The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
This.
That's why I'm miffed that Civ4 has yet to add Jefferson to America. We need more expansionist leaders.
Leaders we don't want.
- Thread starter CornPlanter
- Start date
This.
That's why I'm miffed that Civ4 has yet to add Jefferson to America. We need more expansionist leaders.
seasnake
Conquistador
I don't mind Washington, but I think Jefferson has more merit than Lincoln or FDR. But Washington and Jefferson are both fine by me.
Jagatai
Chieftain
Actually, Robert the Bruce was of partial Gaelic ancestry, he simply happened to have Anglo-Norman paternal ancestors; common practice was for Anglo-Norman lords to marry daughters of the Gaelic aristocracy to cement relations with the indigenous power-structure. By that time, the Lowland nobility was a pretty thorough jumble of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman and English- Wallace's compatriot Andrew Moray, for example, had similarly mixed ancestry, but traced his paternal ancestry through a Gaelic noble house- but many identified as Gaels or Scots (at the time synonymous), and would've spoken fluent Gaelic, it being the court language of the time.
Granted, yes, Bruce may not be considered to be of pure Gaelic ancestry, but in a game with Macedonians in Greece, Germans in England and Corsicans as French, it's far from the most blatant inaccuracy.
Actually, the court language switched to English during the reign of Malcolm Canmore and the power center of Scotland moved south to the lowlands. Gaelic was well into it's decline by the reign of the Bruce.
And, of course, we also have Brian Boru, who strikes me as a more appropriately Father-of-His-Nation sort of leader anyway, so I'm not entirely sure what all that was in aid of.
Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though
How about Kenneth MacAlpine?
Granted, yes, Bruce may not be considered to be of pure Gaelic ancestry, but in a game with Macedonians in Greece, Germans in England and Corsicans as French, it's far from the most blatant inaccuracy.
Actually, the court language switched to English during the reign of Malcolm Canmore and the power center of Scotland moved south to the lowlands. Gaelic was well into it's decline by the reign of the Bruce.
And, of course, we also have Brian Boru, who strikes me as a more appropriately Father-of-His-Nation sort of leader anyway, so I'm not entirely sure what all that was in aid of.
Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though
How about Kenneth MacAlpine?Pendleton
Chieftain
Since we are talking about Robert the Bruce I totally think England should have the leader of Edward the I. I watched Braveheart like everyone else and had an opinion of him based on what Hollywood portrayed and then I read a biography on him and the dude was freaking amazing! He created England as we see it now. He brought the Welsh kingdoms into England and made them one. Did I mention that he fought in the crusades, survived when a tower collapsed, and was poisoned by an assassin’s blade? Oh and he built the most expensive and elaborate memorial to his wife in English history. It’s still around today, Eleanor’s Cross.
He had his flaws but still a total BAMF.
He had his flaws but still a total BAMF.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Perhaps, but he suffers from being an essentially half-mythical version of the same archetypal role filled by Boru. No-one's even really sure if he was a Gael or a Gaelicised Pict. I suppose he'd make a decent enough second leader, though, but it'd be nice to see them use a British or Gaulish leader for that (that is to say, a worthy British or Gaulish leader, unlike those appearing so far...).Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though
Not a bad suggestion, although perhaps not as a first leader; I'm actually pretty alright with Elizabeth holding that spot, although Churchill strikes me as reflecting a somewhat narrow frame of reference. Certainly, a better choice than Victoria, of all people.
Plus, Hollywood had him throwing guys out of tenth story windows for a laugh. What's more BAMF-y than that?
CornPlanter
Emperor
General Swastika is not banned in any country as far as I know. What is banned is particular nazzi swastika, you know how it looks like.
That said, it's still silly in my opinion. I'm strongly against banning symbols.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Most people are. It's just that a few countries are a little... kooky, and don't learn from their own history. Something funny about showing how different you are from an oppressive regime by... curbing free speech in regards to references to said oppressive regime.
Shiggs713
Immortal
In asia the swastika is a symbol of eternity, wealth, or good fortune. Its still popular to this day in temples and monasteries out there.
Churchill's Hat
Mortal
Okay, here's what I think about American leaders. Basically, I feel there should be 6 candidates considered.
FDR, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln
Now, we don't know how many leaders per Civ. But I feel that Washington will never be left out of the game-- America is one of the biggest markets and Washington's a national hero. Jackson, in my opinion, is probably not well known enough to make it in the game, especially as the more famous national heroes such as the other five are in the race. So we come down to the two Roosevelts, Jefferson, and Lincoln. FDR was one of the most, if not the most powerful President ever. He also accomplished a hell of a lot. Social Security, Medicare, ending the Great Depression, as well as being the head of our nation during WWII. So he should be in second. Ultimately, I feel like TR, Lincoln and Jefferson all represent different interests. Jefferson, as someone else has pointed out, was more expansionist, in terms of city settling in Civ. TR would be the kind of leader who would attack city-states and try to strong-arm other leaders. Lincoln would be the type inclined to avoiding war but be damned good at it if he got into one (firing McClellan, moving Grant to the east). He would also probably put a greater price on defending his territory than conquering someone else's. To sum up:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3-5. Jefferson: Expansive
TR: Warlike, but only if he knows he can win
Lincoln: Diplomatic, Defensive
6. Jackson
FDR, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln
Now, we don't know how many leaders per Civ. But I feel that Washington will never be left out of the game-- America is one of the biggest markets and Washington's a national hero. Jackson, in my opinion, is probably not well known enough to make it in the game, especially as the more famous national heroes such as the other five are in the race. So we come down to the two Roosevelts, Jefferson, and Lincoln. FDR was one of the most, if not the most powerful President ever. He also accomplished a hell of a lot. Social Security, Medicare, ending the Great Depression, as well as being the head of our nation during WWII. So he should be in second. Ultimately, I feel like TR, Lincoln and Jefferson all represent different interests. Jefferson, as someone else has pointed out, was more expansionist, in terms of city settling in Civ. TR would be the kind of leader who would attack city-states and try to strong-arm other leaders. Lincoln would be the type inclined to avoiding war but be damned good at it if he got into one (firing McClellan, moving Grant to the east). He would also probably put a greater price on defending his territory than conquering someone else's. To sum up:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3-5. Jefferson: Expansive
TR: Warlike, but only if he knows he can win
Lincoln: Diplomatic, Defensive
6. Jackson
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
There's only one leader per civ, that's already been confirmed.
Shiggs713
Immortal
I'm glad you at least mention Jackson, he deserves a mention, but yeah he is not well known enough to make it into civ. cybrxkhan is right... looks like Washington only. Which I'll add is the best and most obvious choice. Still though, I think everyone can agree we'd all rather have multiple LH's for civs, even if it has to come with an expansion or mods.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
or
We dump that fan-servicing waste of a civ-slot altogether. Just a suggestion.
Churchill's Hat
Mortal
Fan-servicing waste of a civ slot? Ok, you should get off your high horse. You know what? America's not a fan-service Civ. Its a world superpower, and has been a major power for a third of its existence. You want a fan-service Civ? Zulus. Aztecs. Neither anything more than a historical footnote. But please don't suggest one of the Civs that deserves to be in the top 10 is a fan-service Civ.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
This.
For a country that's only been around for a few hundred years, the US has had a giant impact on the world.
It's more than just the fact that the company that makes the game is in America, and that the US probably has more gamers than most nations. If that alone qualified for a civ, Canada would be added in, because I'm pretty sure Canada makes up for a good % of Civ4's sales (which was part of the reason Hitler was removed from Road to War, then made downloadable if I remember right. Canada agrees with Germany on the whole... usage of Hitler's image thing.)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Eh, I suppose I just have different criteria; I like to see a diverse range of civilisations and cultures, rather than a list of powerful Western nation-states, and I find the inclusion of a thoroughly modern nation-state like America in an epic historical simulator to be slightly jarring. I can see that, if you are yourself American, then you may see things differently, but I've never seen it as anything more than a slightly self-indulgent move on the part of an American developer and audience.
I suppose it's simply that, while America has indeed had a massive impact on the modern era, that's just not the one that I'm interested in.
And, yes, the Zulus are also a waste of space. It just took them until 4 to realise that there were other, real civilisations in Africa.
It's more about mentality. Americans are typically a little over-awed by their own admittedly impressive rise to power, and so are prone to a certain style of masturbatory self-congratulation. Europeans are often little better, but at least have the bulk of history to begin backing it up, while Americans- as Churchill's Hat has done- inevitable start referencing the last century, as if that actually means anything on a grand scale, let's alone makes them a halfway interesting civ.The Almighty dF said:
I am reminded of the old observation, "In America, one hundred years is a long time, and in Britain, one hundred miles is a long way."
Churchill's Hat
Mortal
Well, I'm half British and half American. Inevitably, it is part of the syndrome that you defend Britain to Americans, and America to Britons. But anyway, going on ad hominem attacks doesn't make you right. Yes, Americans can be self-righteous. Yes, we can be centered around America. But ultimately, the last century was the most globalized century. Furthermore, it was also one of the quickest paced in terms of technological development and speed to get from one place to another. I see history more as a sliding scale-- so, 100 years in 2000 B.C. is nothing compared to the 1200s, which is nothing compared to the 1900s. It took Genghis Khan twenty years to spread an empire from Korea to the Black Sea. It took Hitler 2 years to spread an empire from France to very nearly Moscow, as well as extending south into North Africa.
And I don't just admire the United States' rise to power. I feel countries that were recognized as the strongest power-- or very high up there-- in their day deserve to be in. China, Japan, Russia, Britain, the US, Germany, the Ottomans, Rome, Persia, Mongolia, and Egypt. Then we can start talking about other civs.
Finally, the US was only a major power/superpower for a little over a century, but they were/are very powerful during that time. Yes, the Greeks were there for centuries, but if Western civilization had not become as powerful as it did they would fare only somewhat better than the Huns-- a warlord who conquered huge swaths of land and then lost it.
And I don't just admire the United States' rise to power. I feel countries that were recognized as the strongest power-- or very high up there-- in their day deserve to be in. China, Japan, Russia, Britain, the US, Germany, the Ottomans, Rome, Persia, Mongolia, and Egypt. Then we can start talking about other civs.
Finally, the US was only a major power/superpower for a little over a century, but they were/are very powerful during that time. Yes, the Greeks were there for centuries, but if Western civilization had not become as powerful as it did they would fare only somewhat better than the Huns-- a warlord who conquered huge swaths of land and then lost it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
To what do you refer? My comments as to American self-importance? Those were merely observations of an aspect of the typical American mentality, furnished as an explanation as to the inclusion of, in my opinion, an unworthy, or, more accurately, inappropriate civ in the game.
But, then, all criticism is an "ad hominem attack" nowadays, isn't it? I do love the internet.
Again, I believe we have differing criteria; I favour a variety of cultures or literal civilisations, each with a unique flavour and who made significant cultural contributions to the world, while you apparently favour a sort of willy-waggling list of powerful nation-states.
I've never quite understood this points-scoring system by which people argue for and against certain civilisations or leaders, much as I occasionally find myself stumbling into it. I think a lot of it originates in the conflation of "civilisation" with "nation-state", which seems to demand comparisons of political and military influence from certain people, although I'm still not sure on what grounds any given civilisation or leader is attributed value on those grounds alone.
To be honest, I don't object to the inclusion of America in Civilization, I simply object to the inevitable inclusion as a first-wave civ; that, at the very least, strikes me as self-indulgent. It's simply not that interesting. It adds little or no flavour to the game. That's why it belongs alongside those other slightly samey civs, like Korea, the Netherlands and the Mayans, in an expansion, freeing up some Vanilla space for an altogether more characterful contender.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
I don't think I can reply to this quote in a moderator approved way, so I'm just going to quote it and laugh.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Rather have Otto the Great as German leader. Seems like it'll never happen though.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
No, I have been very serious. If you guys could wipe your tears from your eyes about Washington and actually read what I said, you'd probably find there is less there you object to than you think.
Similar threads
- Sticky
