Possible new leader for each civ

[Swein Forkbeard]

And here's where each Civ4 leader came into the Civ series.

Washington: Civ4
Lincoln: Civ1
Roosevelt: Civ4
Saladin: Civ4
Montezuma: Civ1
Hammurabi: Civ1
Justinian I: BtS
Hannibal: Civ2
Brennus: Civ2
Boudicca: BtS
Qin Shi Huang: Civ4
Mao Zedong: Civ1
Hatshepsut: Civ4
Ramsses II: Civ1
Elizabeth: Civ1
Victoria: Civ4
Churchill: C4W
Zara Yaqob: BtS
Louis XIV: Civ4
Napoleon: Civ1
de Gaulle: BtS
Frederick: Civ1
Bismarck: Civ2
Pericles: BtS
Alexander: Civ1
Charlemagne: BtS
Huayna Capac: Civ4
Asoka: Civ4
Gandhi: Civ1
Tokugawa: Civ2
Suryavarman II: BtS
Wang Kon: PtW
Mansa Musa: Civ4
Pacal II: BtS
Genghis Khan: Civ1
Kublai Khan: Civ4
Sitting Bull: Civ2
Willem van Oranje: C3C
Mehmed II: C4W
Suleiman I: BtS
Cyrus: Civ4
Darius I: BtS
Joao II: BtS
Julius Caesar: Civ1
Augustus Caesar: C4W
Peter: Civ4
Catherine: Civ2
Stalin: Civ1
Isabella: Civ2
Gilgamesh: C3C
Ragnar: PtW
Shaka: Civ1

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

For those who don't know, the guy is more better known as "Taizong".

China has tons of great leaders to choose from, more than any other civilization can offer. Its a pity they don't have three leaders. *shrugs*

What? I never knew that Li Shi Min and Tang Taizong/T'ai Tsung were the same person!

 

[URSExelcior]

2. Sid Meier is Jewish.

The final nail in the coffin. It's still pretty selfish not to add him just because of that, IMO.

 

[cybrxkhan]

What? I never knew that Li Shi Min and Tang Taizong/T'ai Tsung were the same person!

Look up Wikipedia. They are one and the same.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

So, contrary to what some think, Taizong HAS been in Civilization before.

Then again, it was only in the Chinese version of Civ3.

 

[raketooy]

As interesting as it would be to have Hitler in Civ, it is never going to happen. Nobody can doubt that he was one of the most influential leaders ever and quickly built a superpower, but as long as we cannot change history, he is not going to appear in a mainstream game as a playable character.

 

[dutchking]

There are two reasons why Hitler isn't in:

1. He is a "loser". (i don't mean it that way, i mean it that way)

2. Sid Meier is Jewish.

Spoiler :

3. He was and still stands as a symbol of racism and hatred towards most people on Earth.

4. He was psychotic.

5. He was Insane.

6. He didn't accomplish anything. (IMO)

7. He would be provocative towards anyone new to Civ or anyone who already plays civ.

8. Public Critism.

9. His traits would (should) suck.

Don't turn this into a Hitler thread.

 

[Antilogic]

Don't turn this into a Hitler thread.

Could I add an emphatic "SECOND!"?

 

[Angst]

also seconded here...

 

[LAnkou]

well, from a gameplay point of view, there are some one-leader-civ with a difficult leader at their head, that may needs another one to "shine"...

Monty, Shaka, Toku and Izzie are leaders harsh to play against...

From a historic point of view, some major figures like Meiji and Atatürk are really missing

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Aside from those that LAnkou mentioned in his post.

Gustav II of Sweden: The father of modern military tactics.

Tamerlane: Even more brutal than Genghis Khan, and even terrorized the Ottoman Empire for a while. But while he did tear of people's heads and stack them up (yuck!), he also reglorified the city of Samarqand and hired engineers etc in his army just like Genghis Khan did.

Theodore Roosevelt: Brought the United States on the world stage during the Spanish-American war.

Any others

 

[cybrxkhan]

Taizong: Greatest Emperor in East Asia. Or so they say...

Akbar: Greatest Emperor in South Asia.

Thuthmosis III, Narmer, Senusret I/II/III or Amenemhat I/II/III, Khufu, Snefru, Seti I, Ramses III, Ahmose, etc. etc.: Much better than that wimp Ramses II, least I could say.

Attila the Hun: Then again, he IS a barbarian...

William the Conqueror: Crossed the English channel.

Simon Bolivar: South America's greatest son. Besides the Incan god. (pun)

A Bunch of Vietnamese people: This isn't just nationalism, they're all great and awesome leaders and generals.

 

[Hawe Hawe]

Less important leaders like Boudica/Joao II were added into the game, but significant figures like Adolf Hitler are left out...


-Compare Joao's achievements to those of Hitler in WW2 (a milestone in human history).
-Compare Portugal's achievements in hundreds years to those of Nazi Germany in 12. Ask anybody on the street if they know who Joao II is: Unless they're portuguese I'm willing to bet they won't know. Ask that same person who Hitler was.


WW2 has become a huge cultural symbol. The Portuguese Peninsular War of 1807... not so much.

I definetly want to avoid a Hitler debate, but i am confused by the definition of culture in this thread. How can a war (and this counts for any war not only WW2)get such positive attributes as "Milestone in human history" or "huge cultural symbol". WW2 was more the opposite: biggest destruction of human culture ever. I generally find many arguments wether a Leader was a good one or a loser in this forums are to focused on military acchievements.

 

[Cytral]

war is usaly good for progress
(except when your on the loosing end)

 

[LAnkou]

War and good in the same sentence is so just plain wrong...

Can you tell me how good WW2 was? WW1 and the butcher slaughter in Verdun?

Do you think the US invade Irak for "progress"?

War is wrong. just plain wrong.
Writing war is good for progress is an absolute insult to any people who felt in any war.

sometimes you may find that mankind have achieved some progress at the same period of a war, but the greatest progress of humanity weren't link to war!!!

Mona Lisa isn't a war painting.
The greatest song on earth don't talk about the happiness in war (on the opposite, they generally call for peace).
The greatest people are not War people
There's no Nobel War Prize
If war was so good for progress, people wont flee countries in war... (why fleeing a country of progress?)
Even in technical achievement, it's just that military take what it likes and use it in war. Radar, Radio, Flying, concrete (for bunker), explosives, nuclear reaction, all these technologies were not supposed to be used in a military way...

Do you really think that the world would be a poorer place if there hadn't been WW2?

 

[BeyondCivilized]

War and good in the same sentence is so just plain wrong...

Can you tell me how good WW2 was? WW1 and the butcher slaughter in Verdun?

Do you think the US invade Irak for "progress"?

War is wrong. just plain wrong.
Writing war is good for progress is an absolute insult to any people who felt in any war.

sometimes you may find that mankind have achieved some progress at the same period of a war, but the greatest progress of humanity weren't link to war!!!

Mona Lisa isn't a war painting.
The greatest song on earth don't talk about the happiness in war (on the opposite, they generally call for peace).
The greatest people are not War people
There's no Nobel War Prize
If war was so good for progress, people wont flee countries in war... (why fleeing a country of progress?)
Even in technical achievement, it's just that military take what it likes and use it in war. Radar, Radio, Flying, concrete (for bunker), explosives, nuclear reaction, all these technologies were not supposed to be used in a military way...

Do you really think that the world would be a poorer place if there hadn't been WW2?

What the hell are you talking about? Of course war is progress, look at my country for example, if it weren't for Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanon would still be in the 21st century, now we rarely have electric power (But we do own civil power generators) our communication networks are fragile, and our country is descending down the financial drain.

This means I agree with every point you raised.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

war is usaly good for progress
(except when your on the loosing end)

Yeah the US sure is enjoying losing those billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the war on Iraq.

 

[Luso]

Less important leaders like Boudica/Joao II were added into the game, but significant figures like Adolf Hitler are left out...


-Compare Joao's achievements to those of Hitler in WW2 (a milestone in human history).
-Compare Portugal's achievements in hundreds years to those of Nazi Germany in 12. Ask anybody on the street if they know who Joao II is: Unless they're portuguese I'm willing to bet they won't know. Ask that same person who Hitler was.


WW2 has become a huge cultural symbol. The Portuguese Peninsular War of 1807... not so much.

Thats the most stupid comparison I ever read here.
If you ask to someone who was Bismark no one won't know too if unless they are german,D.João II didn't need to kill millions of innocent to transform a poor country into a powerful and wealth Empire in the world at the time.

Now if you ask who was seach leader,a good historian person will know it,people nowadays know more of the last century than 5 centuries ago,its obvius,only stupid people dont see that.

And what most of the people around the world knows about germany is about both WW and hitler itself and how bad it was,nothing more.

 

[LAnkou]

And what most of the people around the world knows about germany is about both WW and hitler itself and how bad it was,nothing more.

Well, there is more that people knows about germany: Audi - BMW - Mercedes...

 

[Zongo]

A Bunch of [put your people's name here] people: This isn't just nationalism, they're all great and awesome leaders and generals.

So true. My country is pretty much the same.

It probably has something to do with the fact that, despite being bad for your health, war is the rage of every century.