Let's use those leaderheads!

[civ_king]

Spain
Early Medieval Era: El Cid (found here). Not actually a Spanish ruler, but he represents the era of spanish-moorish conflict very well.
Late Medieval Era: Isabella (by Firaxis). Queen of united Spain.
Renaissance Era: Philipp II (found here). The Spanish colonial empire.
Industrial Era: King Charles IV of Spain
Modern Era: Francisco Franco ruled from 1939-1975 that's most of the Modern Era

Bolded are my suggestions

 

[Leoreth]

Yep, I think you're mostly right that I've chosen too many leaders who were too close both chronologically and politically.

Still I'd rather refrain from using leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Franco etc. I don't think they're good too represent their respective countries, especially if you consider that their civs would keep them until 2020, although they only ruled until 1945 (Franco's the only exception here).
I also think that some of their atrocities are still recent enough to invoke some people's objections. Personally, I'd also get rid of Stalin and Mao for the same reasons, but at least it was Firaxis who added them here. But maybe it's just me being German that I see things that way ...

 

[Heathcliff]

I would have prefer to use the most well known leader for each civilization. But I understand it's not being done because of their controversial and horrible idiologies or for other reasons.
I'll make a list of leaders I would have liked to change from, first I never heard of before civ 4, and the others everyone know who they are.

Too controversial to use:
Fredrick (too unknown) -> Hitler (nazi)
Saladin (too unknown) -> Mohammed (you must not show a picture of him)

Not controversial, but very unknown leaders needs to be changed
Harald (There is no well known Viking Leader) -> Charles XII (well Viking needs a second leader after maybe 1400)
All turskish leaders (too unknown) -> Ataturk
Joao II (too unknown) -> Henry the navigator

Well known controversial but could be used, but do not need to replace anyone:
Franco
Moussolini
Hirohito
Mao
Stalin
Nixon

 

[Lone Wolf]

Still I'd rather refrain from using leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Franco etc. I don't think they're good too represent their respective countries, especially if you consider that their civs would keep them until 2020, although they only ruled until 1945

Hirohito was the Emperor of Japan 'till his death in 1989.

Fredrick (too unknown) ... Saladin (too unknown) ...

Just because you lack historical erudition, that doesn't mean that these fairly known figures ought to be replaced.

 

[Panopticon]

We've had a recent discussion about leaderheads here.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327397

I think Ataturk should be included, it's a fine leaderhead. There are several others that deserve to be in. Rhye is reluctant to include them and also wants full Civilopedia entries. A modcomp wouldn't need that much. I sing once again the praises of SadoMacho's sorely missed RFC Extra Leaders modcomp, which seems to have vanished into the Downloads Database memory hole.

 

[blizzrd]

Fredrick (too unknown) ... Saladin (too unknown) ... Harald (There is no well known Viking Leader) ... All turskish leaders (too unknown) ... Joao II (too unknown)

Definitely time for you to read up some more on history by the sound of it.

Try researching:
Frederick I Barbarossa
Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb
Suleiman the Magnificent
Joao II the Perfect

And some Scandinavian leaders for you to research:
Ragnar Lodbruk
Cnut (Canute)
Harald Bluetooth
Gustavus Adolphus

 

[StuartKleinsen]

Still I'd rather refrain from using leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Franco etc. I don't think they're good too represent their respective countries, especially if you consider that their civs would keep them until 2020, although they only ruled until 1945 (Franco's the only exception here).
I also think that some of their atrocities are still recent enough to invoke some people's objections. Personally, I'd also get rid of Stalin and Mao for the same reasons, but at least it was Firaxis who added them here. But maybe it's just me being German that I see things that way ...

I'm german, too, and I accept your opinion, but CIV is just a game...
Anyway, first of all we've to get more leader for those one-leader-civs like Japan or Spain!

 

[dragodon64]

I would have prefer to use the most well known leader for each civilization. But I understand it's not being done because of their controversial and horrible idiologies or for other reasons.
I'll make a list of leaders I would have liked to change from, first I never heard of before civ 4, and the others everyone know who they are.

Too controversial to use:
Fredrick (too unknown) -> Hitler (nazi)
Saladin (too unknown) -> Mohammed (you must not show a picture of him)

Not controversial, but very unknown leaders needs to be changed
Harald (There is no well known Viking Leader) -> Charles XII (well Viking needs a second leader after maybe 1400)
All turskish leaders (too unknown) -> Ataturk
Joao II (too unknown) -> Henry the navigator

Well known controversial but could be used, but do not need to replace anyone:
Franco
Moussolini
Hirohito
Mao
Stalin
Nixon

I seriously hope that you're kidding about the unknown ones. The replacement of Joao with Henry could be argued, but Suleiman and Mehmed are unknown? The Turks are possible the easiest to create time-period-representative as well as personally great leaders since both sultans were men of amazing achievement and oversaw distinct portions of Turkish history (foundational conquests, and zenith). However, Ataturk is undoubtedly the best figure for industrial and modern turkey, in no way am I disagreeing with that.

 

[Heathcliff]

Sorry, I did not express myself very good.
I was just curios why those leaders that I belive are more significant , like Henry the navigator and Ataturk is not in the game.

I did ask a Turkish friend who he thought was Turkeys most important leader over time and he said Ataturk.

I read the wikipedia links you sent, thanks for those. Maybe the length of wikipedia articles can be used as a measure to show who is most important. As we clearly need some quantitative measure for that.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The Frederick of Civ is Frederick the Great of Prussia.

I did ask a Turkish friend who he thought was Turkeys most important leader over time and he said Ataturk.

Ataturk is an important figure for sure, but he's not a representative of Turkish (Ottoman) Empire.

 

[Leoreth]

@Heathcliff:
Of course your friend says Ataturk, because he is the man who shaped the modern Turkey he lives in. Modern Turkey makes great efforts to distance itself from the Ottoman Empire (see kemalism) and so I guess there isn't much public attention on Mehmed or Suleiman.

I can understand that you think those 20th century leaders are better known, especially considering how popular history documentations ("Hitlery Channel" ...) seem to be obsessed with modern history, but especially those you name were VERY important in history.

Read anything about the crusades and you'll encounter the name Saladin. Considering he isn't even European, he is its most prominent figure right after names like Urban II or Richard the Lionheart. Although he was the enemy, he was still admired in medieval Christianity for his chivalry.
Suleiman made a small Anatolian dynasty into a superpower and was close to overrun complete Western Europe when he tried to capture Vienna.

Compared to their achievements, everything Hitler, Mussolini or Franco did for their countries vanished in seconds.

Hirohito was the Emperor of Japan 'till his death in 1989.

I knew someone would bring this up Japan became a democracy after WW2, Hirohito had nothing but representative authority afterwards.

@Panopticon:
What happened to this plans? Were they only stopped for lack of pedia translations?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Hirohito had nothing but representative authority afterwards.

He didn't have that much authority before either.

 

[Heathcliff]

I'm convinced about Saladin being an important historical figure now, I take everything back I said about him and claim the opposite.

 

[Panopticon]

@Panopticon:
What happened to this plans? Were they only stopped for lack of pedia translations?

Rhye decided the animations weren't good enough, I think.

 

[Leoreth]

He didn't have that much authority before either.

Damn, you got me
Still, he represents authoritarian pre-war Japan better than democratic post-war Japan.

@Heathcliff:
And if you do some research on the other leaders, you'd say the same about, say, Mehmed. I mean, he captured the heaviest fortified city in the entire world (Constantinople), which was never taken by direct assault, by using the biggest cannon ever built and thus destroying the last remnants of an empire that lasted 2206 years.

@Panopticon:
So we'll definitely have to make a modmod, even for lesser changes.
Unfortunately (I know you expected that), I've no experience in modding Civ. Since the graphics are already there for us, we still need to:

1. include the new leaderheads into the game
2. code a personality and things like favourite civics
3. code the triggers that make their civs change to another leader at the appropriate time

(1) should be easy even for me, (2) should also be learnable.
(3) is different because I've no idea how Rhye coded that feature. How is the change even triggered ingame? I think it was by certain techs, or was it by date?

 

[Panopticon]

The coding is all fine. #3 is not difficult. The difficult part is deciding which leaderheads are good and necessary enough to include. To save on memory, we shouldn't include 3-4 for each civ. Read through the old threads on leaderheads and you'll see what other people have written about the subject in the past.

 

[blizzrd]

I read the wikipedia links you sent, thanks for those. Maybe the length of wikipedia articles can be used as a measure to show who is most important. As we clearly need some quantitative measure for that.

I don't think this can happen. The day that importance in history is measured by length of wikipedia articles would be a sad day for all historians.

You are basically asking to measure something which is totally subjective (importance of individuals in history) by a quantitative method. The two are (or at least in my opinion should be considered) mutually exclusive.

Any person's subjective opinion about the importance of a given historical figure will always be based on that person's depth of historical knowledge. The more knowledgeable (in terms of history) the person, the more credible their opinion may be - but even this is not a given. If, for instance, the person has a prejudice which causes them to ignore one region/culture, even if they have read every other historical source document available - their opinion is still limited and biased. Hence, no quantitative method can be used to assess "historical importance". It is and always will remain within the realm of subjectivity.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Wikpedia Celebrates 750 Years of American History!

The commemorative page is one of the most detailed on the site, rivaling entries for Firefly and the Treaty Of Algeron for sheer length. Subheadings include "Origins Of Colonial Discontent," "Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats," and "Christmastime In Gettysburg." It also features detailed maps of the original colonies—including Narnia, the central ice deserts, and Westeros—as well as profiles of famous American historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Special Agent Jack Bauer, and Samuel Adams who is also a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals.

 

[Leoreth]

Even if we COULD measure historical importance in any way (which is of course impossible), then we still wouldn't be able to choose, say, "the 4 most important". In my opinion (and that is especially true in RFC), leaders also represent certain eras in their nation's history. So when we (or Firaxis) choose a leader to represent a given timeframe, we make our decision based on the common connotations people have with a certain historical person.

My best example is Cleopatra in Civ3. She's definitely not the most influential of all leaders of Ptolemaic Egypt, her actions even made Egypt lose its sovereignty and become Roman Province, but her promince in the popular recordings we have about classical Egypt simply makes us think of her first.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In a game, it helps the player to identify with is own and other nations when he sees a leader who's familiar to him.

 

[dragodon64]