Current World Leader traits

[PotatoSamurai]

On the heels of the "modern nations = which civics" thread, give the world's leaders their leader traits. Non-American nationals' opinions on their leaders are highly valued!

Barack Obama: Philosophical, Charismatic.
Vladimir Putin/Dmitry Medvedev: Aggressive, Organized.
Nicolas Sarkozy: Protective, Organized.
George W Bush: Aggressive, Protective. (Secretive trait would be good here )
Hugo Chavez: Financial, Charismatic.

I basically give Agg to leaders that have invaded another country (whether for good reasons or not), Prot to those concerned with security, Cha to those who ran or lead as populists, and Org to reformers.

 

[whitelaughter]

Hmm....
Australia had a golden age during and directly after WWII; more recently the leaders of Australian political parties seem to be mirror images.
During the '80s, Hawke and Peacock were both charisma bunnies, obsessed with getting factions talking to each other. (Given the way the unions and big business were fighting, this was essential).
Then the 90's, we had the accountants - Keating and Howard, obsessed with balancing the budget.
Now we have a self-confessed nerd - Rudd. Don't know what he is obsessed with, other than getting elected. The Coalition hasn't found a nerd to put up against him (and possibly they don't even know what a nerd is) so he'll probably be in charge for a while.

So:
1914-1950s: Imperialistic/Protective (high quality soldiers and generals who were then used to settle the outback after each war)
1950s-1960s: Industrious (Snowy Mountains Scheme Wonder)/Imperialistic
70s: Philosophical(massive growth in universities)/Creative (massive funding of the arts)
80s: Charismatic/Creative
90s: Financial/Organised.
Now: ?
Note that we've never had Expansive, and it shows: our ports are a disgrace. Of course, we haven't needed the health bonus due to our environment and resources. Nor Spiritual - religion is as a much a marker of which country your ancestors came from. That may change as smaller groups (eg the Salvos) grow.

 

[DVS]

Great info whitelaughter, but no conclusion?! You obviously know a lot about the politics of your country. If you come up with what you think are good charecteristics for Kevin Rudd, let those of us working on The World 2008 mod know.

(see my sig, post here, or PM me)

always trying to make it as accurate as possible

 

[whitelaughter]

Great info whitelaughter, but no conclusion?! You obviously know a lot about the politics of your country. If you come up with what you think are good characteristics for Kevin Rudd, let those of us working on The World 2008 mod know.

[sigh] Given how many genocidal dictators have previously been Time Magazine's Man of the Year I hope you'll take this as guesswork:

Mark Latham - Australia
Favoured Civic: Emancipation (Apology to Stolen Generation, Pro-Israel, etc).
Philosophical: (nerd, pouring resources into school system, training specialists, encouraging immigration of specialists).
Protective: (Although opposed to new overseas adventures, has always supported remaining in combat theatres; favours building up infrastructure and local units).

Australia should either start as a Vassal of the USA or have a Barbarian city serving as a Vassal. Australian foreign policy flips between "Our Powerful Friends" (Vassal of either Britain or USA) and "Fortress Australia" (building up the island nations as buffer states...err of course what I really mean is as friendly democracies). So if controlled by the AI, Australia should always be in a Vassal relationship of some form or another. (Australia has never actually declared war, we are always drawn into wars by our treaty obligations. No matter how much we have to warp the treaty to ensure this. Protective doesn't mean nice).

UU - tricky. Australian infantry are incredibly deadly, but that is largely covered by the Protective Trait. Maybe a UB that builds up Gunpowder units? Our riflemen were just as deadly in the Maori Wars, and our mechanised Infantry are still superb. (The Rum Corps[musketmen] wasn't, though, so the benefit shouldn't show up until Rifling).
Our conscript units are also deadly, another reason to make this a UB rather than a UU. Also, we don't have specific elite units; not even the 1st can really claim that.
The core of Australian units are often the volunteer fire fighter units and other emergency personnel, so maybe: UB Emergency Volunteers - gives Drill II to any Gunpowder unit build/upgraded in the city; requires Rifling.
Alternately - Australian troops were known, especially during WWI, for being much healthier than European troops, so maybe a UB that gives bonus xp dependant on excess health in the city?

Of course, there's always the SAS! Given Britain, OZ and NZ all have SAS units, maybe they should be a 'joint' UU.

Another very important UB: Aerial Medical Service (replaces hospital) - Australian hospitals are set up for long distance work - the Flying Doctor Service was set up after WWI, and specialist units routinely look after patients from 1,500 miles kilometres away. So this UB should grant Medic II to all units built there. (If this is too powerful, make "Royal North Shore Hospital" a replacement for the Red Cross, as that is our most famous teaching hospital; or only have this trigger in the same city as the Red Cross).

Airefuego's comments on Australia have also been on the mark, btw.

 

[Harry Potter52]

In India
Manmohan Singh: Spiritual/Financial (his soft manner of speaking and the afct that he was finance minister in 1991)
Mayawait: Charismatic/Protective
Raj Thackeray: Aggressive/Stupid (couldn't resist this)

 

[Korias]

In India
Manmohan Singh: Spiritual/Financial (his soft manner of speaking and the afct that he was finance minister in 1991)

Thats just a brutal combonation. The power to freely switch civics as well as the Financial trait would just power a massive tech lead early on. That could be a better teching combo than Wang Kon's Fin-Pro+ University UB.

 

[whitelaughter]

I'm moderately happy with this:

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY for short)
Favoured Civic: Emancipation

Aggressive, Charismatic

Universal Suffrage [Hereditary Rule]
Nationhood
Emancipation
Free Market
Organised Religion [Theocracy] (Islam)

The nation is trying to modernise (thus Free Market and Universal Suffrage) but at the same time both the military and radical Islam have a huge influence. Frex, they are strengthening their hold on Papua, Sulawesi and Maluku with troops and Islamic Missionary units. (Basically, the entire Eastern half of the country is held by force). Also, Islamic/Javanese Settler units have built new cities in Borneo and Papua to help control these islands, to the disgust of the Christian locals.

Indonesia has recently moved away from Hereditary Rule; there is ongoing pressure to shift to Theocracy. (The province of Aceh has already done so, so on a regional map should be treated as a Vassal state). Of course, they won't do that while building Missionaries. Besides, they are also constructing a lot of buildings.

Indonesia's major cities are surrounded by Grassland(Floodplains), so generate a huge amount of food. They are set to conscript Infantry. No air force worth speaking of, and presumably putting off building transports until Theocracy.

Alternately, they could continue to replace their farms with cottages (already have many towns, Java is an overpopulated island), and turn to Free Religion to gain happiness from the large Christian, Hindu and Taoist/Confucian minorities.

So lots of choices for anyone playing Indonesia!

 

[Fame Throwa]

On the heels of the
Barack Obama: Philosophical, Charismatic.

Philosophical is a good fit, but I'd say he'd be Cha/Org, mostly because of his very well-run campaign and the way he's conducted himself in office so far.

 

[lampshade]

Our riflemen were just as deadly in the Maori Wars

wasn't that the british? i'm happy to be corrected...

Gordon Brown - Financial, Industrious (certainly not charismatic, anyway)

possibly a little early to be making assumptions about Obama, non? i'd be more likely to call Sarkozy charismatic - he must have something to have managed to get with Carla Bruni, right?

 

[whitelaughter]

wasn't that the british? i'm happy to be corrected...

Nah, the British were pwned on the battlefield. The Maoris were very thoughtful psychotics - when they realised that the British that wanted to capture hill forts, they built hill forts specifically for the Brits to storm. Then they'd man the forts, shoot the soldiers pouring up the hill, and then when the soldiers finally made it to/over the walls, the Maoris slipped out via tunnels. And went and built another hill fort. Think Bunker Hill again and again, but with no final British victory.
The Maoris thought this was a fine way to fight a war: they got to kill soldiers, the British got to capture forts, everyone was happy. Of course, the British started to run out of soldiers. To hold the line, 4 units of Australian troops were raised by the New Zealand govt to add to their own commendable militias. Also, Maoris fought on both sides.
Eventually the Maoris ran out of steam - an agrarian society just can't keep armies in the field as long as an industrialised society can - and forced to sue for peace.

[Oh, I'll do future traits on the Civic countries thread to keep them together].

 

[DVS]

[sigh] Given how many genocidal dictators have previously been Time Magazine's Man of the Year I hope you'll take this as guesswork:

Mark Latham - Australia
Favoured Civic: Emancipation (Apology to Stolen Generation, Pro-Israel, etc).
Philosophical: (nerd, pouring resources into school system, training specialists, encouraging immigration of specialists).
Protective: (Although opposed to new overseas adventures, has always supported remaining in combat theatres; favours building up infrastructure and local units).

Australia should either start as a Vassal of the USA or have a Barbarian city serving as a Vassal. Australian foreign policy flips between "Our Powerful Friends" (Vassal of either Britain or USA) and "Fortress Australia" (building up the island nations as buffer states...err of course what I really mean is as friendly democracies). So if controlled by the AI, Australia should always be in a Vassal relationship of some form or another. (Australia has never actually declared war, we are always drawn into wars by our treaty obligations. No matter how much we have to warp the treaty to ensure this. Protective doesn't mean nice).

UU - tricky. Australian infantry are incredibly deadly, but that is largely covered by the Protective Trait. Maybe a UB that builds up Gunpowder units? Our riflemen were just as deadly in the Maori Wars, and our mechanised Infantry are still superb. (The Rum Corps[musketmen] wasn't, though, so the benefit shouldn't show up until Rifling).
Our conscript units are also deadly, another reason to make this a UB rather than a UU. Also, we don't have specific elite units; not even the 1st can really claim that.
The core of Australian units are often the volunteer fire fighter units and other emergency personnel, so maybe: UB Emergency Volunteers - gives Drill II to any Gunpowder unit build/upgraded in the city; requires Rifling.
Alternately - Australian troops were known, especially during WWI, for being much healthier than European troops, so maybe a UB that gives bonus xp dependant on excess health in the city?

Of course, there's always the SAS! Given Britain, OZ and NZ all have SAS units, maybe they should be a 'joint' UU.

Another very important UB: Aerial Medical Service (replaces hospital) - Australian hospitals are set up for long distance work - the Flying Doctor Service was set up after WWI, and specialist units routinely look after patients from 1,500 miles kilometres away. So this UB should grant Medic II to all units built there. (If this is too powerful, make "Royal North Shore Hospital" a replacement for the Red Cross, as that is our most famous teaching hospital; or only have this trigger in the same city as the Red Cross).

Airefuego's comments on Australia have also been on the mark, btw.

sweet man, great info.

 

[Chiyochan]

i think its hard to judge obama this early in the game, its hard for me to look at him with any sort of intelligence, or at least that man has to be oblivious to the implications of instituting civil unions, personally, Cha or Org aside he will either try or fail at being Philosophical, his victory speech in chicago leans into inspiring people to greatness. whether that is successful will probably determine the trait.

 

[Airefuego]

Here's a revolutionary thought: most world leaders have one (or zero) traits.

Only the truly great ones (on a world scale) get two. That's why they're great...

I'd say:
Kevin Rudd - Org, prefers Free Speech
Howard - Fin, prefers Free Market
Keating - Fin, prefers ...?
Hawke - Cha ...?

(Us Aussies are a fairly orthodox safety-first bunch when it comes to politics, so we pick leaders who favour Civics we are already running...)

 

[Airefuego]

[sigh]

UU - tricky. Australian infantry are incredibly deadly, but that is largely covered by the Protective Trait. Maybe a UB that builds up Gunpowder units? Our riflemen were just as deadly in the Maori Wars, and our mechanised Infantry are still superb. (The Rum Corps[musketmen] wasn't, though, so the benefit shouldn't show up until Rifling).
Our conscript units are also deadly, another reason to make this a UB rather than a UU. Also, we don't have specific elite units; not even the 1st can really claim that.
The core of Australian units are often the volunteer fire fighter units and other emergency personnel, so maybe: UB Emergency Volunteers - gives Drill II to any Gunpowder unit build/upgraded in the city; requires Rifling.
Alternately - Australian troops were known, especially during WWI, for being much healthier than European troops, so maybe a UB that gives bonus xp dependant on excess health in the city?

I agree.

That excess health, and the fact that we have always got cheap workers (convicts and new chums and snowy mountains scheme "new australians") has me thinking that Australia should be Exp... (except for our ports! )

I'd also put in a vote for Org, simply because we have a very large land area, and we're law-abiding (despite pretending we're not) and fairly low levels of corruption (now that Queensland has built a courthouse! )

Or maybe we are Pro as you say, with a lot of Drill.

A previous modder gave Australia a UB based on the Colosseum, given our sporting culture and sporting prowess. "Sports Ground" or "Stadium" and he made it give a 50% culture boost. I'd keep the idea but instead of the culture maybe it should give +1 health and +2 XP to gunpowder units...?

 

[whitelaughter]

Exp is all about having a large population - which we don't, and can't.

Org makes a certain degree of sense, given we have low levels of corruption. Corruption though can't really be moded accurately without accepting the different effects of different religions etc.

I like the idea of a Stadium giving xp to Gunpowder, but they don't increase health - quite the opposite: beer belly 'Norm' is a stereotype for a reason!

Dropping leaders to one trait...not so sure. After all, it is up to the player to exploit the bonuses given.

 

[fizsh]

On the heels of the "modern nations = which civics" thread, give the world's leaders their leader traits. Non-American nationals' opinions on their leaders are highly valued!

Barack Obama: Philosophical, Charismatic.
Vladimir Putin/Dmitry Medvedev: Aggressive, Organized.
Nicolas Sarkozy: Protective, Organized.
George W Bush: Aggressive, Protective. (Secretive trait would be good here )
Hugo Chavez: Financial, Charismatic.

I basically give Agg to leaders that have invaded another country (whether for good reasons or not), Prot to those concerned with security, Cha to those who ran or lead as populists, and Org to reformers.

Actually, I would give Bush Aggressive, Spiritual. His faith-based initiative, increasing spending of faith based missionaries, etc. Funny thing, that would give him the traits of Monty. Favorite civic would probably be Organized Religiion, for the extra missionaires.

 

[hexem3117]

Philosophical is a good fit, but I'd say he'd be Cha/Org, mostly because of his very well-run campaign and the way he's conducted himself in office so far.

He's *NOT* in office. Not until late January.

A common misconception even among Americans. I understand the whole "lame duck" aspect of George Bush (though he could be considered to ALWAYS have been a lame duck, with Cheney pulling his strings ), but the man still runs the country.

Even my Mom says she's proud of what Obama's done as President I'm looking forward to him in office, but he's NOT yet!

 

[Ferrosol]

I would say Tony Blair (Cha/Phil) Completely rewrote his parties Doctrine enabling it to win for the first time in years (phil) and was such a smooth guy he could convince most people to support him in doing it (cha)


Gordon Brown (Fin/Org) Obiviously his great financial success (although by the time Civ 5 is released he probably wont have this trait any more ) and since he has been in office he really does seem to have reordered government.


Hmm so that makes Brown Darius and Blair Abe Lincoln

 

[Airefuego]

Dropping leaders to one trait...not so sure. After all, it is up to the player to exploit the bonuses given.

Correct, I didn't mean game leaders should only have one trait.

I mean most REAL LIFE leaders actually only have one (or none).

Most leaders are just average leaders after all.

I could name a couple who I reckon have no talent at all beyond a lust for power. They do not benefit their Civ in any particular way so.... no traits!

A really excellent leader has two "traits" and can lead their people to something special (and makes it into immortality by appearing in Civ!).

I think we'd be cheapening the legacy of Caesar, Queen Lizzy and Kublai Khan if we force them to share the same number of talents as Hugo Chavez or Neville Chamberlain.

 

[whitelaughter]

Well argued, but I'm unconvinced for three reasons.

In game, because this results in everybody becoming clones of one another. With 2 choices from 13 options, you have 78 options, allowing a wide selection of leaders. One choice means only 13 options.

Secondly, the secret to being a famous leader has nothing to do with your capabilities and everything to do with propaganda. Caesar would just be another tin pot dictator if he hadn't written the Commentaries. Winston Churchill exploited the Official Secrets Act to ensure that his History of the English Speaking Peoples would present him in a light that couldn't be effectively challenged for half a century. Boadicea was an unsuccessful rebel we only know of because Tacitus chose to put a speech into her mouth.

Thirdly, because inept leadership in Civ is the periods of anarchy when changing Civics. Alternately, a country with a succession of incompetent leaders can be considered a barbarian state - with no traits.

So no, I'm all for keeping them all on a level playing field.