Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[Bast]

Ramesses is considered the greatest of all Egyptian pharoahs. Why would you say that?

 

[Ecofarm]

Churchill = greatest public speaker of our time. Yes, far greater than Reagan.

If you want to get rid of someone, get rid of the mass-murderers (of their own citizens) - Mao and Stalin.

 

[Dennis_Moore]

-Ramesses really didn't do that much, other than lead a couple failed military campaigns (according to the Civilopedia)

Ramesses II was more of a builder than a conqueror, hence the Industrious trait.



The leaders least deserving of inclusion imo are Monty and Napoeon, since they were both completely and utterly defeated.


Furthermore, I question the importance of Julius Caesar. Even though his name has become synonomous with emperor, he really wasn't that remarkable as a sovereign leader. The fact of the matter is that he only held an autocratic position for about a year (and Dictator for Life for a couple of weeks ).

 

[Figaro]

List leaders that you don't think should be in Civ IV!

-Churchill. Seriously, what did he do that was so epic and awesome? Yeah yeah he led Britain against Germany, but I still don't see any awesome accomplishment

-Lincoln. Okay...he quashed a rebellion during a civil war. What's so special? And why is he Charismatic? Lincoln was pretty unpopular

-For that matter, Roosevelt. His impact on the American economy is highly questionable, he didn't really do anything that heavily impacted the WW2 situation...even if he did, I don't see anything awesome here

-Gilgamesh. Been awhile since I've studied Sumerian history...but wasn't he just some warrior written about in an epic? The most significant "historical" information is really known only through an epic devoted to him, which really doesn't mean much. I just don't see how he was seen as a good choice.

-Ramesses really didn't do that much, other than lead a couple failed military campaigns (according to the Civilopedia)

The first three are quite popular. Certainly, Churchill is seen by many to be the greatest British PM, and Lincoln seems a quite popular American leader. Although it's worth noting that Churchill was never leader of England, he was Prime Minister (twice) of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Roosevelt (and Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle) I see more as having been included for WW2 scenario purposes. Gilgamesh and Rameses, well, I think they're the ones people are most likely to have actually *heard* of.

Bad choices for leaders though:
-Ragnar (seems half-fictional, and besides, there are plenty of real-life ones that would be better and at least as famous. Erik the Red?)
-Brennus (seriously, why has nobody mentioned these two yet? Vercingetorix would have been far better, though I suppose his "plot" is rather similar to Boudica's, and it would be unfair and inaccurate to portray the Celts merely in relation to the Romans)
-Augustus Caesar (he's not a bad choice, but as a second Roman it would have been nicer to have someone from a different generation to Caesar. The Roman Empire was around for a long time!)
-Charlamagne - not a Holy Roman Emperor.
-Victoria - more a figurehead than a leader. By her time the Monarch didn't really have any real power any more.
-Gandi - was never actually a leader of his nation.

Having said that, I have no real issues with any of the leaders here. Not enough to complain to Firaxis about it.

 

[Peng Qi]

-Lincoln. Okay...he quashed a rebellion during a civil war. What's so special? And why is he Charismatic? Lincoln was pretty unpopular

He was very charismatic in person, though; people who spoke to him directly often came away with a sense of just having spoken to one of the greatest people who ever lived.

-For that matter, Roosevelt. His impact on the American economy is highly questionable, he didn't really do anything that heavily impacted the WW2 situation...even if he did, I don't see anything awesome here

Totally agree. The massive propaganda that was generated to help the United States win World War II is the only reason he's seen positively at all.

-Ramesses really didn't do that much, other than lead a couple failed military campaigns (according to the Civilopedia)

Ramasses was one of the first generals in history who led from the front. I can't remember the name of the battle, but there is one instance in which he and his personal guard on chariots turned the tide of an entire battle. His men loved him and his campaigns were surprisingly successful given how far they were from home (remember, logistics back then were very complicated). Of course, he's nowhere near as effing awesome as Pachacuti (AKA Lord Cataclysm) was. ...or maybe I'm thinking of a later Ramasses.

 

[Dennis_Moore]

I can't remember the name of the battle,

Kadesh, possibly?

 

[Peng Qi]

Kadesh, possibly?

Yes, that's the battle I was thinking of.

 

[Bast]

-Victoria - more a figurehead than a leader. By her time the Monarch didn't really have any real power any more.

:sigh: I knew someone would sooner or later attack Her Majesty.

Look, when Victoria ascended to the throne the monarchy actually had a lot more power than at the end of her reign or now. It was arguably because of her that the British monarchy survives and is still relevant. Today's monarchy is a figure-head I agree. But not Victoria. She had power and influence.

 

[Nay]

Churchill = greatest public speaker of our time. Yes, far greater than Reagan.

There was someone else who made millions cheer with his speeches... was around about the same time as churchill, but on the european mainland

 

[Dennis_Moore]

There was someone else who made millions cheer with his speeches... was around about the same time as churchill, but on the european mainland

Yeah, wonder what happened to that guy, whatever his name was?

 

[Figaro]

:sigh: I knew someone would sooner or later attack Her Majesty.

Look, when Victoria ascended to the throne the monarchy actually had a lot more power than at the end of her reign or now. It was arguably because of her that the British monarchy survives and is still relevant. Today's monarchy is a figure-head I agree. But not Victoria. She had power and influence.

I contest the notion that the royal family is still relevant. But yes, OK, Victoria is a worthy enough leader - but I must admit that I don't like the way England is portrayed in this game as a hybrid of Medieval England and Modern Great Britain. It should be one or the other. Kinda implies that Scotland & Wales don't exist.

 

[Figaro]

Yeah, wonder what happened to that guy, whatever his name was?

De Gaulle? Yeah, he's in the game too.

 

[Bast]

.........................

 

[ripple01]

Godwin's Law..... teetering on the edge.... Oh, the humanity!

Cheers,
ripple01

 

[sagelnarg]

While he was an Elector, I don't think he should be put in for two reasons, the first being semantics:
1) He was never the Holy Roman Emperor.
2) This is the big one: By claiming to be King in Prussia, Frederick was able to escape the authority of the Holy Roman Empire and assert a legitimate level of autonomy to Brandenburg-Prussia while maintaining its Elector status.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: That's my understanding of the situation, actual Germans or scholars of European history would know better. I only know what I know about Frederick the Great via Europa Universalis II.

In case anyone is interested:

3) At the time of Frederick, the HRE existed just in name. In fact, HRE would be Austria, enemies of Frederick. On the other and, Prussia was the land that unified the german states to modern Germany. The emperors of wilhelmian Germany were Frederick's direct successors. So he is more linked to Germany than to the HRE.

But since the HRE is in the game now, he is an awkward choice for a german leader.

 

[sagelnarg]

-Charlamagne - not a Holy Roman Emperor.

Charlemagne was crowned 800AD, in Rome, Holy Roman Emperor (by pope leo III).

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I'd love to hear an argument for Lincoln or Churchhill's inclusion.

Lincoln was the president given recognition for keeping the USA together "United" allowing it to get to it's imperialistic and militant position it has today.

Churchill lead England through World War II, and Germany never took England. That's enough for me.

 

[GuitarHero]

Lose Churchill, Washington, Montezuma, Napoleon, Mao Zedong.
Add Teddy Roosevelt, Sun-Yat-Sen, Prince Henry, Boris Yeltsin, Juan Pedro, and Otto I.

 

[Zhahz]

I'd love to hear an argument for Lincoln or Churchhill's inclusion.

I have never understood why anyone cares that much about what leaders or civs are in or out of this game.

In all my years of playing civ it's never even remotely crossed my mind that, "man, I wish so and so leader was in Civ XXX, it'd make my gaming so much better", or "man, I have no idea why those idiots included this leader that I personally think is a chump, this is really bringing the gameplay down to all new low levels."

I could only wish I had so much spare time that my brain would actually consider these things, I suppose.

Does this impact gameplay in any negative way? If you don't like the leaders, then revel in destroying them if they apprear in your games. Or mod them out.

What does this have to do with BTS, anyways?

Why do I reply to these pointless threads!

 

[seasnake]

^^And there it is. At the end of the day, you could have no historic leader just trait sets with the civ, and it would play the same. Oh well, people get unhappy and try to out-history one another.