You changed Alexander II to Alexander I in the rulers of Russia due to their replacement in the fashion itself, but I ask you to find a place in the table for Alexander II as well. During his reign there were many reforms and the abolition of serfdom, which is why he is a popular leader in Russia.
Civ-specific ranks collection thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Yeah, I think Alexander II deserves a spot more than Alexander I, but I try to prioritize leaderheads. Who else would you take out? Brezhnev maybe? There are a lot of other Soviet leaders already. Or Peter III?
I don't know much about the history of Russian rulers. I can only point out the popularity of some that are talked about in our Russian school.
But my controversial opinion is that Alexander II could be put in position 8, and the next 4 rulers could be shifted 1 position down by removing Anna Ioannovna from the list (we are not told much about female rulers other than Catherine the Great, but the reason for her addition is related with the "dark ages" is little consistent with the fact that she was on the medium list.
I do try to include female rulers when I can, so I'm keeping Anna Ioannovna on the list, but I demoted her by one spot. (Her reign is a "dark era" because she was very unpopular, but apparently her government wasn't incompetent.) I took out Peter III instead — we have a lot of other 18th century leaders and he reigned only for a few months in between already included empresses.
Did you know that with the upcoming 12 new civs, there will now be 60 civs total in the mod?
Anyway, this is to say that I hadn't fully realized that overseeing all the civ-specific rankings would require me to learn about close to 1,000 leaders from all of history. (60 x 16 = 960, though two civs, the Harappans and Toltecs, won't have a list. But then I had to evaluate some leaders I rejected, too). Nevertheless, 40 out of 60 civs are now done, and this is a reminder that you can come help with the rest (or give a second opinion on some of the lists I made myself).
Anyway, this is to say that I hadn't fully realized that overseeing all the civ-specific rankings would require me to learn about close to 1,000 leaders from all of history. (60 x 16 = 960, though two civs, the Harappans and Toltecs, won't have a list. But then I had to evaluate some leaders I rejected, too). Nevertheless, 40 out of 60 civs are now done, and this is a reminder that you can come help with the rest (or give a second opinion on some of the lists I made myself).
IMHO Queen VIctoria deserves top-4 place. During his kingdom, British Empire reached its apogee. Looking at the list below:
1) Queen Elizabeth I
2) Alfred the Great
3) Henry II
4) Winston Churchill
5) Queen Victoria
I'd easily switch Henry II with her.
1) Queen Elizabeth I
2) Alfred the Great
3) Henry II
4) Winston Churchill
5) Queen Victoria
I'd easily switch Henry II with her.
Hmm I actually did put Queen Victoria in the top spot, precisely because she presided over about as great a golden age as you can hope for, but it looks like someone partially overwrote my original list.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
For the Greek list, I'd prefer to avoid using Oedipus; he's more a figure from literature than history. Same reasoning would apply to Odysseus, Achilles, or Agamemnon. On the other hand, I would suggest the inclusion of Lycurgus, the legendary lawgiver of Sparta. Like Oedipus, his historical status is disputed, but unlike Oedipus, Lycurgus is much more identifiable as historical than literary. I'd suggest putting Lycurgus at 8 and moving Epaminondas and the rest down a slot.
That's fair. I picked Oedipus for the last because I think the rules can be bended for the joke rank. There's something funny (I think!) with saying, "you played your game so badly we had to compare you with a particularly disastrous mythological figure instead of a real ruler." There are a few other lists with fictional/legendary characters in the last rank: Assyria, Rome, Brazil.
We could remove Oedipus, and Lycurgus is a good choice, but then I don't think Attalus III or any of the others currently in the list are really good as the joke rank. Any other ideas?
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
Alcibiades is a pretty good choice for 'joke/failure', honestly, given his flip-flopping. That said, if we're looking for a replacement... huh, that's tough. In terms of successor states, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (of the Seleucids) was pretty far up the list of 'worst ever', along with Ptolemy XII Auletes (of the Ptolemies). Not sure about earlier, in the Age of Athens. Much later, you have Nicomedes IV Philopator, last king of Bithynia, who gifted his kingdom to Rome and caused the Third Mithradatic War. (Mithradates VI Eupator might also deserve a mention on the list).
I also added a note about possibly swapping out Ptolemy I Soter for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Philadelphus was a worse king, but presided over the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt (Museum, Great Library, Great Lighthouse, the works) which is more notable.
I also added a note about possibly swapping out Ptolemy I Soter for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Philadelphus was a worse king, but presided over the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt (Museum, Great Library, Great Lighthouse, the works) which is more notable.
That's pretty good, though we always get the last rank when we lose, right? I don't know the details of how the ranks are computed, but if it were me I'd give at least one rank above last if the game is won. In which case Pyrrhus is a good name to be almost last but not last.
He's in the Egypt list, obviously debatable though
EDIT: but yeah Pyrrhus is a good last rank in any case. Edited the list with your suggestion!
Last edited:
Dracosolon
Emperor
Sounds like a a humblebrag.
On the topic of jokes, please *PLEASE* make Liz Truss the bottom for England.
It has, of course, been the case since the first time I made the list.
Dracosolon
Emperor
Special rank if you resign before your first turn ends.
Similar threads
