Get rid of Lincoln!

[Marla_Singer]

Well as people talk about it.

I don't want anymore king or emperor leaders for France. It's been two centuries we've made our revolution after all, those kings are getting very old fashioned.

For France, I would enjoy Charles de Gaulle as leader. That would better fit with what France is today.

As great leaders, by the way, Georges Clémenceau would be a great choice. I'm impressed he hasn't even been mentionned in Civ3.

 

[Elgalad]

It would only enhance replayability if there were mutliple options for leader (for every civilization). Having the ability to choose your leaderhead would be a great benefit, Lincoln isn't the only one I have grown sick of.. all the leaderheads get old after a while. If there were 4 or 5 possiblities (male and female) for each civ, it would make the game much more fun for me. And the leaders dont Have to be actual historic ones, particularly with civs that we dont have much history for, like the Hittites or Babylon, they should feel free to take artistic license. An option to choose random AI leaders would help too.. different leaders/leaderheads might be more or less aggressive (warmonger) or more or less focused on building up their economy (builder).

-Elgalad

 

[dh_epic]

Reagan was a great communicator, but a polarizing figure as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot of people still alive today who think he did a lot of harm to the country. Not that I'm gonna repeat that message, but you have to understand that he is not universally held in as high a regard as Lincoln.

I mean, heck, if people want to credit Reagan with winning the cold war, you might as well give credit to Lincoln for bringing the nation together. Some people consider the post civil war as the era that America finally came together, united. ... and everything up until then was prologue.

I can see why people would say Kennedy -- since there are fewer people who have anything negative to say about him. But he doesn't have much positive under his belt either. Pardon for my political incorrectness, but I think people have a habit of letting tragedy add more weight to a man's life and what he did.

There is no way to have this conversation without being political. But the more I think about it, the more I think Lincoln is the best fit for the bill. Sure there is contraversy over how much he can take credit for Uniting the US, but there is no one who will say he was a bad president -- the way Nixon was a bad President.

 

[thestonesfan]

I say to heck with the politics. It's just a leaderhead. Sure, Reagan may have done some harm and not everyone liked the guy...but so what? It's not like he's Hitler or anything. How much death and destruction was Ghengis Khan responsible for? Montezuma? How about Chairman Mao? Even his biggest detractors must admit that Ronny Ray-Gun was a saint next to half the leaders in the game!

Lincoln himself was hated by at least half the country. I know, I know, that was a long time ago, and he is revered now, but come on, what difference should that make? It's just a game, and my reasons for preferring Reagan are all based on that fact.

For one, we've had Lincoln for three games already. Lets have someone new. Secondly, in Civ3, America is the "modern" nation. That adds a bit of flavor to the game, and they should work with that angle. Third, he's a great representation of America at the height of it's power and influence. He's got that whole cowboy, "I'll kick your ass you evil commie bastard!" vibe. Things like that, if they expand on it a little, it would add a lot of flair to the game. For an opposite, put in Joe Stalin for the Russians and give him lots of pro-communist bravado!

For me, the most enjoyable leaders are the most colorful ones. Lincoln just isn't a very colorful character.

As for France, I'd like Napoleon. He could be fun. And even us French-hating Americans gotta give Little Nappy his props as a great leader.

De Gaulle? Clemenceau? Yaaawwwwnnn!! Booorrrr-innnnnggg

 

[sealman]

It would only enhance replayability if there were mutliple options for leader (for every civilization). Having the ability to choose your leaderhead would be a great benefit, Lincoln isn't the only one I have grown sick of.. all the leaderheads get old after a while. If there were 4 or 5 possiblities (male and female) for each civ, it would make the game much more fun for me. And the leaders dont Have to be actual historic ones, particularly with civs that we dont have much history for, like the Hittites or Babylon, they should feel free to take artistic license. An option to choose random AI leaders would help too.. different leaders/leaderheads might be more or less aggressive (warmonger) or more or less focused on building up their economy (builder).

-Elgalad

I don't see how the choice of a leader has any effect on replayability since they don't actually do anything to alter the game. Now if they had mulitple leader choices and each brought a different civ trait/attribute to the table, I could see some merit. (Emphasis on "could")

Reagan was a great communicator, but a polarizing figure as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot of people still alive today who think he did a lot of harm to the country. Not that I'm gonna repeat that message, but you have to understand that he is not universally held in as high a regard as Lincoln.

I am not sure if you missed my point or not, but my suggestion for Reagan has nothing to do with the man's politics. The "golden age" of America (which is open to debate) is linked with the modern era. Civ portrays this with the F-15 being the UU, so therefore the leader should be a modern day president, preferably post WW2. So who are the canidates:

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush, Sr
Clinton
Bush, Jr

Now, you must elimate any president who only served one term: Bush, Sr, Carter, Ford, Johnson*, Kennedy, Bush, Jr (at least until the November election) *Johnson was only elected once but served out the remainder of Kennedy's term

Truman I think is a little to early to fit into CIV's version of America's golden age.
Nixon and Clinton are best known for their little scandals and are not great choices to represent America's Golden Age.

This leaves Ike and Reagan as the two legit choices for a modern age leader of for CIV's America. I beleive that the US was more respected globally under Ike's administration than Reagan and I think I would now chose Ike over (whose cooking popcorn?? sorry. it just smells good) Reagan.

But, don't get me wrong. I think Lincoln was a great president and, if I ranked all our presidents, I might put him above both Reagan and Ike but he just [dosen't] epresent America during our "golden age"

Now, as for France....

I will leave that debate/discussion for French Leader Thread.

 

[dh_epic]

Sorry, I caught your point but didn't address it directly. I guess what I'm getting at is that the whole leader-golden age thing doesn't carry enough weight to push Reagan over Lincoln. There are still too many hard feelings towards Reagan -- whereas using the legacy of Lincoln is generally a good thing.

Eisenhower is actually a great pick, though. Not only do you get a figure who's largely remembered fondly, but you get the war credibility as well -- a celebrated and important part of America's history.

 

[thestonesfan]

Heck, I'd settle for Ike. I can see Reagan is maybe too polarizing. Maybe in CivVIII.

As for multiple leaderheads, it seems kind of unnecessary. Even if they changed the game somewhat, there still isn't any point. That's what civ traits are for. If you want to be a warmonger, play as a militaristic civ. Money makers can play as commercial. Etc, etc.

One leader per civ is fine with me.

 

[aaron_burr]

How about Aaron Burr? One of our best vice presidents.

Seriously, I'm surprised they didn't take Washington, they tend to like to use national founders.

FDR would be cool, although I think he's overrated and I hate his politics, but having a leaderhead with an old-school long black cigarette filter would be schweet.

 

[DBear]

Both the leader and the UU should represent the time when a civ is at a high point in its civilization. The Civil War was not that point so under those circumstances, Lincoln should not be chosen. The same could be said of George Washington.

But then you get back into the "Should Hitler represent the Germans?" argument. I guarantee that there is no way Firaxis is ever going to put Hitler into the game.

Teddy Roosevelt would make a good choice--the U.S. became a world power under his administration. Eisenhower is good--I've heard his leaderhead is out there...

FDR is just as objectionable to the right as Reagan is to the left.

 

[RabbitAmbulance]

FDR's also a good choice because America really became modern America during WWII. To me, this talk of Reagan or anyone in the last 50 years is nuts; the leaders in Civ aren't really from when that civilization was most powerful, they're from when that civ became defined. That's why we have Caesar instead of Hadrian or Constantine or a dozen others, Genghis Khan instead of Kublai, Gandhi instead of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

But even though FDR guided us through the Great Depression, the bulk of WWII and permanently away from isolationism, and was elected four times, I still don't think he has the mythic or factual status of, in order, Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson--and no one else comes close. Call Lincoln overrated if you want, but when the president before him threw up his hands and left it for someone else to deal with, he went on to lead America through our greatest trial. Not only a strong and determined military leader, Lincoln may have been the most eloquent man to ever lead our nation. It's that combination of the strength of the man in charge during a time of total crisis that makes me believe Lincoln deserves his place as head of America. He may have extorted me in 800 different games of Civ, but I'd be disappointed to ever see him go.

 

[Turner]

Don't get me started on JFK! The only thing he did was get us into Vietnam. While I will admit that he had great charisma and a ton of potential, he was assassinated before he really had a chance to do anything. I don't like it.

FDR I can agree with. I also like TR. As for the later presidents, I have to admit I'm partial to RR.

I think the best choice is not a president at all - Benjamin Franklin. He certainly did enough to push this country down the course he thought it should have gone down. Yes, we didn't do it, but we were closer to what he wanted then we weren't.

 

[stormbind]

America is in the game to appease consumers.

It's hard to find a suitable American leader, because technically, America shouldn't be in the game... it was the result of Civil War in the British Empire... and a continuation of an ongoing dispute between Republicans & Monarchists (Republican England did exist under Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century).

The only way to properly include America as a Civ in the game, is to reintroduce Civil Wars, and have "America" be the first new Civ that can appear from Civil War in England. Ofcourse, that would alienate consumers in the USA and Scotland, for different reasons. Or, perhaps England should be the result of Civil War in Saxony...

Seriously. When did England, Britain, or America ever have a unit comparible to "Warrior"? It simply never happened because none of those Civilisations existed back then. Maybe Brittannia should be a Civilisation, the result of Civil War with Rome.

At the end of the day, Civilization video games are not an accurate portrayal of history, and they never will be. It is about building empires, yet it doesn't even have the British in it!

Thus, it doesn't really matter who the leader head is, because it doesn't mean anything. I say, use Bugs Bunny. He's cool.

 

[Turner]

I think that's taking the historical aspect of it a little too far. The realism's great, but really, it can only go so far. You don't hear people saying that Babylon should be phased out before the game is half over, or the Iroquois go from a strong civ to just a couple of cities.

Civ is about what if. Not what happened.

 

[stormbind]

Civ is about what if. Not what happened.

So, what if Bugs Bunny was president?

The worlds aren't the same either. The names of the Civilizations, and the leader heads, have no meaning. Why can't we have green goblin leader heads, and terrain types never seen on Earth?

 

[Turner]

Sure. Why not? I mean, I never play earth maps. Wouldn't make much difference to me.

 

[thestonesfan]

You gotta have America in...and judging the game for what it is, they aren't too out of place. There isn't any kind of consistent criteria that I can see.

Thinking about it, I really would like to see guys like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in the game. Maybe they can think of a good way to squeeze some real historical figures in there...maybe as civ-specific advisors or something.

 

[Drakan]

Tmarcl; Abraham Lincoln is the best President the U.S. has had to date. I've read already three biographies on him, from different points of view, and I'm still amazed how lucky you were to have him precisely in that moment. I humbly suggest you reading a biography on him to fully comprehend his legacy.

The more I read from him, the more I admire this man. Furthermore, I voted him in the history forum as the greatest President of any country of all times. Did you know the fact he undertook elections in the mist of the Civil War ? Can you imagine that happening nowadays ? I also suspect among the rest of the Europeans and the World at large he's the most revered. Perhaps you , beeing American, can enlight me otherwise. If it weren't for him there would just would be no US at all, you would live in a divided house.

And you are mistaken, only him and JFK have fought hard for Civil Rights in your country.

As for Roosevelt, the man was so sick at the time he gave half of Europe to the U.S.S.R. being his wife a raving Communist. We are still suffering the consequences of such measures in Europe.

Also he very slily entered the US into WWII against popular will setting things up in Pearl Harbor. That was no surprise attack at all. The high-ranking military at the time, as well as President Roosevelt were fully aware they were pressing Japan, which lacks oil in it's territory, to attack the US. They had in effect stopped the fuel getting to Japan which just couldn't go without it. The japanese only had enough oil reserves to keep them going for 12 months or so. So the attack was only a matter of time, and the politicians and military knew this very well.

Suspiciously enough not a single Aircraftcarrier was harbouring at Pearl Harbour that "infamous" 7th of December. In fact all war ships damaged or sunked were really second-class. I only regret the kids that died that day unaware of what was been cooked up in Washington. So please, don't tell me Roosevelt was your greatest president, this is just my personal opinion anyway.

 

[dh_epic]

Damn, those are some harsh criticisms about FDR ... but truthfully, I have lower expectations from politicians 50 years ago than I do now.

I think Lincoln or Eisenhower are actually two of the best choices. They're galvanizing figures, as opposed to polarizing figures (see Nixon, JFK, Reagan, Clinton).

But I don't think the multiple leader heads is a bad idea -- it would open things up for civil war effects. Upper France and Lower France -- with Joan of Arc ruling one, and Charles De Gaulle on the other ... American Union versus American Confederacy -- Eisenhower and Lincoln. Not historically accurate, but opens up the gameplay.

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

I would say that it would be much better if a nation didn't have the SAME leader through out the game. It would be more fun if it changed from time to time. Maybe not as fast as regular IRL leaders change, but every 100 turns or so perhaps. Different leaders could have different personalities and affect the game diffirently. I think that would be much more realistic. Also AI should change leader every time they make a change of goverment. So that when Russia changes to Communism they shouldn't still have a Czar as leader but someone like Lenin or Stalin.

 

[tmarcl]

Tmarcl; Abraham Lincoln is the best President the U.S. has had to date. I've read already three biographies on him, from different points of view, and I'm still amazed how lucky you were to have him precisely in that moment. I humbly suggest you reading a biography on him to fully comprehend his legacy.

Well, I admire King Arthur, but that doesn't mean he should be the head of the English. I'm not disputing Lincoln's ability as a president, I'm disputing how much effect he had on our civilization on a whole. While he may be honored by other nations as well as our own, our country didn't really become a major world player, and (in some ways) a definer of Western culture until the 20th century.

Back to King Arthur. While there is evidence that there was a British ruler named Arthur way back when, he wasn't responsible for making Britain/England the major world culture it was in the 17th through 19th centuries.

The leaders in Civ should represent the era that each civilization made it's most major impact on world events. Napolean for France, for example, or Teddy Roosevelt for the U.S.

As for Roosevelt, the man was so sick at the time he gave half of Europe to the U.S.S.R. being his wife a raving Communist. We are still suffering the consequences of such measures in Europe.

Also he very slily entered the US into WWII against popular will setting things up in Pearl Harbor. That was no surprise attack at all. The high-ranking military at the time, as well as President Roosevelt were fully aware they were pressing Japan, which lacks oil in it's territory, to attack the US. They had in effect stopped the fuel getting to Japan which just couldn't go without it. The japanese only had enough oil reserves to keep them going for 12 months or so. So the attack was only a matter of time, and the politicians and military knew this very well.

Suspiciously enough not a single Aircraftcarrier was harbouring at Pearl Harbour that "infamous" 7th of December. In fact all war ships damaged or sunked were really second-class. I only regret the kids that died that day unaware of what was been cooked up in Washington. So please don't tell me Rossevelt was your greatest president, this is just my personal opinion anyway.

I was actually talking about Teddy Roosevelt, not FDR. He came a few presidents earlier.