Hastur said:
Aggressive - Used war extensively to expand the borders of their civ.
I use aggressive for leaders who simply went to war a lot, not perse for leaders who expanded their borders. For example, for the Muhammad leader I'll use aggressive, and not expansionist. He used war all the time to gain control over the region and the means to spread his religion. He was not particularly interested in creating a world empire that would spread the globe.
Hastur said:
Creative - Patrons of the arts and/or focused heavily on creating/enhancing national identity.
I agree.
Hastur said:
Expansive - This one I'm having a harder time nailing down. The word suggests one who uses whatever means to expand their civ but the bonus promotes larger cities. I've predominately been looking for leaders that enhanced infrastructure and/or founded new cities for this trait.
This is for leaders who not only used to go to war, but who actually had the intention of expanding their empire. For example, Pachacuti of the Inca (it's a HUGE shame this leader isn't in the original game), he started with a city, and expanded and expanded until he controlled the biggest empire in the America's...
Hastur said:
Financial - Promoted economic welfare within their civ. From what I've seen, these leaders tended to be rarer than the others.
I agree, also leaders who tried to improve on trade issues, for example, Darius I and Sundiata Keita are those I've added so far.
Hastur said:
Industrial - The wonder builders.
Also, those who created infrastructures, city improvement builders, and those leaders preoccupied with using industry as a way to gain a better internatiol position.
Itzcoatl is a good example of the first one (Why do they keep adding Montezuma?? He was terrible, the whole empire was stirring when the Spanish arrived... While Itzcoatl actually formed an empire, starting with a city, creating alliances and expanding territory
) Mutsuhito is an example of the last one. Trajan of the second.
Hastur said:
Organized - Given the benefit within the game, I've been defining this as leaders that reorganized their government extensively.
I agree, I changed Louis XIV to Organized/Creative... he is the prime example of such a leader in my opinion. Also, good examples: Philip II of Spain, Darius I and Pachacuti.
Hastur said:
Philosophical - Again a trait where the word means one thing but the game effect is different. I've been defining this one as leaders who tended to gather great thinkers and the like around themselves.
And those who tried to create an entire 'new' type of civilization... Pericles for example.
Hastur said:
Spiritual - This one at least describes itself well.
Muhammad, Ramesses II, etc.
Hastur said:
The main difficulty I've encountered is that by far most of the "great leaders" of the world tend to fall under the Aggressive trait.
True, but that doesn't really matter.
Hastur said:
And being honest, in the trait assignment I'm doing, I've had to give some leaders traits that are lesser aspects of their personality and reign simply to avoid having 70% or more having the aggressive trait. I've also looked for some leaders that aren't quite as commonly known because they exemplify a particular trait. And in some cases I've included leaders who weren't necessarily "great leaders" simply because they are such icons in history (Ludwig the Mad is a great example of this).
Hmm... not really. I've written down all the different combinations and am making sure that every combination has at least one and maximum two leaders...
Hastur said:
I guess what it comes down to is you and I are doing the same thing, adding leaders, but with two very different approaches and rationales. It seems to me that you're adding leaders who were the world-shakers of their time and people who would be cool to play or play against with less focus on what civs get more or less. Whereas my focus has been on improving the selection of leaders available to a civ. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other... just different approaches. And I'm *very* interested in seeing what you come up with. You've chosen some people I hadn't thought of and I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with them.
I certainly think one is better than another...
I try to add those leaders that were really great leaders in their time, and/or really changed the world. Some of the Civilization leaders are just terrible. Montezuma and the liking... and some leader I really have a lot of question marks at... Julius Caesar? Come on... Isabella?
First she didn't rule alone, and second, she wasn't all that important... Where is Charles V for example? Weird weird weird...
