If you could suggest a new leader for each civ

[manim]

srry for my bad english

i know its a little bit strange and unacceptable but i think muhammad is a good choice for arabia cuz in fact he was the guy who united the tribes of Arabia into a singular Arab Muslim religious polity. berfor him there were just som arab citys like mecca and Yathrib(medina)

 

[Thyrwyn]

I agree with manim

 

[Train]

There are a lot of gr8 suggestions, but something that I really would like to see is Meiji for Japan.

I think he was never in the series and he really deserves a place.

I like to pick modern leaders to represent the civs, especially from XIX and XX century. I loved to see leaders from this time in Civ IV. Meiji is the perfect pick for Japan in my opinion.

 

[Sabretou]

America: Lincoln
Arabian: Abu Bakr
Babylonia: Hammurabi
China: Qin Shi Huangdi, Mao Tsetung, Hongwu
England: Victoria, Alfred(?)
France: Louis XIV, Charlemagne
Germany: Frederick II(?)
Greece: Pericles
India: Ashoka, Chandragupta, Akbar
Japan: Tokugawa, Meiji
Ottoman: Mehmed II
Persia: Cyrus, Xerxes I
Rome: Julius Caeser
Russia: Nevsky, Stalin, Lenin (if Gandhi can make it, he sure as hell can)

 

[Niptium]

Dutch = Johan de Witt instead of Willem van Orange for the expansion pack

 

[Sciguy001]

They couldn't do Mohammad as the leader because that would require Firaxis to make an artistic representation of him which is "unholy" and all the Muslims would riot and boycott the game.

 

[imperiex1]

America: Lincoln
Arabian: Abu Bakr
Babylonia: Hammurabi
China: Qin Shi Huangdi, Mao Tsetung, Hongwu
England: Victoria, Alfred(?)
France: Louis XIV, Charlemagne
Germany: Frederick II(?)
Greece: Pericles, Leonidas I, Demosthenes?
India: Ashoka, Chandragupta, Akbar
Japan: Tokugawa, Meiji
Ottoman: Mehmed II
Persia: Cyrus, Xerxes I
Rome: Julius Caeser
Russia: Nevsky, Stalin, Lenin (if Gandhi can make it, he sure as hell can)

My additions in bold.

 

[Aramel]

They couldn't do Mohammad as the leader because that would require Firaxis to make an artistic representation of him which is "unholy" and all the Muslims would riot and boycott the game.

There's actually a similar problem with Meiji that Jon Shafer mentioned a while back. The Japanese don't like their emperors being depicted.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5588734&postcount=18

 

[EmperorValacar]

England:Henry the Fifth(agincourt)
Americaatton yes patton or Teddy
France:Charles Martel or the sun king
China:The first tang emperor(or maybe the second) but he set up that dynasty
Japan:Samurai Jack(<.<)
Germany:Barbarossa
Russia:alexander nevski
Rome:Scipio Africanus
India:Akbar
Arabian:Aladdin!, or more realistically Umar, he took out teh sassanids and almost took out the byzantines

The byzantines better be in a Civ5 expansion <.< , if so how about Basil the bulgar slayer for their leader not justinian -.- or maybe alexios Kommenos

 

[muhtesem insan]

They couldn't do Mohammad as the leader because that would require Firaxis to make an artistic representation of him which is "unholy" and all the Muslims would riot and boycott the game.

They could hide him in a bear costume .

 

[salty mud]

England - William the Conquerer
Rome - Caeser, Nero
Germany - Frederick the Great

 

[Peng Qi]

USA: Theodore Roosevelt. Reduces penalties associated with democratic forms of government if there are any/gives a slight boost along the same lines as the kind of boosts associated with autocratic governments while in a democratic form; justification is that he was the best president the USA has had at getting things done without the immediate consent of congress.

China: Emperor Xian. Bonus randomly changes at semi-regular intervals; justification is that he was never really in control of his country and instead is being directed by whoever is pulling his strings at the moment.

England: Richard the Lionheart. Units in enemy territory get combat bonuses that increase the further you get into enemy territory.

Rome: Justinian. Gains small combat bonuses against any enemy who controls a city he once controlled. Bonuses become larger as that enemy takes more cities, but starts to shrink back to the small bonus after the war ends. Always has a small bonus against anyone who owns one of his cities, though.

 

[Estaban555]

Rome: Marius. Technically not a leader, but he professionalized the Army and made it possible for Rome to actually expand instead of calling up a new army every time Carthage attacked or Greece got ambitious.

US: Thomas Jefferson. It'd be fun to play as a non-typical Founding Father. Maybe he could get a LOS bonus for the Lewis and Clark expedition? Anyway, I wouldn't want to play as FDR. Europe was out of the Depression by 1935. The US entered the war with a recession, at least. Not the mark of a great leader, IMHO.

England: Henry V. I would just like to see Medieval England represented, and Henry almost conquered France in the 100-year war. No brainer in my book, although Alfred would be fine to.

China: Someone besides Mao. The Great Leap Forward starved 20 million to death, and the Cultural Revolution destroyed Chinese culture (i.e. crossbows where banned because China invented them). Deng Xiao Ping would be alright, or maybe Sun Yat Sen.

Russia: Ivan the Terrible . But seriously, he reformed the Russian military and doubled Russia's territory, if memory serves.

 

[imperiex1]

England - William the Conquerer
Rome - Caeser, Nero
Germany - Frederick the Great

No Nero, we don't want any bad, bad emperors like him. How about Emperors Trajan or Hadrian?

 

[manim]

They could hide him in a bear costume .

or in a U-Haul truck

 

[ShaggyCan]

Rome: Marius. Technically not a leader, but he professionalized the Army and made it possible for Rome to actually expand instead of calling up a new army every time Carthage attacked or Greece got ambitious.

He was consul seven times! I think he qualifies as a roman leader.
He also helped plant the seed which, while saved Rome for the time being, was ultimately the republic's undoing.

 

[12agnar0k]

England: Victoria, Alfred(?)

Just because Alfred is the English butler from Batman doesn't mean he should lead the English Civilisation,

Henry the VIII (it is VIII that was the head chopping one aye?) is the ideal leader, he is the most famous monarch from the Tudor legacy. Victoria (the 1st?) is only the second most famous. Although I do believe she was a better ruler of England, better is the sense of not being an egomaniac chopping off all his lovers heads, good old Henry, but who would you rather play, Friendly Elizabeth, or RUTHLESS MEGALOMANIAC KING HENRY THE EIGHTH!!!. I know who has my pick, niether I choose Gordon Brown. So dull he will bore all his enemies into surrender!.

All though some other good historic suggestions have been William The Conqeuor (was he also known as William the bloody, or was that another William entirely.) I do know a little about William The Conqeuor. Atleast, I think I do, my memory is rusty, he was King Of France and lead an invasion of Britain the famous battle being the Battle of Hastings of 1066, where the enemy King of England, (not sure which one... was it a King David?) famously got struck in the eye with an arrow. And after William won the battle he became King of England and France. There my Knowledge of 1066 for you all, let me know if that was correct anyone who actually knows what happend .

Another good suggestion is Richard the Lionheart, another name I have heard but I can't remember anything of his back ground .

Or we could go back a lot further in the history of England back before it was England and we had the Celtish Tribes, we could play as Boudica. She fought the Viking's or the Romans, I forgot which . But it made her name last through history.

 

[Altaria87]

Just because Alfred is the English butler from Batman doesn't mean he should lead the English Civilisation,

Henry the VIII (it is VIII that was the head chopping one aye?) is the ideal leader, he is the most famous monarch from the Tudor legacy. Victoria (the 1st?) is only the second most famous. Although I do believe she was a better ruler of England, better is the sense of not being an egomaniac chopping off all his lovers heads, good old Henry, but who would you rather play, Friendly Elizabeth, or RUTHLESS MEGALOMANIAC KING HENRY THE EIGHTH!!!. I know who has my pick, niether I choose Gordon Brown. So dull he will bore all his enemies into surrender!.

All though some other good historic suggestions have been William The Conqeuor (was he also known as William the bloody, or was that another William entirely.) I do know a little about William The Conqeuor. Atleast, I think I do, my memory is rusty, he was King Of France and lead an invasion of Britain the famous battle being the Battle of Hastings of 1066, where the enemy King of England, (not sure which one... was it a King David?) famously got struck in the eye with an arrow. And after William won the battle he became King of England and France. There my Knowledge of 1066 for you all, let me know if that was correct anyone who actually knows what happend .

Another good suggestion is Richard the Lionheart, another name I have heard but I can't remember anything of his back ground .

Or we could go back a lot further in the history of England back before it was England and we had the Celtish Tribes, we could play as Boudica. She fought the Viking's or the Romans, I forgot which . But it made her name last through history.

There are SO many things wrong with that Post.

Just because Alfred is the English butler from Batman doesn't mean he should lead the English Civilisation,
By Alfred, people mean Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (IIRC) and the first person who atleats made an attempt at unifying the tribes before Britain became an Invasion Magnet

Henry the VIII (it is VIII that was the head chopping one aye?) is the ideal leader, he is the most famous monarch from the Tudor legacy. Victoria (the 1st?)
1) The other Tudor is ELIZABETH
2) He chopped off TWO of his six wives heads

Atleast, I think I do, my memory is rusty, he was King Of France and lead an invasion of Britain the famous battle being the Battle of Hastings of 1066, where the enemy King of England, (not sure which one... was it a King David?)
He defeated King Harold Godwinson.

Another good suggestion is Richard the Lionheart, another name I have heard but I can't remember anything of his back ground .
Lionheart was one of the worst LEADERS the Country ever had. he visited the country TWICE, both times to collect money for a religious war barely anyone in the Country cared about. And yet he's hailed as a Hero, why he is I will never fathom.

 

[Peng Qi]

Another good suggestion is Richard the Lionheart, another name I have heard but I can't remember anything of his back ground .
Lionheart was one of the worst LEADERS the Country ever had. he visited the country TWICE, both times to collect money for a religious war barely anyone in the Country cared about. And yet he's hailed as a Hero, why he is I will never fathom.

He was a great military commander, remarkably tolerant of other races and cultures compared to his contemporaries, and led his army from the front, proving that though the crusade may not have been important to his citizenry, it was important enough to him to risk his own life constantly.

 

[Thyrwyn]

IMO, Richard the Lionheart and Alexander the Great had the same problem - they were extremely able military leaders, with either no ability for, or no interest in, running a country.