Leaders we don't want.

You are right about Robert. Robert was as much a descendant of Fergus of Galloway as the Bruces of France. He was quite at home in the Gaelic lands of Carrick and Argyl, and in the English lands of Annandale, and among the French elite of Britain.

Although this is frequently stated, this is a myth. It is a myth in that there is no evidence for it, and in that it probably isn't true. The first detailed evidence for the composition and cultural makeup of the Scottish court comes from the writings of Ailred of Rievaulx. Ailred makes it clear that one half was "us" [i.e. the Anglo-Normans], who are clearly newcomers, and the other half "the Scots". This is the second decade of the 12th century.

Also, there was no concept as "Lowlands" in this era, nor for centuries to come. People in the 12th and 13th centuries however did distinguish "Scotland" [the area north of the Forth] and "Lothian" [roughly, Lothian and Borders]. There was also Galloway, which wasn't really part of the kingdom until the era of Robert's granddad.

I've often pushed for a Gaelic civilization in the past, though it is a tough one as there is such a clear division between Scotland and Ireland, it may very well just be better to accept one.

I don't think either of these leaders are good candidates for a united Gaelic civ. Brian Boru is too Irish, and Cinaed is too Scottish [probably a Pict too]. Maybe a legendary leader like Niall Noígíallach? Or a religious one, like Columba?

 

Masturbatory self-congratulations? As opposed to writing, say, Americans are sometimes unable to see that they weren't always the center of power? And yes, I guess it isn't an ad hominem attack. I thought you were merely using that to say how this is a fanservice civ, but you seem to be saying its your observations. I just don't think your observations are correct.

Anyway, I think diverse civilizations should come second. Besides which, America is a civilization. So are the Germans. So are the Turks (yes, I called them the Ottomans, because Firaxis doesn't seem to like to use the correct term). Historical importance should come first; civilization is, after all, based on history, and history has always come first in Civ. Besides which, they can choose many different civs in the expansion packs.

 

"Turks" are also Chinese-looking central Asian nomads, as opposed to civilized Mediterranean state-builders. So "Ottomans" distinguishes them. I guess "Anatolians" might be used as a more generic term reflecting what they called themselves, but this would be incomprehensible and confusing to the gamers.

 

I suppose there's some truth to that; much as the distinctions drawn between Ireland and Scotland in the Early Middle Ages were far lesser than they are to do, people to have a habit of imposing these things on the past. Columba could be a could choice, and certainly subverts the warlord-figure that most players would expect from the Gaels/Celts, although he suffers from the same not-really-a-ruler criticism as Gandhi. I suppose a legendary leader could work- Gilgamesh certainly provides something in the way of precedent- but it wouldn't be ideal.
I suppose a lot of this is tied to the tendency to see civs as representative of nation-states, rather than cultures. The former leads people to look for contemporary nation-states, while the latter allows a lot more wiggle-room with that sort of thing.

Also, for the record, the bit about Malcolm Canmore wasn't me, as the way you've quoted it implies.

Again, I think we simply differ in opinion. Given that Civilization is pretty specifically intended to be a "Make Your Own History" sort of game, I'd rather be presented with a diverse and interesting range of civ choices, rather than simply being handed a bunch of similar-yet-historically-significant Western European civs. You, apparently, differ, and I'm sure that you have your reasons.
And, I as I said, America is a unique enough entity in it's own right to warrant inclusion, I simply object to the assumption that it is a necessity. I'd rather they add the Babylonians or Turks before another Western nation-state.

 

The Malcolm Canmore thing was all me. I screwed up the quotes when I deleted part of it that was irrelevant and accidentally destroyed the formatting. I don't really know how to fix it.

Niall Noígíallach certainly works as a Gael leader, as does Columba. Maybe we should create a Gael civilization for Civ 4 while we wait for Civ 5 What would Gaelic UU and UB be?

 

I believe that Grover Cleveland is the best possible USA leader. After him, there weren't any true democrats. Plus, his name is awesome.

Way better than some ridiculous-looking general.

 

Yes I agree racist leaders should be removed, but why stop there?

I also think sexists, homophobes, adulterers, war mongers, and death penalty advocates should also be removed as well.

 

Wu Zeitein

 

Yeah! Which brings up more questionable topics: Violence, propaganda, rebellion, pollution, SLAVERY (who here has clicked that button?) and deciet. I just really don't think these things are very nice. I mean, we can look at history right, but we shouldn't ENCOURAGE these things.

 

Oh, gawsh, no, we can't be having those things in a peaceful game of conquer the world. That just would not do at-all! Not one bit! Terribly inappropriate, I'm sure you'll agree

 

Yes, lets play Revisionist: The Game.

 

America is really the only modern Civ in the game, so it is part of a variety.

Unique flavor? Very few nations can claim to be as unique as the United States.

the US did make significant cultural contributions to the world, but if you don't think so give evidence.

 

ya so did canada also why do people want sweden so much its to small and not involved enough in the world to be worth it. But for America GW and England a male king tired of playing as girls.

 

I would disagree. Germany is another modern Civ, at least in Civ IV it is modeled after 1700s onward Prussia and then Germany. Russia is also in there for modern reasons (post-1700).

Also, you can't be more unique, or as unique. Something's either unique or its not. What I think he's saying is its Western, and it is, but there are other Western nation-states that I feel should be left out before the US.

Sweden was a pretty big power during the 1700s. People want to change Vikings to Sweden to represent both eras. Other people think they should represent Scandinavia as a whole. Also, Canada is not worthy of a Civ slot, especially in vanilla Civ V. I agree partly with what Traitorfish said: Canada is neither significantly different in cultural terms or that important historically. The US, Great Britain, France, Germany-- all are Western nations, but they were also very important historically, each being arguably the strongest power in the world at some point. Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the Mahgreb, western Africa, Scandinavia, and South/Meso America all deserve more representation after vanilla Civ V. Western civs do not unless they were historically important at some point (Netherlands, Portugal).

Political parties change. Saying they weren't any true Democrats after him is like saying there were no true Republicans after TR split from the party. Of course, the difference is Republicans will generally be the ones saying the former and Democrats generally saying the latter. Grover Cleveland isn't the same kind of Democrat as Jackson or Jefferson, and likewise isn't the same as FDR or LBJ (who aren't the same as Clinton or Obama). The same can be said of the Republicans.

 

Sorry if this has been mentioned (I dont want to go through every page) but should Gandhi really be a leader? I feel like every leader mentioned was an actual official leader of a nation/civilization. Gandhi was a major figure in the modern nation India's independence movement, but he was never close to being the actual leader of the nation. I feel like whenever people think of India its !!!!TAJ MAHAL AND GANDHI!!!!

And if Gandhi is the only leader for India in civ V, then India is gonna be the weakest AI nation in the game. Can we get more warlike Indian leader please? Asoka (Mayuran emperor), Akbar, Babur (Mughal emperors), Chandragupta II (Gupta emperor), Ranjit Singh (Maharajah of Sihks), Shivaji (founder of the Maratha Empire) etc. I could name hundreds of actual rulers that would belong in the Indian civ, what Gandhi did was great, but i dont think it fits the category of a leader of a civilization.

 

I think they pick Gandhi because they like to have a pacifist leader since most of the leaders are warmongers. Makes the leaders more diverse, and there's not many major political leaders who've rejected violence, so Gandhi is the best they can do.

 

Sweden was a pretty big power during the 1700s. People want to change Vikings to Sweden to represent both eras. Other people think they should represent Scandinavia as a whole. Also, Canada is not worthy of a Civ slot, especially in vanilla Civ V. I agree partly with what Traitorfish said: Canada is neither significantly different in cultural terms or that important historically. The US, Great Britain, France, Germany-- all are Western nations, but they were also very important historically, each being arguably the strongest power in the world at some point. Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the Mahgreb, western Africa, Scandinavia, and South/Meso America all deserve more representation after vanilla Civ V. Western civs do not unless they were historically important at some point (Netherlands, Portugal).


First Canada has been involved in the world wars alot more and longer then the US and also althrough it took longer for us to gain our independance we still did it peacefully which turned out better for us compared to somwhere like South Africa.

 

Thing is that somewhere after him, during Wilson time, I believe, USA started to mutate from country governed by laws and good for people to country governed by money and good for bankers. And there is no Republican or Democratic parties right now anyway. There is one huge and dominating Republican-Democratic hydra, imitating debates and struggle for people's trust.

Though after some thinking I guess that FDR is not that bad. Cleveland is better in my opinion, though.

And I believe that USA leader in game should be modern. USA *is* modern civilization which had absolutely no power during Washington-Jefferson or even Lincoln times. It is just as silly to put Washington as American leader, as it is to put, say, Foreseeing Oleg of Novgorod as Russian leader. They both practically kicked their respective countries into existence, and that's great, but they can't present their Civilizations. Because during their time, their respective Civilizations hadn't been fledged out yet.

America under Washington? English ex-colony. No history, no culture. A bit of warfare.
Russia under Oleg? Some tribes gathered together. A bit of warfare.

America under FDR? Country with distinct history and culture, already known to the world, helping in world's worst war. Mostly economically, from safety of distant continent, but noticeably anyway.
Russia under, say, Stalin? Do I even need to start?

 

How about JFK, then?
Personally, if we had to do the whole "three leaders" thing again from Civ4, I'd go:
-JFK (Cha/Org)
-Jefferson (Exp/Fin) or (Exp/Phi)
-Either FDR (Ind/Org) or Teddy (Exp/Cha)

 

When I added the Scottish civ, I used the Galloglass as the UU. This would be just as usable for a Gaelic civ (or indeed an Irish one).

UU ... perhaps a cell, a church or monastery (neither possible in Civ4) replacement; or a "brehon school", a courthouse replacement library replacement ... or perhaps a "royal mound" (like Scone and Tara).