaced with Theodore Roosevelt, that would certainly spice things up. I certainly think though that Washington and Lincoln deserve to keep there positions...if anything I would like to see Thomas Jefferson replace Lincoln, though Andrew Jackson would certainly be an...interesting choice, a fun one if anything.

 

[King Coltrane]

I think Teddy Roosevelt would be awesome. Think Montezuma with Navy Seals (in cIV terms). This is the only American to have both the Medal of Honor AND the Nobel Peace Prize. (Also he is without question the most badass president america ever had)

@cybrxkhan

point well taken about Egypt. There are plenty of good choices... in fact WAY too many. I think they should go along the lines of what grant2004 recommends (and i agree with) that unique playstyle should influence whether the leader makes it as much as anything else. In which case I think Thutmose III (for your expansionist empire), Ptolemy Soter/Amenhotep III/Khufu (for your builder type) and Akhenaten (totally new reforming centralizer type...religious and cultural too) would give the most variety of playstyles

 

[Onagan]

9) France (CivI-IV)
-Louis XIV (Civ II&IV)
-Napoleon (Civ I&IV)
-Charlemagne (CivIV). He was the King of the Franks, the old name of the French, so he fits in this civilization.

The Franks (and thus Charlemagne) where a Germanic tribe from present Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It is a German, and thus Karl should be representing the Germans instead.

My Civ:
Netherlands
Prince Willem I van Oranje (the Silent) 1533-1584
King Willem I of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands 1772-1843, for Uniting the Low Countries.
Prime Minister Willem Drees 1886-1988 Most important Prime Minister shortly after WWII

 

[Arakhor]

Ramses the Great was the son of Seti I

 

[Dachs]

Ptolemaios I was a terribad ruler compared to Ptolemaios II.

 

[Iván de España]

The Franks (and thus Charlemagne) where a Germanic tribe from present Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It is a German, and thus Karl should be representing the Germans instead.

So, in your opinion the English are Germans because they ancestors were Saxons, Anglos and Jutes. You're mixing names because one thing is the German tribes (Franks, Goths, Saxons, Swabians, Alamanni, etc.) and other thing is Germany (Deutschland). The franks were settled in Gaul (more or less the nowadays territory of France) in the 6th century moving the Visigoths of Gaul to Spain, where lived more Visigoths. So, the ancestors of the French are the Franks, so Charlemagne fits in the French civilization, although he ruled in nowadays German territory (he ruled also in Italy and North-Eastern Spain).

 

[Camikaze]

I would like to see Franklin Roosevelt replaced with Theodore Roosevelt, that would certainly spice things up. I certainly think though that Washington and Lincoln deserve to keep there positions...if anything I would like to see Thomas Jefferson replace Lincoln, though Andrew Jackson would certainly be an...interesting choice, a fun one if anything.

America seems to have too many leaders that could be put into the game; adding another one means removing another one, though, so whilst I would like to see the likes of Teddy, Jefferson and Jackson, it seems wrong to remove FDR, Lincoln or Washington for their sakes.

 

[Lord Khorak]

America seems to have too many leaders that could be put into the game; adding another one means removing another one, though, so whilst I would like to see the likes of Teddy, Jefferson and Jackson, it seems wrong to remove FDR, Lincoln or Washington for their sakes.

More like the US likes to think it has a lot of leaders who deserve such recognition. On a more realistic level....pretty much every single US leader simply isn't remarkable at all, most certainly so on a 'great leader' basis. Yeah, we've got a whole lot of Churchill-esque personality in there that makes them stand out, but we haven't exactly got people who caused colossal social revolution or raised the nation from the gutter to glory.

Washington is a definable and essential figure of the birth of the US, and pretty much helped build how the US works. You can't leave him out. Lincoln presided over a period of huge political, social and military strife, and did well at it. Leaving him out would be insulting. As an outside observer, you simply can't have a US faction without those two. You just can't, it would be ridiculous.

Unless you want to go for another founding father, FDR is easily the best choice for any third slot. He made the Great Depression not quite as depressing as it should have been and presided over the US becoming something that actually meant a damn to the world.

Frankly, every other leader of the US sits in the mediocre median range in the middle of the graph, like pretty much every other world leader on the face of the planet. Some were better, some were worse, but we're not delving into the realm of legends here. It would be like adding Tony Blair as a leader for the English. Yeah, we know who he is. Great leader? Uh....no.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^I generally agree on what you say, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who in my opinion played an important role in bringing America onto the world stage - although I will admit I also like him for personal reasons, too.

Otherwise, the only two leaders I would ever consider is Washington and Lincoln simply due to their inconic status. FDR personally I don't like since he's a bit too "modern", but I suppose I will have to reluctantly admit his importance during the Depression and WWII.

 

[Lord Khorak]

^I generally agree on what you say, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who in my opinion played an important role in bringing America onto the world stage - although I will admit I also like him for personal reasons, too.

Otherwise, the only two leaders I would ever consider is Washington and Lincoln simply due to their inconic status. FDR personally I don't like since he's a bit too "modern", but I suppose I will have to reluctantly admit his importance during the Depression and WWII.

I think it's characterful and significant to have a 'modern' leader in there for the US. It is, after all, the shaper of the current era and will be remembered as such even far into the future. FDR is the time when the US started to step up to that pedestal. Although it was recently enough to still feel like 'history in the making', he is the figure of one of the turning points of human civilisation, that is, the Pax Americana as it were.

 

[Arakhor]

A turning point of human civilisation? World peace enforced by the Americans? You're laying it with a spade there!

 

[Takhisis]

Peace? Where? It wasn't ten years after WWII and there was mayhem all over Asia , what with the African colonies fighting for independence.
Didn't the USA start the massacres in the Portuguese possessions in Africa because JFX was afraid that those colonies might be taken by the Soviet Union or its allies?

Peace sells... but who's buying?

 

[NBAfan]

Teddy would be cool to have.
Spain should have Charles the V.

 

[Lord Khorak]

A turning point of human civilisation? World peace enforced by the Americans? You're laying it with a spade there!

And it seems you would rather like to utterly deny the colossal significance of the modern United States.

And yes, world peace IS enforced by them. Vast wars are no longer possible in the current generation, and since the Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up, because the simple fact is that no-one on Earth is stupid enough to try to start a war of such magnitude on the side that isn't the United States.

The world labours under threats such as terrorism entirely because it's such an utterly absurd idea to try breaching the peace enforced by the US in large scale direct conflicts against its interests anymore. Believing that a 'pax' requires peace in totality is moronic and naive, the idea is the absence of mass conflicts and strife like the many, many, many global conflicts that led all the way up to World War 2.

 

[Arakhor]

Right. so India and Pakistan aren't constantly threatening each other with nuclear weapons, the American peace-keeping in Iran and Afghanistan has succeeded so brilliantly and not even China or Russia can ever hope to challenge the USA? Come on.

 

[Takhisis]

You mean 'pax' because the US has given itself the right to intervene in other countries' territory without declaring war as such. Great 'police actions', huh?

Teddy would be cool to have.

Here you go:

Spoiler :

 

[NBAfan]

Here you go:

Spoiler :

Now to figure out which civ he should lead.

 

[King Coltrane]

First of all, why do you guys insist that america's importance is a pipe dream? I am not at all saying america is perfect or that america owns the world, but to deny that america is THE SUPERPOWER IN THE WORLD TODAY is foolish. Of course there are wars and "conflicts" as they are sometimes stupidly called, but that doesnt undermine america's preeminence. Yes, america is bogged down and losing in several areas around the world, but it seems to me that other nations have had this issue too... Arakhor, I dont remember seeing the british claim possession of india, australia, hong kong, the united states, egypt, south africa, or for that matter hannover or brittany anymore. Point is, America is a superpower despite its problems just as rome or britain or mongolia or any other power in world history was.

And FYI the term pax americana refers more to the PAX ROMANA than the actual definition of the latin word Pax... You dont think Rome fought wars during the Roman Peace? Ask Marcus Aurelius. or Trajan. Or anyone else, including wikipedia.

However, we are all off topic at this point and should get back to the question of what features we'd like to see.

personally, i think stability from RFC (as well as rev mod) would be great additions to gameplay.

 

[EMT]

personally, i think stability from RFC (as well as rev mod) would be great additions to gameplay.

That's where you're wrong. Some of us enjoy strategy games without making it hellishly impossible. Revolutions AND stability? I think I'd stay with Civ 4 for a while or until it's modded out. Some people would love it, and others would detest it with never ending disgust(me). That's my selfish 2 cents right there.