English Civ Leaders should be changed

[Kenric af Grashen]

Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth, Why? I think perhaps King Alfred unified Englandagainst the VIkings and eventually repelled them all together.

Or King Henry V was made heir to French throne before his death, led the English army to victory at agincourt. I know the french might get upset but they've got Napoleon.

I can see why they'd pick Elizabeth you know being an old civ favourite character but Victoria

 

[Avayaman]

what about winston churchill? he's pretty recent but mao's pretty recent too

 

[mitsho]

They probably wanted to have some more logical civ leaders. And these two are female leaders who make sense leading their country (not like Joan of Arc for example).

that's my theory, I myself would've loved to see one of Englands Great monarch or Churchill - the best modern leader for Britain, wasn't he 'voted' the most popular englishman or something alike just a few time ago?

mfG mitsho

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

i don't think the really modern leaders should be in the game because the thing about the older leaders is they have developed more of a legendary status and seeing as people alive today remeber churchill being prime minister there is no legend. He Also didn't fight in the battles/war that would make him an ideal leader for the English where as both Alfred and Henry V did.

edit: you commented while i was posting, All I can say is I didn't get a vote. I think also towards great recognisable leaders for England Richard The Lionheart could get a mention espeicially seeing as the new religion feature kind of promotes the idea of Holy wars

 

[Justy]

I would love to see an option for Winston Churchill, that would be awesome. I like Elizabeth as the other option.

How about King Arthur, heh. I know that he's somewhat of a myth, but what the heck.

 

[Avayaman]

richard the lionheart's ok, but i'd probably go for elizabeth and victoria because they're more popular figureheads for england, and were excellent leaders too.

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

I feel King Arthur is one of Britains greatest myths, but people do want accuracy with regard to civ leaders. Otherwise why would people go through the painstaking task of customising the game to the way they want it. But i think i will deffinatly try to do something towards that end (probably about time i learned to help the community properly ).

edit: again figureheads Victoria wasn't even English she was from the Hanovarian line of rulers

 

[Old_Man]

That is a great idea, Justy. Since we are creating history from the dawn of man, mythical and legendary leaders would be the most suitable. Arthur, Gilgamesh, Cúchulainn, Romulus… Hey, who would be better for Romans than Romulus?

 

[Urederra]

I concurr, Queen Victoria is not a good leader for the English Civ IV civilization. Drop her. One leader is enough for the English. Civ IV creators should spend their time and disc space to create another civilization that deserves to be in Civ IV more than Queen Victoria, such as the Babilonians.

Drop Queen Vitoria and add the babilonians instead.

 

[Urederra]

richard the lionheart's ok, but i'd probably go for elizabeth and victoria because they're more popular figureheads for england, and were excellent leaders too.

Richard the Lionheart sounds good to me as well. So, drop the two queens and add Richard instead. So the gay community will have a representation in Civ IV.

(Is Alexander gonna be leader of the Greeks as well?) If he is not leader of the Greeks, Richard could become the Gay representation in civ IV.

 

[Saltylicious]

England should have two leaderheads. Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria are fine, people should quit whining and be happy another Civ is coming out.

 

[Urederra]

England should have two leaderheads. Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria are fine, people should quit whining and be happy another Civ is coming out.

I am just saying my preferences. I prefer to have another civilization, such as Babilon, and I would be happy to trade it for an english queen, you name it, I don't care.

I believe that this forum is free, as in "free of speech". Thank you for reading my opinion.

 

[Saltylicious]

I believe that this forum is free, as in "free of speech". Thank you for reading my opinion.

Sorry for snapping, but all the whining people are doing is driving me nuts...

I know I know, "Stop coming here, then!".

But I can't! I'm sorta still hoping for new Civ4 info...

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

Queen Victoria ruled over the largest empire in the history of the world, and did it for longer than any other British Monarch. I think she's a great choice for England. The only case against her would be the fact that she was Queen of Great Britain, not just England. But considering that there are no Scottish or Irish civs in the game anyway, I don't see that as a huge problem.

 

[Cuivienen]

Queen Victoria is not perhaps the best candidate for a British leader, but she is a good one, certainly not one to get upset about. And I can't possibly imagine anyone having any real reason to object to Queen Elizabeth - she was England's best ruler in history, period. I would say that she is the most obvious choice for any civ in the game, even more so than Abe Lincoln for the Americans, Mansa Musa for the Malians or Julius Caesar for the Romans.

 

[Sub]

I personally have always wanted to see Churchill in.

 

[bkwrm79]

I don't dislike the existing leaders, but there may be better options. Churchill is a definite possibility.

Richard Lionheart, on the other hand, was a Norman who spent as much time as possible in the Holy Lands. Quite possibly he was a great leader, a warrior and diplomat. However, since he spent almost no time in England, did not speak the language of his subjects, and did no civil administration at all... I don't see him as the best candidate to be leader of the English. I don't mean to slam the suggestion; Richard is an interesting person I plan to read more about once I have the time, and a great leader for a Crusades scenario... but i disagree with him as the leader of England in the main game.

 

[Sullla]

I agree with bkwrm79. Richard I was one of the worst kings in English history! He spent barely six months of his 10-year rule in England, didn't speak the language of his subjects, and got involved in numerous pointless wars overseas. The English treasury was actually bled dry having to pay the ransom fees for every time Richard was captured in battle! Needless to say, we could do better when picking a leader.

Alfred is too far back in time to really be considered English; Saxon or Wessex yes, but really not English. Churchill wouldn't be a bad choice, but it looks like the designers didn't choose to go that route. Victoria may not have done very much, but does symbolize the British Empire at its height, and for that reason I don't see any reason to complain.

 

[Commander Bello]

Furthermore, it was the "Victorian Age", not the "Churchill Age" or the "Lionheart's Age", wasn't it?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Both Elizabeth and Victoria were very important leaders in British history and symbols of British might. They might not be the best, but, not only are they very close, but they are women (and, let's face it, Firaxis wants to include women in the game. At least they didn't choose someone like Joan of Arc).

Churchill would have been a cool idea, though.