Indira Gandhi

[pi-r8]

In BtS, that's SIX out of FORTY-EIGHT leaders in the game. There are many more ancient leaders than modern ones in the game.

6 out of 48 is 1/8 of all the leaders. Considering that the leaders in Civ span a range of about 40 centuries, having 1/8 of the leaders all in one century is very disproportionate. Besides, having modern leaders seems weird... It's much harder to objectively obsess how influential they were on their civilization's development.

 

[Keitosha]

I like Gandhi in the game, but I also would like to see Indira Gandhi...Another modern leader + female leader sounds like a good idea.

I hope you're NOT thinking about Margaret Thatcher. (meaning as a new female leader for any civ)

 

[Dominico]

If you want a chick as leader of India then it should be Aishwarya Rai. My god... she is stunning **falls off chair**

 

[18lama]

^Absolutely!

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

No, the Boudica treatment is goes to her, and her alone.

And although I'm very supportive of making women less under-represented as political leaders, this is a historical game and historically there were more men than women that were leaders of nations, and hence statistically, more men would make the "great leaders" list than women.

By the way, I have seen credible arguments for replacing Churchill with Thatcher. Really though, when you talk about England and what leaders it had, it's always the female names that come up first. Did English kings just sit around doing nothing?

 

[dragodon64]

No, in England the kings just didn't come at major times. Elizabeth oversaw England becoming a major European power and Victoria ruled the British Empire at its height and had a whole cultural era named after her, as did Elizabeth.

 

[Luckmann]

In the next expansion, I opt for having Hitler to Germany, Savitri Devi to India, and just to add a twist, Bush Jr. for U.S. - he could have the all-new Chaotic Stupid/Bullhorn traits.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

They should probably put an Arab Leader who actually came from Arabia too. Like they did in Civ3.

Don't get me wrong, I like Sal, he's the last of the great Arab leaders, although he's in fact a Kurd. No, Jamal Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat have nothing on him, especially the last one who pulled a French on the Israelis.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

@ RockTheCazbah87: She also did a lot to destroy democratic institutions like independent Judiciary and she even imposed martial law (emergency) during the 70s. She jailed most of the opposing party politicians but did won us the war of 1971 against the Pakis.

She actually SUCCEEDED in a war! Even Napoleon couldn't do that!

 

[18lama]

^You can say that She was responsible for the birth of Bangladesh. Had it not been for her, Bangladesh would still be called East Pakistan. She did in 1971 what US does quite frequently - 'liberate' a country from their tyrannical oppressors

 

[cybrxkhan]

i'm all for Akbar Akbar Akbar. or maybe if not Chandragupta or Babur or someone else if not. but not that Gandhi.

anyhow, i agree with this:

Shouldn't leaders be let in by their actual accomplishments instead of their gender? Honestly, this desperation to get female leaders into the game is going a bit overboard, if you ask me.

 

[jeffreyac]

OK, how many people answered the poll not reading the difference between Akbar, Ruler of India and Ackbar, Rebel Fleet Commander?

Oh, come on... anyone...

*crickets*

just me, then, I guess...

(insert obligatory 'It's A Trap' reference here...)

 

[King Flevance]

Shouldn't leaders be let in by their actual accomplishments instead of their gender? Honestly, this desperation to get female leaders into the game is going a bit overboard, if you ask me.

I don't see any reason why not to add in another leader to India. I am also of the mindset that each Civ should have a male and female choice of leaders. When I have seen women/girls playing this game, guess what I see them do? They look through the women as 'their' choice of leaders. (Excluding the women on this board because I have never 'seen' them play.)

Sure, merit should be weighed in but only after the fact. I mean, according to merit, Churchill and Lincoln weren't worth putting in initially. Or for that matter ANY leader that was added in after vanilla wasn't 'worth' being in the game initially. ANd I know plenty of people on this board disagree with the order of choices.

Additionally, aren't they trying to expand the targeted audience? Wouldn't adding women leaders help them grab ahold (although a minor attempt) of a bigger female fanbase? I mean diplomatic atmosphere had to take a large hit anyways IMO to expand the fanbase. "Let's go crush someone under our sandals. It'll be way cool" or "Care for some salad I made it myself". And the arguement against Indira Gandhi is some sort of integrity for the game? Sorry, but that ship has sailed.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^i have to somewhat disagree.

Even if merit and capability were not relevant, pop culture knowledge of the leader certainly is. and, frankly, even though this does mean women leaders get much more attention then they would, in history, the overwhelming majority of famous leaders are still men.

 

[Ermelinho]

In the next expansion, I opt for having Hitler to Germany, Savitri Devi to India, and just to add a twist, Bush Jr. for U.S. - he could have the all-new Chaotic Stupid/Bullhorn traits.

gosh! i´d none of these guys want to rule a civ. kind of irritatiting you mention them in the same breath.

to be on topic: there´re certainly other leaders than mahatma or indira to represent a strong and prospering india. but ghandi has been in the game since the very start, so he deservse to remain.

 

[FoolFromHell]

I wish Gandhi was Industrial again...