Civilizations and leaders you would like to see, but probably won't

[Camikaze]

Australia - 2 leaders: Sir Edmund Barton and Gordon McKenzie. Unique Unit: ANZAC soldier. Unique Building: War Memorial.

I'm sorry, but who is Gordon McKenzie? Do you mean Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, or is it just someone I haven't heard of? For Australia, I think Gough Whitlam and Robert Menzies would be better leaders, as they are more recognisable and (arguably) more important/better leaders.

Henry IV, Henry VIII and William the Conquerer would be good to see for England, and Eisenhower, JFK and Thomas Jefferson would be good to see for America.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I get the feeling that guy at the intro to BTS who is reluctantly calling for the Nukes is JFK. So I have to think there is a good chance they almost put him in Civ 4 so it might be a high possibility he'll be in Civ 5 (though I think other Presidents like Jefferson and Reagan should be higher on the list and would be better to make it into the game).

 

[Dida]

I would go with about 3 more civilizations:

Australia - 2 leaders: Sir Edmund Barton and Gordon McKenzie. Unique Unit: ANZAC soldier. Unique Building: War Memorial.

Australia is not even a civ, and when was war memorial unique to Australia?

 

[Skallagrimson]

JFK: Charismatic, Protective...?

 

[alfon]

Spain

Isabella

Francisco Franco (add)

Charles II (add)

 

[civfanatic14]

I'm sorry, but who is Gordon McKenzie? Do you mean Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, or is it just someone I haven't heard of? For Australia, I think Gough Whitlam and Robert Menzies would be better leaders, as they are more recognisable and (arguably) more important/better leaders.

Henry IV, Henry VIII and William the Conquerer would be good to see for England, and Eisenhower, JFK and Thomas Jefferson would be good to see for America.

Sorry, I did mean Sir Gordon Menzies. And also, William the Conquerer was French befor he became King so technically, he is partly and hardly british.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sorry, I did mean Sir Gordon Menzies. And also, William the Conquerer was French befor he became King so technically, he is partly and hardly british.

He wasn't French. He was Norman, which were vikings that came to control northern France after the king bribed them with it.

 

[Camikaze]

Australia is not even a civ, and when was war memorial unique to Australia?

A war memorial can be found in just about every Australian town, but I don't know their frequency in the rest of the world. I would put a sports field as the unique building, maybe replacing the colosseum. Actually, IIRC, this has already been done in some mod.

@civfanatic14:
He's more commonly referred to as Sir Robert Menzies. Gordon was his middle name, so it's kind've like calling John Howard, Winston Howard.

 

[Skallagrimson]

He wasn't French. He was Norman, which were vikings that came to control northern France after the king bribed them with it.

Part of the deal was that the Normans would adopt Christianity, under which in a scant few generations the "vikings" rapidly became very similar to the French, at least in language and culture (although not identical, as Norman French was somewhat of a patois of French, which is reflected in some of the false cognates and severe morphology between French and Middle English). By core attitude, instinct, and "genetic memory", shades of their viking past remained, but when William first sat on the English throne in London, the first orders he barked at his new English vassals were in French, not Norse.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Aren't the Vikings derived from ancient Germanic Tribes?

And Henry V of the Holy Roman Empire was actually Spannish and a bunch of other things. It's so hard to tell historic ethnicities because everyone is basically a blend of everything else besides their title.

School me about German Heritage, if you please.

(BTW, according to my surname and a few history/ancestry websites, the family comes from an ancient Norman General during the Norman Conquests or 1066.)

JFK: Charismatic, Protective...?

Hard to say, but those look more Reagan-esque traits to me. JFK actually started a war with Veitnam where as Reagan did everything in his power to make sure the shooting never started (against the USSR). I don't know... I'd guess Organized for JFK, but then the trouble at home with how chaotic and riotful the 60s were counters that idea. There are no good traits to describe JFK in my opinion, because honestly he didn't get the chance to have the longevity to do too much. I think his biggest legacy is the Space Program (NASA) and adverting the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as a charming womanizer reputation and going to war in Veitnman. But I prefer the positivity of the Space Program the most.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Aren't the Vikings derived from ancient Germanic Tribes?

Yes.

And Henry V of the Holy Roman Empire was actually Spannish and a bunch of other things. It's so hard to tell historic ethnicities because everyone is basically a blend of everything else besides their title.

Medieval royalty especially since they rapidtly intermarried with other royal lines.

School me about German Heritage, if you please.

What would you like to know about it?

(BTW, according to my surname and a few history/ancestry websites, the family comes from an ancient Norman General during the Norman Conquests or 1066.)

Those ancestors of yours would have had a slight variation on French culture, and Scandinavian blood. One way to get more familiar is to read some historical fiction by Sir Walter Scott (Ivanhoe) or Dorothy Dunnett (King Hereafter).

 

[Tephros]

Obama of America: Charismatic, Philosophical.

Hitler of Germany: Imperialistic, Charismatic. (why not when we already have Stalin?)

 

[Skallagrimson]

Vladimir Putin of Russia: Charismatic, Financial. Favourite civic: Nationhood.

Mikhail Gorbachev of Russia: Charismatic, Philosophical. Favourite civic: Free Speech (Glasnost)

 

[Helghallen]

I think his biggest legacy is the Space Program (NASA) and adverting the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as a charming womanizer reputation and going to war in Veitnman. But I prefer the positivity of the Space Program the most.

JFK royally screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis. I give him credit on NASA though. I'd prefer Reagan.

 

[Danielos]

* Atlantis
* Troy

 

[BakingTheArt]

JFK royally screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis. I give him credit on NASA though. I'd prefer Reagan.

I'm sorry, that situation had a 99% chance of the USA and Russia ending up as a nuclear wasteland, but his patient leadership prevailed, and so far we're still not in a nuclear war. I may be wrong, but that's good leadership. Or are you one of those war crazed people who don't care about the consequences, only that a country full of innocent people who had the misfortune to have a government that offended us in some way is destroyed?

And I really don't understand why Reagan was so great. Sure, he created modern Republicanism, but that just left us with a legacy of Bush Jr. and Sr., and the messed up economy of the present. If you can explain that to me, please do.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Reagan and GH Bush Sr. were the greatest (and strongest) foreign policy Presidents/Commanders in Chief the USA has had in the last 50 years. Maybe even 60. And they were good orators for icing on the cake.

JFK was decent, but considering the quagmire he got us into with Vietnam, that kind of disqualifies him in the foriegn policy department. I give him credit for averting Nuclear War in the heat of the moment though. Another plus I'll give him is his part (just as Reagan did) in fighting the phylosophical battle against communism.

In all honesty though, I have to wonder that if JFK wasn't a martyr, and had so many mysteries around his assasination, would people even care to remember his presidency today? I think people revere his presidency for the same reason they revere Shakespeare's stories: Always a tragic ending. (Surrounded by mystery on top of it.) It's what makes an impact on people.

 

[BakingTheArt]

You don't put Vietnam in the Kennedy column - it was Johnson who royally ****ed it up. In fact, i remember hearing a tape that had Kennedy saying at one of his Cabinet meetings that he wanted to pull out of Vietnam after the 1964 elections, and Johnson say how horrible a mistake that would be. Kennedy started it, of course, but didn't pull out the draft, didn't go above 16,000 men.

I will agree Reagan and GB Sr. were the best presidents we had since Eisenhower. JFK probably could've been truly great if he only had lasted the full 8 years, Johnson had Vietnam, Nixon had "If the President does it, it's not illegal", Ford didn't really do much, and sure as hell didn't fix that horrible economy, Carter was, well, Carter, Clinton was close to beating them out with the Surplus he had, but I can never forgive him for Kosovo and Free Trade, and George W. Bush was George W. Bush.

I'm not saying they're great presidents, they were just not horrible at what they did.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Reagan and GH Bush Sr. were the greatest (and strongest) foreign policy Presidents/Commanders in Chief the USA has had in the last 50 years. Maybe even 60. And they were good orators for icing on the cake.

There is no "strong foreign policy" trait though. Reagan was more charismatic, G.H.W. Bush was more Imperialistic.

In all honesty though, I have to wonder that if JFK wasn't a martyr, and had so many mysteries around his assasination, would people even care to remember his presidency today? I think people revere his presidency for the same reason they revere Shakespeare's stories: Always a tragic ending. (Surrounded by mystery on top of it.) It's what makes an impact on people.

The defusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis pretty much preserved the existence of all humanity. That's not trivial.

All in all, Civ does definitely need a "Diplomatic" trait. 50% chance ability to prevent war via negotiation. +1 overall general diplo bonus w/AIs.

 

[Camikaze]

All in all, Civ does definitely need a "Diplomatic" trait. 50% chance ability to prevent war via negotiation. +1 overall general diplo bonus w/AIs.

The only problem would be that this first part would be made redundant if any human was involved. If a human wants to go to war- they go to war. And it would be totally useless in a multiplayer game. The idea has nice potential, though.