Egyptian Rulers

[Kenric af Grashen]

Originally posted by kryszcztov
Cleo is just for the masses, nothing else... They should have put someone like Ramses II instead ; at his time Egypt was, I think, at its peek. Anyway, I'm trying to build a personal mod about the Ancient Times, and Ramses II definitely got his ticket. I hope you won't have to wait for Conquests to see Hittites, as I intend to put them in my mod as well, so let's go Kadesh battle !

can I help, i'm made an abu simbel wonder and i'm halfway through 2 egyptian units one is a Ramses II regicide unit

 

[Evie]

Cleopatra, while a better leader than often given credit for (she did, for one thing, give a damn about the egyptians. For another, she was quite good at using all her advantages to keep rome from invading (mostly by distracting them into invading her bedroom instead)), was not one of egypt's greatest leader.

Ramses II, without a shadow of a doubt, should be the egyptian leader.

Catherine, while ugly, is an arguably valid choice for Russia. Peter the Great is another good choice, but Catherine did actually lead Russia in one of its greatest time, so she's a perfectly valid choice.

Joan of Arc doesn't belong as a civilization leader. Great leader, yes, but not civilization leader. Louis XIV is the only real choice, as (unlike Napoléon), he didn't lead the country straight to ruin through ridiculously large ambition. France reached its greatest power under him.

 

[kryszcztov]

Originally posted by Sa~Craig
can I help, i'm made an abu simbel wonder and i'm halfway through 2 egyptian units one is a Ramses II regicide unit

Oh yeah, a unit picturing Ramses II for multiplayer ? Cool ! As for my mod, I must admit I've been lazy these last weeks, but once I am on holidays (one week to go), I'll try to continue. So keep on your work, and check my thread from time to time. I'll soon post description of the units I'd like to use, so will my Egyptian war chariot want to be different from the original one ? Why not...

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Joan of Arc doesn't belong as a civilization leader. Great leader, yes, but not civilization leader. Louis XIV is the only real choice, as (unlike Napoléon), he didn't lead the country straight to ruin through ridiculously large ambition. France reached its greatest power under him.

Exactly what I said and thought. I've said this here many times... Can't be clearer.

 

[Taliesin]

It should be pointed out that Cleopatra was not an incompetent or poor leader by any means. She generously funded the arts, public building projects, and scientific endeavour. I do agree that she was not the strongest or most capable Egyptian leader (though one of the most ambitious), but the point of the leaderheads is mostly comedic purposes anyhow. In that spirit, why not rename the Egyptian ruler Ramses II but keep Cleo's head?

As for France, I think Charlemagne might be a better choice, despite the fact that he was German. His Frankish kingdom was the direct ancestor of modern France, and the dominant ethnicity in France is due to his people's prior invasion. Charlemagne also ruled the Holy Roman Empire and is perhaps as recognisable a leader as Julius Caesar.

 

[Beanzy]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
For another, she was quite good at using all her advantages to keep rome from invading (mostly by distracting them into invading her bedroom instead)

I doubt the Romans would have invaded at that point. Crassus may have wanted to, but he really wasn't in a position to after Carhae (sp?). The Romans were too concerned with the Parthian threat and recovering from the prior disaster. Eventually, Egypt would probably have been invaded, if Augustus had had any competent successors.

 

[Junkyard_Pope]

Louis XIV as the only real choice for France? What about a certain figure called Charles DeGaulle?

Anyone who was elected by the French people (fickle as they are) on several occasions and lead an ill equipped and comparably small army to victory in French Africa deserves to be the Civilization leader for France! (Yay longwindedness!)

 

[rickyson1]

i don't give a crap.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

I think (deep breath)
Lenin for russia (has any other single one man made such a difference to russia)
Napoleon for France (he lead France through one periods they can actually be said to wining a war and he created the French empire without being thougherly and obviously evil enough for Firaxis to make a faux pas by selecting him)
Rameses (If were honest cleo made no positive influence and neither did tut though it wasn't his fault but he actually did real effective possitive things for them)
India No idea
Germany should have bismark (He created Germany and barbarossa would have to be a roman emperor rather than a german leader)
England should have Victoria (effectivly that was the golden age of our golden age meaning the high point of the empire economic and military and technological and territoral supremecy)
America should have abe or washington (I'm not american I can hardly tell the difference and I don't care)

 

[rickyson1]

Originally posted by immortal_empire
I think (deep breath)
Lenin for russia (has any other single one man made such a difference to russia)
Napoleon for France (he lead France through one periods they can actually be said to wining a war and he created the French empire without being thougherly and obviously evil enough for Firaxis to make a faux pas by selecting him)
Rameses (If were honest cleo made no positive influence and neither did tut though it wasn't his fault but he actually did real effective possitive things for them)
India No idea
Germany should have bismark (He created Germany and barbarossa would have to be a roman emperor rather than a german leader)
England should have Victoria (effectivly that was the golden age of our golden age meaning the high point of the empire economic and military and technological and territoral supremecy)
America should have abe or washington (I'm not american I can hardly tell the difference and I don't care)

3 things to say:
1.babarossa isnt in the game
2. bismarck is german leader
3. abe is american leader

 

[Beanzy]

Originally posted by immortal_empire
I think (deep breath)
India No idea

The obvious choice for India is Mahatma Gandhi (that's who it is now). The only other choice, IMHO, is Indira Gandhi. That'd give Firaxis another woman leader, and, people would take India more seriously when she makes a threat!

 

[Longasc]

My two cents:

Cleopatra was the descendant of Alexanders General Ptolemy, hence the name of the whole Macedonian (more "Greek" than Egyptian - she was not a native of Egypt!) dynasty that ruled Egypt for so long.

The Skin Color is by far TOO dark, she was not black, and I think she makes a fine ruler for the Egyptians.

But I disagree with Joan d'Arc for the French.
Louis XIV. or Napoleon come to my mind. Joan could be one of the Leader names, that fits much better. Guess they wanted more female rulers, since Peter the Great lost against Catherine, too...

Cleo is a fine

 

[YNCS]

Many of you seem to be forgetting one important thing: Civ3 is a game! It is not history, there's lots of inaccuracies and anachronisms in it. For instance, I'm presently playing a game that has both the Egyptians and the Ottomans. For over 400 years the Ottomans ruled Egypt. For that matter, if you play the game out to the end, then your ruler will have lived for 6,050 years. Why aren't you complaining about Cleopatra being immortal?

 

[puglover]

Cleo is a woman. They needed more female leaders.

 

[Punkymonkey]

They could have used Hatshepsut

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by YNCS
Many of you seem to be forgetting one important thing: Civ3 is a game! It is not history, there's lots of inaccuracies and anachronisms in it. For instance, I'm presently playing a game that has both the Egyptians and the Ottomans. For over 400 years the Ottomans ruled Egypt. For that matter, if you play the game out to the end, then your ruler will have lived for 6,050 years. Why aren't you complaining about Cleopatra being immortal?

Well actually according to ancient Egyptian belief the Pharoahs are immortal and Cleopatra is in the west with the rest of the Pharoahs.

They could have used Hatshepsut.

An excellent choice

 

[aneeshm]

Indira Gandhi did not have as much influence on Indian history as did Chandragupta or Ashok . Gandhi never held any official position of power , irrespective of the fact that he was God to the people . Plus , I cannot imagine him declaring war or of him as a military leader .

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

What qualifies a good choice for a Leaderhead?

1) Fame
2) He/ she was in fact a superior ruler...
3) ...in that Civs Golden Age,
4) and her/ his ethnicity matches the Civ.


To tell the truth, there hardly is any correct choice....Lincoln isn't in the GA, Jeanne never ruled, Catherine wasn't Russian etc.

But since the Leaderheads are mainly entertainment, I can live with most of them, including Cleo (though all points made against her are valid). Jeanne /Napoleon is the worst of those; there hardly ever was an easier, historically correct choice...

What makes me really upset is when the pick really 'bad' people, mass murderers, polital leaders accusable of starving down millions of people, etc. For a good reason, they didn't pick Hitler or Stalin (again).

So, Firaxis, please get rid of Mao and Alexander.

(And, while you're at it, consider a German UU not starting a GA when millions of people were killed in war and the holocaust, indicating that Germanies 'Golden' time was right then, or just rename it in the pop-up; like 'Our Civilisation has entered a 1000 year Reich' ...)

 

[Tiger_Nation]

rickson about your three things i was agreeing with them and offering arguaments as to why i was backing them up.
As for alexander name one other greek ruler who was any good. Mao I think is a good choice but i don't know much about him eg was he evil did he do good thing for China? I think however if not then i would put forward the man who built the great wall i have forgotten his name but he was quite good at getting it done if a bit nasty (ok very nasty) to the workers. Stalin and Hitler should not be leaders because in the long term they did irreprable harm to the countrys pride and the nation physicly. (also they have both been diagnosed as being insane although i have forgotten them i know hitlers was something to do with feeling distant from other peoples suffering (he refused to look at pictures of german refugees) and the medicine he should have taken had potassium in it.

 

[sebanaj]

Egypt: Ramses II
France: Napoleon
Macedonian Greece: Alexander
Spain: Isabel
Germany: Bismarck
England: Victoria
Persia: Cyrus
Russa: Peter the Great
Personally i'd add more persons on each country government!
Like adding political philosophers to have a say in your decisions

 

[frekk]

Originally posted by Junkyard_Pope
They couldn't use Louis XIV for the French, because he wore bright red pumps and more make up than all of KISS.

As for Mao, don't get anyone started! He was a bad person.
Why not Chiang Kai Shek for China instead of Mao?
It's also like putting Hitler as leader of Germany or to a lesser extent, Franco as leader of the Spanish.

Kai-Shek???!!!!! Are you serious?!! The guy was just as bad as Mao - he pulled some Stalinesque starvation/mass extermination stunts, plus, he was a miserable failure. Not only did he get his butt handed to him by the Japanese, a bunch of shoeless peasants kicked it too!!

Chiang's main claim to fame:
http://www.taiwandc.org/228-intr.htm

I don't think you can go by the moral acceptability of the leaders themselves, you really go by those who influenced the country the most and had the most impact on its culture and history, as well as recognition factor.

It's really not like putting Hitler as leader of Germany. Hitler has a high recognition factor but in the end, he didn't really influence his country all that much, in the long term. Not nearly as much as Bismarck. Everything Hitler created was either destroyed in the war or disavowed by the German people. Bismarck forged the nation itself, created the modern state of Germany. That creation survived the war, where the majority of Hitler's efforts did not. You can throw in VW and the autobahns but that's really not much.

Spain - similar story. Franco ruled well after Spain's heyday, in fact, in Franco's time Spain was doing quite poorly. And alot of people simply don't know Franco. Isabella presided over Spain's imperial begginings as well as its war against the Moors, a far more important part of Spanish history.

As far as Mao, like him or not, he built modern China. It still bears his mark. Probably will for a long time to come. So he figures as the leaderhead for China. It makes sense. The only other one that comes to mind for China would be Shi Huangdi, and he makes Mao look soft.

I'd like to see Stalin for the Russians, too, due to his great effect on that country, but Catherine is equally good. She consolidated Russia and extended its authority into the frontier regions, essentially solidified Russia.

I like the idea of Victoria for the British, for obvious reasons. Joan of Arc is just silly - it should be Napoleon, and everyone knows it.