More Official Civ Leaders

[mccoyer001]

I am so releived no one mentioned George Bush Jr., Simple Minded and Un-Smart aren't in the game so yea... good job.

One thing I would like to see is each Civ. having at least 1 of each sex for leaders.

Also, Add William Shatner to the US.

William Shatner as in James Tiberius Kirk??? I would actually enjoy that especially if it is an animated LH with all the over-dramatic acting with cheesy pause filled dialog. Best LH ever!!!

 

[Hellfire]

There's another discussion about leaders along with a list of about 80 leaders I proposed at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139259

One of the rules I took on was to include no leaders who predominately reigned after WWI mainly because of the political discussions (and flamewars) that would come about from including leaders like Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Include who you like in your mod just know that you're begging for a flamewar with leaders like these.

Another good idea is to have this plugin, and then have another discussion about more recent rulers and create another plugin with just these rulers, or a separate version which includes them. The moderator would probably have to work overtime to make sure it doesn't degenerate into a flame war, and any thread would have to have ground rules for what makes a "great" leader.

It's difficult to draw a line. My Grandmother is 80 and thought FDR was a terrible president. Now granted, she's not playing Civ at all, but still you could listen to her rant just as well as any ranter here, and FDR is in the game as a leader you could chose for the Americans.

I think you could move the line up to WW2 only because civ players at that age, while they might exist, are few and far between, and because we have a WW2 leader in there. Churchhill is a good choice for England as a leader.

I am surprised no one has gone down the Hitler road again. Not that I personally mind, but I hope I didn't close up the thread by saying that

 

[Plankhead]

I'm a die hard liberal, but I have to agree that Clinton shouldn't be in the game, but not because I don't like him. I love Clinton. I just don't think he should be in the game because it's already awkward for Washington to be around in the Stone Age, but when we put modern leaders in there it's kind of creepy. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that splinter civilizations aren't in the game, I'd say that America shouldn't be playable at the outset.

 

[Wyz_sub10]

William Shatner as in James Tiberius Kirk??? I would actually enjoy that especially if it is an animated LH with all the over-dramatic acting with cheesy pause filled dialog. Best LH ever!!!

Except that Shatner's Canadian.

 

[Hellfire]

I'm a die hard liberal, but I have to agree that Clinton shouldn't be in the game, but not because I don't like him. I love Clinton. I just don't think he should be in the game because it's already awkward for Washington to be around in the Stone Age, but when we put modern leaders in there it's kind of creepy.

Well this is silly to me, because there are tons of elements like this. It's a game it's not 100% realistic. Under that idea we shouldn't have most leaders in the game. Elizabeth wasn't in the stone age either. Nor was Mapoleon.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that splinter civilizations aren't in the game, I'd say that America shouldn't be playable at the outset.

Well it's hard to deny that America by many standards is a great civilization. The problem with most game designs is they have yet to come up with a way to design into a game a way to make a "rebellion" fun. Think about it, that's really hard! You're playing the british and expanding and OOPS all of a sudden your unhappy border colonies rebel and suddenly there you are, the Americans? How do you handle that? How do you implement it fairly? How do you benefit from all the work you did as Britain?

It's hard because that's not the premise of the game. Rebellions aren't fun unlss they are implemented as something from the start of the game, and then it's not quite the same game. I'm sure someone created a mod to that effect, and with Civ4 as other civs, I'm sure they left the American Revolutionary War to the modders.

And yet you have to give people the ability to play the Americans. It's what we want and it's just a game.

 

[catwhowalksbyhi]

it's just a game.

Probably the single most important phrase to keep in mind when discussing this game.

 

[mccoyer001]

Except that Shatner's Canadian.

Oh. So we have Canada to blame for him. I swear nothing good comes from Canada Of course I am kidding. I love our neighbors to the north.

 

[tndp]

I think we should start out by adding leaders that people will want for scenarios.

So, yes, we need Winston Churchill, Hirohito, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler so that you can do a good WWII scenario (Roosevelt and Mao are already in there.)

We're missing some leaders for an (American) revolutionary war scenario as well - George 3rd, among others.

For a modern middle-east scenario you'd need at the least King Fahd and Ayatollah Khomenei (sp.).

Since leaders and civs are totally independent, we can add leaders and leave them free agents. Charlegmagne can be German or French (depending on which civ you decide the Franks are.) The Ottomans could be fighting Arabs, Persiand and Turks in any combination - but might *be* Arabs, Persians or Turks, depending on which civ you don't need in any given scenario.

In some scenarios, you might use various nations as temporary stand-ins - Russia for Israel, say, so Sharon would be listed as a Russian leader.

 

[Sadistik]

Those leaders are for Italy, not for Rome.

And Alexander was for Macedon, not Greece. Wilhelm is for Prussia, etc. etc.