If you had to replace a leader in the game...

[Mrdie]

Who would it be? Remember, this is not adding leaders, but changing them.

(Also can include the expansion civs and expansion leaders)

Personally, I'd have England as Richard (the Lionheart) and Elizabeth.

And as an extra, I'd change the Korean leader in the expansion pack to......well, there are quite a bit of better choices.

 

[MisterBarca]

I think everyone knows how I feel about Wang Kon Replace him with either Park Chung-hee or Yon Kae-so-mun. Kwang-gae-to would work as well. I'd tolerate even either Sejong or Yi Song-gye.

In addtion:

*I'd replace FDR with Lincoln.

*I'd consider replacing Saladin with Mohammed, as Mohammed was a successful political leader as well.

*I'd replace either Mao or Chin Shi-huang-di with Tang Taizong. Tang Taizong is generally considered the greatest Chinese monarch among historians. That he is eclipsed by two totalitarian dictators is almost criminal. In addition, while this is a beaten horse, if Mao and Stalin are in, I see no reason to exclude Hitler. Mao and Stalin were just as bloodthirsty--evil, if you will--as Hitler. In fact, they both likely killed more men.

I suspect that Firaxis included them and not Hitler, because they were Leftist dictators.

Now, this doesn't mean I think Hitler should be included. I think the better choice is to not include any twentieth century totalitarian dictators.

 

[monkspider]

For Vanilla only Civs, there really aren't changes that I would make to be honest. But including Warlords Civs, I would change Wang Kon to Sejong, Brennus to Vercingetorix, and Mehmed II to Suleiman.

 

[MisterBarca]

Vercintogerix is a really good call. Brennus is part mythical anyways.

On Sejong, while I am not a fan of Sejong and think he is grossly over-rated, he certainly is a more respectable choice than the bizarre Wang Kon choice.

But then I noticed that Firaxis makes a big deal of "founder" leaders? I suppose that's why they chose Wang. And not only did Wang found a dynasty, he founded the dynasty from which we derive the name "Korea."

 

[monkspider]

Yeah, props on your thread on the same subject.

I was a tester in the PTW days and there was an admitted desire for founder leaders in that time period. That was why we saw Wang Kon and the equally bad Osman. I can only think that they are keeping Wang Kon for nostalgia reasons.

Really though, Ragnar is a pretty bad choice for Viking leader too. I'm not an expert on Scandinavian history, but I would think there are better options. Ragnar's best claim is that he conquered Paris and has kind of a cool Viking sounding name.

 

[Gam]

I think everyone knows how I feel about Wang Kon Replace him with either Park Chung-hee or Yon Kae-so-mun. Kwang-gae-to would work as well. I'd tolerate even either Sejong or Yi Song-gye.

In addtion:

*I'd replace FDR with Lincoln.

*I'd consider replacing Saladin with Mohammed, as Mohammed was a successful political leader as well.

*I'd replace either Mao or Chin Shi-huang-di with Tang Taizong. Tang Taizong is generally considered the greatest Chinese monarch among historians. That he is eclipsed by two totalitarian dictators is almost criminal. In addition, while this is a beaten horse, if Mao and Stalin are in, I see no reason to exclude Hitler. Mao and Stalin were just as bloodthirsty--evil, if you will--as Hitler. In fact, they both likely killed more men.

I suspect that Firaxis included them and not Hitler, because they were Leftist dictators.

Now, this doesn't mean I think Hitler should be included. I think the better choice is to not include any twentieth century totalitarian dictators.

Hitler was excluded for two reasons:

1) He was not on the winning side, and

2) His form of killing was not the traditional form of killing; nay, it was genocidal extermination, and a new methodical type at that.

 

[Thehistoryman]

Personally I would replace Alexander with...well anyone as long as they are Greek. I realize it would have been bad to leave him out but to make him head of a people who hated is guts is just...weird. He could be leader of India or Persia by the standard that he was a Greek leader.

 

[winddbourne]

Not sure about that last Historyman, true he wasn't greek, but at least he came from the greek world, Macedonia isn't far away from from greece, and I believe his father conquered greece and held it. So Alexander could be called both macedonian and greek when he inherited the kingdom. That doesn't really apply to India or Persia.

A macedonian civilization might be apropriate, but I don't mind him as a greek leader either. What I do mind is that he is the ONLY greek leader, it would be nice to see some actual Greeks in there. After all they were a great civilization long before alexander came along.

 

[drkodos]

I would exchange Roosevelt for James K Polk or William Henry Harrison.

 

[ChrTh]

I would replace Mehmed II with Francis Ottoman:

 

[ChrTh]

A macedonian civilization might be apropriate, but I don't mind him as a greek leader either. What I do mind is that he is the ONLY greek leader, it would be nice to see some actual Greeks in there. After all they were a great civilization long before alexander came along.

Yes, but they weren't a united one. You can't choose an Athenian to represent all of Greece any more than you could choose a Frenchmen to represent all of Europe. At least Alexander ruled a united Greece.

EDIT: And yep, this does mean I think Frederick II is a lousy choice too.

 

[mitsho]

Alexander is totally fine for a Greek leader.
The Vercingetorix/Brennus switch could really be feasible.
But Victoria is totally fine as a English leader. Richard Lionheart is more of a "warlord" ().
Wang Kon is the other example.
Cyrus is a fine Persian leader, but I've preferred Xerxes for nostalgia reasons, and Shapur I as the second Persian King.
Isabella is, well she is a woman, that's why she's in, and not Ferdinand. I'd be ok, if Philip II. was the second spanish leader.
It's a good thing they left Hitler out, not because he was a racist, but just because there are many better German leaders (for example the chosen ones Fritz and Otto ).
I also wouldn't like Mohammed or Abu Bakr as the Arab leader. Salah al-Din is perfectly fine...

mitsho

 

[winddbourne]

Chrth, I agree that the greeks weren't united, however that is why we have multiple leaders. Athens and sparta represent the two poles of greek popular culture, and it would likely be appropriate to have an athenian and a spartan as the two leaders for a greek civilization, plus Alexander if you had the time, simply because he's well known as a great historical figure.

I might suggest the mythical figure Lycurgus to represent the spartan military spirit, and either Solon or Pisistratus to represent the Athenians.

 

[ChrTh]

Chrth, I agree that the greeks weren't united, however that is why we have multiple leaders. Athens and sparta represent the two poles of greek popular culture, and it would likely be appropriate to have an athenian and a spartan as the two leaders for a greek civilization, plus Alexander if you had the time, simply because he's well known as a great historical figure.

I might suggest the mythical figure Lycurgus to represent the spartan military spirit, and either Solon or Pisistratus to represent the Athenians.

Actually, how about Alcibiades to represent Athens and Sparta?

(ducks and runs from the Greek historians)

EDIT: To be honest, I would love Socrates to be the Greek leader. Sure, it would annoy Aristophanes no end, but it would bring me that much closer to setting up my Bill & Ted game.

 

[MisterBarca]

Yeah, props on your thread on the same subject.

I was a tester in the PTW days and there was an admitted desire for founder leaders in that time period. That was why we saw Wang Kon and the equally bad Osman. I can only think that they are keeping Wang Kon for nostalgia reasons.

Really though, Ragnar is a pretty bad choice for Viking leader too. I'm not an expert on Scandinavian history, but I would think there are better options. Ragnar's best claim is that he conquered Paris and has kind of a cool Viking sounding name.

That explains the choice of Wang Kon then. As I suspected, Firaxis put utmost emphasis on the fact that Wang (kind of) "founded" the dynasty that gave Korea its name.

Likewise I see several founders who may not have been their own dynasty's greatest kings. For instance, Darius (no, not the one who lost his empire to Alexander) may have been a superior ruler than Cyrus, but Cyrus got the nod because he founded the Persian empire.

Still, even this comparison points to the weakness of the Wang choice. Cyrus, while perhaps not as capable as Darius, was a formidable ruler. Wang was not.

 

[MisterBarca]

Hitler was excluded for two reasons:

1) He was not on the winning side, and

2) His form of killing was not the traditional form of killing; nay, it was genocidal extermination, and a new methodical type at that.

I am not sure if your two reasons persuade me:

1. Mao and Stalin were on the losing side if we take a longer perspective--and only slightly longer.

Mao's fundamentalism was discredited only several years after his death, and Deng's reformism transformed China. We also know what happened to Stalinism. It didn't survive Stalin's death: e.g. witness Khruschev's shocking denunciation of Stalin. And while post-Stalinist Soviet Union was not exactly liberal democracy, it was far away from Stalin's totalitarian monstrosity.

2. Are you seriously trying to tell me that neither Mao nor Stalin were practitioners par excellence of "genocidal extermination"?

My own alternative view of why Hitler is not included seems the more persuasive: Mao and Stalin were Leftist dictators and Hitler a Rightist dictator. And while communism is still fashionable among some naive idealists in the West, fascism is not.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

Hitler was excluded for two reasons:

1) He was not on the winning side, and

2) His form of killing was not the traditional form of killing; nay, it was genocidal extermination, and a new methodical type at that.

yet another thread with the hitler argument

 

[ChrTh]

That didn't take long

 

[Tee Kay]

MehmedII with suleiman for Ottomans
Augustus Caesar with Trajan for the Romans
Replace Cyrus if you must, but replace him with Darius, not Xerxes.

 

[ChrTh]

Ack, no Trajan. Then we'd have a whole "he was Spanish not Roman" debate going on. If you're going to grab an Emperor from the Pax Romana, I'd say Marcus Antoninus is your best bet.