New Leaders

[CantaloupeKing]

I know that the Warlords expansion pack introduced four more leaders for the existing civs, and I know that nobody ever listens to my posts, but if all of the games civs(except the ones with short or insignificant history without one ruler) had multiple, two or even three possible leaders for the majority of the games' civilizations, which civs would you recommend an extra leader to?

Personally, I would like to think that the American 'empire' could be led by Abraham Lincoln, either to replace Roosevelt or simply to be added as an extra possible leader. Another I feel could be used may be an extra Egyptian leader, and with so many pharoahs in its history, there's a wide selection. Someone like Nefertiti or King Tut could make a fine addition to Egypts leadership.

Also, with the return of Stalin in Warlords, a certain dictator has been denied and demanded equally by the community...we all know who. Please don't delete this post. I want to hear anyone elses ideas to totally new rulers' possible acceptance in a Civ 5. In the end, its all up to Sid...
-The King

 

[Watiggi]

...and I know that nobody ever listens to my posts...

I think I herd something. Did anyone else hear it?

Seriously though, I would like more Greeks, Spanish, American, Aztec (a peaceful one), Persian, German (more aggressive - and no, not necessarily him ) and Japan (post WWII, financial based if possible).

 

[fret]

its all up to Sid...

I reckon that will be one area where the Publisher will lay down the law.

They wont want the bad press, they will want to sell to the German market, and considering the name itself is outlawed there, I imagine that would make the game illegal.

Thats just two reasons, im sure the publisher will have many more.

If it was my company, I wouldnt allow it, I would leave it to the modders.

 

[AndreasS]

Im happy with modern area dictators! We need the bad guys in civ too, makes for more fun. Hitler was even democratically elected, the germans really loved him, even if they tried to deny it after the war.

Franco for the spaniards, and Mussolini for the romans would be nice too. Think of what a great WW2 scenario we could make then.......

 

[Veo]

...Think of what a great WW2 scenario we could make then.......

yeah...
There was NOTHING like the Civ II Scen when you cheated to give the allies nukes and just WHALLOPED on him until there was no tommorow...

 

[Jaca]

Im happy with modern area dictators! We need the bad guys in civ too, makes for more fun. Hitler was even democratically elected, the germans really loved him, even if they tried to deny it after the war.

Franco for the spaniards, and Mussolini for the romans would be nice too. Think of what a great WW2 scenario we could make then.......

I don't think the scenario would be that great...

 

[flamingzaroc121]

i kinda want a japaneese leader but who would fit . . . .


we need a new thread solely for the Hitler Debate

 

[monkspider]

Meiji, baby.

Xerxes and Pericles are also desperately needed leaders to reflect different sides of their respective civs.

 

[CantaloupeKing]

i kinda want a japaneese leader but who would fit . . . .


we need a new thread solely for the Hitler Debate

Yes...someone start that thread... Not it!
-The King

 

[bioelectricclam]

Here are all the really possible leaders for the Japanese: the three unifiers:Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu; and Emperor Hirohito. Since world war II leaders are pretty much censored, hirohito is a no show. Out of the three unifiers, the only one that created a truly lasting government was Tokugawa. This leaves no other likely candidates for a Japanese leader, other than the legendary Princess Pimiko who probably didn't even exist anyways.

Now as for leaders I'd like to see: Eric the Red or Brunhilde for the Vikings (who the fudge is this Ragdar anyways? Although Ragdar is a freakin' sweet name...), and Bill Clinton for the Americans.

And finally, I'd love for them to add the Scottish civilization, with Robert the Bruce or Mel Gibson as possible leader choices.

 

[kristopherb]

ive 2 words to say 2 you just 2 word ,cromwell english

 

[picardathon]

Maybe you could put Charlemagne in the game for the Germans, but then again, couldn't he possibly be a french leader?

 

[MisterBarca]

Meiji, baby.

Xerxes and Pericles are also desperately needed leaders to reflect different sides of their respective civs.

The Meiji emperor was a figurehead king. The Meiji reform was no doubt a momentous event, but it is difficult to pick a figure out of that bunch, as there was no singular figure who was responsible for Japan's emergence as a world power. Ito Hirobumi is arguably the most influential figure of the period, but he still wasn't dominant.

If you want an additional Japanese leader, Toyotomi Hideyoshi is a decent choice. Although he was contemporaneous with Tokugawa, he was probably the more talented figure, both as a strategist and an administrator. Of course, history always remembers the ultimate winners, though Toyotomi "lost" only because he died while his son was young, and Tokugawa was his vassal while Toyotomi was alive. Another figure I could put forth from this period is Takeda Shingen--who was by consensus the greatest military commander of the remarkable quartet of Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and of course Takeda himself.

If you want to go really modern, two possible candidates are Yoshida and Nakasone. Yoshida engineered the post-World War II transformation of Japan and in particular its orientation toward the West (people forget but Japan could've easily oriented itself toward the Soviet Union and likely would have but for MacArthur's "reverse course" and Yoshida's strong leadership) and its repudiation of militarism. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew has gone on record to say that Yoshida was the greatest East Asian leader of the last century. Naksone was easily the most charismatic post-war Japanese leader and governed over a new, confident, and some would say truculent Japan--a trend which has been picked up by Koizumi.

As for Xerxes, no way. If you want an extra Persian leader, Darius (not the one that Alexander vanquished) is easily the best choice.

 

[MisterBarca]

If you want an additional leader for each Civ IV civilizations, here are my choices. I will only offer choices obviously for those civilizations whose history with which I am reasonably familiar:

America: Lincoln (should've been the first choice)

China: Tang Taizong (should've been the first choice)

England: Cromwell

France: De Gaulle

Greece: Pericles

Japan: Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Persia: Darius I (possibly should've been the first choice)

Rome: Constantine

Russia: Lenin (more palateable than Stalin for moral reasons, though Lenin wasn't exactly a saint and I don't buy the argument that goes along the lines of "Stalin messed up communism")

Carthage: Hamilcar

Korea: Yon Gae-so-mun (anyone but Wang Kon--the most idiotic and ignorant choice ever)

*Looking at Firaxis' original choices, I think Firaxis has a heavy bias in favor of "founders"--as someone else in my now-locked "Wang Kon" thread also explicitly said. I tend to favor those leaders who were the "greatest" over the "first."

 

[MisterBarca]

I don't know much of German history but would Frederick Barbarossa work?

 

[Pounder]

and Mussolini for the romans would be nice too. Think of what a great WW2 scenario we could make then.......

Wouldn't Mussolini be for the Italians, not the Romans.

 

[Osymandias]

frederick barbarossa would be interestening.

but i would like to see Konrad Adenauer as first chancellor of post-war west-germany or Willy Brandt, the 4th chancellor.
the only problem i see, both were chancellors of only a part of the german people....

 

[kristopherb]

England: Cromwell."[/B]

yes

*Looking at Firaxis' original choices, I think Firaxis has a heavy bias in favor of "founders"--as someone else in my now-locked "Wang Kon" thread also explicitly said. I tend to favor those leaders who were the "greatest" over the "first."

all american love their founding leaders
but we all know they went on to world biulder and gave them an army of infantry

 

[Watiggi]

Looking at Firaxis' original choices, I think Firaxis has a heavy bias in favor of "founders"--as someone else in my now-locked "Wang Kon" thread also explicitly said. I tend to favor those leaders who were the "greatest" over the "first."

I think they are both important: Genghis founded; Kublai was born in it and ran it. Similar with Washington and Roosevelt. If they make another Korean, then it will be a great person, so to speak. I don't have a problem with them having a preference with leaders who founded the civilization. Why? Simply because you start the game by having to found your civilization. It makes sense to have a preference for a founder. As for the other leaders who are not founders, there are other reasons why they were considered.... what comes to mind is the dual effect of popularity and greatness. It would feel a little silly not to have a person who everyone wanted to play and who also did great things (whether good/beneficial or not) in favour of a person who was a nobody who quietly founded the civilization. Just be aware that a lot of things were probably considered, from different perspectives and many things were missed because of those perspectives that ultimately resulted in the decisions that have been made.

Watiggi

 

[MisterBarca]

I think they are both important: Genghis founded; Kublai was born in it and ran it. Similar with Washington and Roosevelt. If they make another Korean, then it will be a great person, so to speak. I don't have a problem with them having a preference with leaders who founded the civilization. Why? Simply because you start the game by having to found your civilization. It makes sense to have a preference for a founder. As for the other leaders who are not founders, there are other reasons why they were considered.... what comes to mind is the dual effect of popularity and greatness. It would feel a little silly not to have a person who everyone wanted to play and who also did great things (whether good/beneficial or not) in favour of a person who was a nobody who quietly founded the civilization. Just be aware that a lot of things were probably considered, from different perspectives and many things were missed because of those perspectives that ultimately resulted in the decisions that have been made.

Watiggi

Let me clarify myself.

Not all founders are created equal. Some founders--such as Washington or Cyrus--are considered among the greatest leaders of the civilizations they founded.

I have no problem with picking these guys, even if they are not necessarily the best leaders of their respective civilizations.

For instance, Lincoln is generally considered the greatest American president, and Darius I the greatest Persian king. But I can accept that Firaxis chose Washington or Cyrus over them.

But Wang Kon is an entirely different case. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but no Korean historian seriously considers him among the greatest leaders in Korean history. Besides, he wasn't a founder of the Korean people in any conceivable sense. He merely founded the dynasty that became Romanized as "Korea." Finally, as anyone familiar with Korean history knows, Wang Kon wasn't the real founder of Koryo; Goong Ae was--a fact that even Koreans who seem to disagree on everything as Zx1000 and myself agree.

No matter which way you cut it, Wang Kon was just a dumb or ignorant choice. And given how nonsensical the choice was, I seriously doubt Firaxis researched and considered the issue as thoroughly as you claim. If you knew Korean history well, you would realize how off you are on your claim.