The Cosmic Kid
Warlord
After Dick van Dyke, all other actors' accents are good by comparison. All of them.
Leaders we don't want.
- Thread starter CornPlanter
- Start date
Bringing up Dick van Dyke as Bert in Mary Poppins is like bringing up Superman in any superhero ranking - it goes without saying! You should judge the others without reference to the obvious example 
I like the idea of a more fluid system of leaders where they can change over time. With the notion of one leader per civ the list of leaders I do not wish to see begins and ends with Montezuma. I think he gets put in purely for the name recognition and as a regional placeholder. Other obviously bad leaders from previous versions of the game I think go without mention shouldn't and will not be included, (Joan of Arc, etc.). Other leaders that I am sick of/ bored of seeing- Gandhi, Washington, Tokugawa and Shaka.
I think a discussion of underappreciated leaders would also be good. I vote for any unique leader from an under-represented area, Mansa Musa, Zara Yakob and Suryavarman have been some of my favorites from civ 4.
I think a discussion of underappreciated leaders would also be good. I vote for any unique leader from an under-represented area, Mansa Musa, Zara Yakob and Suryavarman have been some of my favorites from civ 4.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Tim Curry in Congo. You can't beat that.
King Flevance
Deity
I like the inclusion of Shaka and Tokugawa personally. Although ultimately when it comes down to it, leaders are merely aesthetical. There is no real difference between FDR, Lincoln, or Washington outside of namesake and whatever trait combo Firaxis assigns them. WHich it has already been discussed that ANY leader could essentially possess ANY trait combo as they all possessed some ability of each trait as they were leaders after all. How can you be a leader without being charismatic in some form? How can you be expansive without being Imperialistic in some way? Or vice versa? So even the taits are aesthetical when assigned to a leader.
As much as I will say that I do not the appeal of having Joan a leader, this whole debate is over the graphical quibbles of the game. Which explains why personal bias is so strongly attached for some. When it comes to tastes everyone believes theirs is the best.
I like the idea of rotating leaders over time personally. However, I would like to have 1 overall trait for each nation. Then as the leaders cycle they offer minor traits that come and go with them. Aditionally, it would be nice if you got a choice between two. Or even a % chance to get 1 of 2 leaders based on factors in the game. For Instance, George Washington and John Adams are the possible leaders you could get. George Washington could be recieved based on military things such as GG's, experience points, etc perhaps even influenced by markets or banks. Whereas John Adams would be recieved based on more political things. Currently, the game does not hold much in the way of polotics manifesting in the game. WHich would be a great substitue for religion in my opinion. Buildings like city halls, castles be both political and military, etc. would all influence political leaders coming in.
But I think 1 overall trait that never changes should be in the game to stabilize your strategy. Playing the insane dude from Balseraphs in FfH2 can be fun and even work to your advantage but can also backfire fairly consistantly. I do think it would be interesting either way considering every player on the map has to play by the same rule but I think the players should have something reliable to depend on.
As much as I will say that I do not the appeal of having Joan a leader, this whole debate is over the graphical quibbles of the game. Which explains why personal bias is so strongly attached for some. When it comes to tastes everyone believes theirs is the best.
I like the idea of rotating leaders over time personally. However, I would like to have 1 overall trait for each nation. Then as the leaders cycle they offer minor traits that come and go with them. Aditionally, it would be nice if you got a choice between two. Or even a % chance to get 1 of 2 leaders based on factors in the game. For Instance, George Washington and John Adams are the possible leaders you could get. George Washington could be recieved based on military things such as GG's, experience points, etc perhaps even influenced by markets or banks. Whereas John Adams would be recieved based on more political things. Currently, the game does not hold much in the way of polotics manifesting in the game. WHich would be a great substitue for religion in my opinion. Buildings like city halls, castles be both political and military, etc. would all influence political leaders coming in.
But I think 1 overall trait that never changes should be in the game to stabilize your strategy. Playing the insane dude from Balseraphs in FfH2 can be fun and even work to your advantage but can also backfire fairly consistantly. I do think it would be interesting either way considering every player on the map has to play by the same rule but I think the players should have something reliable to depend on.
STOP EATING MY SESAME CAKE
I don't want Tokugawa. Surely there are better Japanese leaders?
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Meiji, Hirohito, Shomu, etc.
It's traditional for the person making the claim to provide the answers, you know.
Hirohito? The current Emperor's father? He was about as much the ruler of Japan as Elizabeth II is the ruler of any of the various Commonwealth countries where she is Queen. Heads of state & government are by far more preferable than simple heads of state.
Hirohito? The current Emperor's father? He was about as much the ruler of Japan as Elizabeth II is the ruler of any of the various Commonwealth countries where she is Queen. Heads of state & government are by far more preferable than simple heads of state.
happyturtle
Mrs GrumpyOldCivver
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 860
Tokugawa should go because he's an isolationist jerk and because he never trades techs, he falls behind and just ends up being someone's vassal. (Unless I get to him first... I just destroy him. 
)
)
Midnight-Blue766
The filidh that cam frae Skye
Hirohito as a Japanese leader would probably make the Civilization series crash and burn in East Asia as well.
mynystry
jaguar warrior from hell
Once I read that the guys from Firaxis chose the leaders who are in Civ according on how much they are respected by their own people (for those civs which still exist) and of those who got much fame in history... I think Hitler is not there because most Germans despise Hitler in the present. And for the same reason Stalin is in the game, even if "westerns" do not like him he still has some prestige in Russia.
This is a bit odd for me as a Mexican, because "Monty", who in Mexico is better known as Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, Moctezuma II or Motecuhzoma, was not really the greatest of the Aztec (or Mexica) emperors, actually he was in part responsable of the (probably inevitable) downfall of their empire. I think other rulers such as Moctezuma Ilhuicamina (or Moctezuma I), Ahuizotl, Axayacatl, or most beloved poet King ot Texcoco Nezahualcoyotl could represent better the best days of this amazing civilization than "Monty"
This is a bit odd for me as a Mexican, because "Monty", who in Mexico is better known as Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, Moctezuma II or Motecuhzoma, was not really the greatest of the Aztec (or Mexica) emperors, actually he was in part responsable of the (probably inevitable) downfall of their empire. I think other rulers such as Moctezuma Ilhuicamina (or Moctezuma I), Ahuizotl, Axayacatl, or most beloved poet King ot Texcoco Nezahualcoyotl could represent better the best days of this amazing civilization than "Monty"
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Honestly, I figure civ leaders are chosen by three areas:
1. Pop culture leaders. Leaders who didn't do all that much compared to other leaders of their nation, and are mainly in it because they're so well known (Montezuma II, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Gandhi)
2. The Big Guys. The conquerors, the imperialists, the face of the empire (Stalin, Elizabeth II, Alexander the Great)
3. The Token Leader. Someone more obscure to appeal to the history buffs, or someone added in to fill some other void that the team feels needs filling. Basically, they're the Marketing Leader. (Hatshepsut, Ragnar Lodbrok, Wu.)
There's also a possible 4th: Leaders that tie into a game feature. For Warlords, they brought in many warmongers (Ragnar, Mehmed II, Ramesses II who wasn't coded as a warmonger for some reason, etc), BtS on the other hand added more relatively peaceful techer types to tie in with the new late-game/peacemonger content (Lincoln, Suleiman, Sitting Bull, etc.)
Well i dont really know why u all think Wu is some obscure leader in Chinese History. Being Chinese myself i would have to say that Wu is really prominent in Chinese History as being the only actual female Empress to rule over China. She was decently capable at managing China as well and Cixi that worthless hag isnt an actual leader.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
The Mali were incredibly brutal to their people and everyone else...
I would be, if I judged Zulu by their race. But I judge them by their (lack of) achievements. A bunch of savages who happened to be the most savage in their area.
Ethiopia? Yes, by all means. Mali? Sure. I even would not object to Ghana Empire or various Caliphates, but those probably belong to Africa- themed mods. But Zulu? Hell no. Even Huns would make much more sense. Vikings are about as far as I can go calling something a "civilization". There's Norway and Sweden and Denmark today, after all. And in their times Vikings were much more important to the world than Zulu ever dreamed of.
If I had my druthers, we would get rid of the following:
Montezuma
Toku
Shaka, and his civ, because you could really hardly call it a "civilization" in the proper sense of the word
Stalin... Can we stop with this mass murderer already? 33+ million of his own people...
Mao... see above, replace 33+ with 70+
Korean civ... I mean, pander a bit more for potential sales...
As much as I like them, Portugal and Dutch... really just colonial powers, but not major players in the end...
AtriumComplex
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 61
If we removed the mass murderers from Civilization IV we would have like three leaders to play as. As far as I know, no empire has ever been bloodless.
I think a good rule of thumb is that if two leaders occupy very similar personality niches, one of them should not be in the (unexpanded) game. I'd play with Genghis or Shaka, but both is kind of overkill.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't know, I'd say Korea's an acceptable B- or C-list civ. It's culture and history are unique enough to render it something more than "China with a different colour scheme", which is more than can be said for some of the European civs. Not a starting line-up candidate, obviously, but most aren't.
If nothing else, Korea-as-mandatory-expansion-civ helps counterbalance some of the Eurocentricism, even if there are more colourful ways of achieving the same end.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
33+ and 70+ million make those two the top mass murderers in the history of the world... I understand you are exaggerating, but to include the two worst people ever, both killed more than Hitler, is kind of lame...
But, if they are going to be in, then Hitler should too... and now I have done it, ignited the Hitler situation...
Everyone, ignore it, ignore it!!!
AtriumComplex
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 61
But surely mass murder is as inexcusable whether it is 1000 or 100 million people. By definition, all empires attempt to destroy other cultures and people. The idea that you can't play as a certain character because he was a bad person in real life is pretty laughable considering Stalin and Mao were merely expanding a well worn tradition. Should we ban the use of Julius Caesar because he killed up to a million Gauls for political gain? Perhaps we should bar Victoria because she starved millions of Irish and Indians to death. Alexander, Napoleon and Genghis Khan all sated their megalomaniacal urges by killing everyone that did not submit to them.
All these people are villains, but why should that stop someone from playing them in a game?
awesome
Meme Lord
well, i mean, i don't think i'd want bob newhart as a leader. but maybe.
