Possible new leader for each civ

[Mightion]

Along with Basil II, I think the Byzantine Empire would also be well represented by John II and/or Manuel I Komnenos.

The Byzantine empire was always my favorite in school.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually, I don't feel that Americans are really a civ, they should be a part of English.

But,

Germans : Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm II
Persians : Xerxes
Spanish : Franco
Roman : Nero
Mongolia : Batu Khan
Russia : Ivan IV
Japan : Hirohito

Hmmm these guys are among history's worst tyrants and dictators. I don't think they really represent human civilisation.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Well here's a few of my suggestions

America: Ronald Regan (Financial, Protective) (although perhaps it would be best to keep it like it is, it's rather balanced one Republican, one Democrat and one Unaffiliated)

Germany: Wilhelm II(Aggressive, Imperialistic) (lets just avoid that whole Hitler debate and use the guy from WWI)

Spain: Ferdinand

Portugal: Christopher Columbus (Expansive, Imperialistic)

Barbarians: Manbearpig (aggressive, imperialistic)

Persia: Xerxes (Imperialistic , Expansive)

 

[kakitadairu]

I'd like to see Imam Khomeini for Persia. He was one of the most important leaders of the 20th century and successfully lead the Iranian Revolution.

If the U.S. gets another leader I'd like one that isn't a president. Maybe Malcolm X?

Cheers,

Dai

 

[dragodon64]

Well here's a few of my suggestions

America: Ronald Regan (Financial, Protective) (although perhaps it would be best to keep it like it is, it's rather balanced one Republican, one Democrat and one Unaffiliated)

Germany: Wilhelm II(Aggressive, Imperialistic) (lets just avoid that whole Hitler debate and use the guy from WWI)

Spain: Ferdinand

Portugal: Christopher Columbus (Expansive, Imperialistic)

Barbarians: Manbearpig (aggressive, imperialistic)

Persia: Xerxes (Imperialistic , Expansive)

Columbus?! not even close to being a leader!

Manbearpig? No, stupid it's pigbearman! ROFL

 

[Gre_Magus]

Along with Basil II, I think the Byzantine Empire would also be well represented by John II and/or Manuel I Komnenos.

When I play the byzantines, I always name the leader Johannes II Komnenos and the empire the "Basilea Romaion."

I don't even know Greek, but I love the sound of that!

By the way, even though this has already been discussed, Joan of Arc was never the "leader" of France. Heck her mission was to help the Charles VII establish himself as king, not take over the country!

I'll never forgive CivIII for this...

 

[Bast]

This has to be a joke post. I'm searching its limited words for veins of sarcasm, yet can find disturbingly few. I was quite happy to find that it was indeed a joke after reading further.






I don't have much of a double standard for inclusion of women leaders, and I resent your implications of such. My list for inclusion actually does not include only Elizabeth, which was a pointless and stupid speculation on your part. You may notice that nowhere in my post did I defend Mao's, Stalin's, or De Gaulle's inclusion in the game...I may even think they should be removed in favor of other leaders (and if you pay attention to my other posts in other threads regarding this subject, this would be readily apparent to you). And somebody has to play the Devil's Advocate and argue against, even if he may actually support an inclusion.

I'll unsubscribe if this is how you want to debate. I've already had one bad experience on this board with some clown slandering me, and I'm not going to put up with it any further.

Why you felt the need to take things personally, I don't know. But obviously that post wasn't just to meant to be about you but a general observation. And there are people who thinks it's a good idea to take Elizabeth out of the game. There are.

So there's no need to be sensitive.

 

[Red Adept]

What I'd like to see is being able to click on the name of the leader and be able to change it to whatever you want.

You want to face Monkeybutt of the Persians....go for it.

Of course, you could then link the leaderhead to a static JPG. You'll miss out on the fancy rendering and all that, but it'll make an optimally customized game!

Just as I'd like to be able to not choose a Civ or leader, just pick two traits and two starting techs, be able to mod a building and unit within parameters and make your own Civ to play.

I know we can do mod it to do it, but I'd like to change things on the fly and tailor each game.

 

[MilesGregarius]

America: Ronald Regan (Financial, Protective) (although perhaps it would be best to keep it like it is, it's rather balanced one Republican, one Democrat and one Unaffiliated)

Where are the Whigs?!? I DEMAND Zachary Taylor!

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Where are the Whigs?!? I DEMAND Zachary Taylor!

You're correct this a horrible injustice! ZACHARY TAYLOR, NOW!

And Lincoln was a republican.

 

[Antilogic]

Why you felt the need to take things personally, I don't know. But obviously that post wasn't just to meant to be about you but a general observation. And there are people who thinks it's a good idea to take Elizabeth out of the game. There are.

So there's no need to be sensitive.

For some reason, maybe based on your quote or the ordering of the posts, it looked directed at me, and I interpreted it as such. From the line "why must you always have greater requirements for female leaders" it looked like it was in response to my post specifically. If it wasn't, then I'll offer an apology, and speak no more of it.


On Lincoln: Lincoln was a very different Republican than the Republicans today...ever since the split between T. Roosevelt and Taft, the Republicans lost their status as the liberal party and have become the conservative party. They only share the name, nothing else. In terms of their relative political positions compared to the standards of the day, all the US leaders in the game were quite radical.

I prefer older leaders because they tend to be less "polarizing" leaders than modern ones. My choices for America would probably be Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or T. Roosevelt (pick 2 or 3, names in chronological order because I have no distinct preference for any one over the other).

 

[Luso]

Why many wrote Alfonso instead of Afonso? its Afonso

Possible Leaders :
- King D.Afonso Henriques (first King);
- D.Manuel (king after Joao II, who created a unique architecture and some Portuguese big monuments);
- Salazar (I think everyone knows who was);
- D. Dinis (made Portugal the center of Europe in culture)

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I'd prefer Elvis Presley over Ronald Reagan.

No!!!!

I don't believe he deserves a place in the game. He only died a few years ago.

I also heavily dislike him.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I pretty much stopped reading after that first line. Some Civs definitely don't need any more leaders, some could do with less.

Yep, I SURE AM GLAD you guys are able to decide for every single Civ 4 player in the world on this one. Hate to see somebody in because he's heavily disliked by Mehmed! Mein Gott, what were you thinking? I've got to wonder how many of you would be OK with Clinton, though... Isn't funny how every thread along these lines turns into a bashing of some famous leader, and of course, the inevitable Adolf Hitler crop-ups. Gaius' Law fulfilled once again. Oh well. To each his own.

Any rate... Antilogic nailed it (living up to the reverse of his name, ironically ). Including older leaders is safer because they're less polarizing, and less polarization means fewer people offended, meaning more people will buy the game. As such I would pick Teddy Roosevelt over the other two, though they are both good choices, if for no other reason than because he was planned to be included in the game by Firaxis, but was rejected. Go look in your art files and you will see concept art for T.R.!

 

[Pidesco]

- Salazar (I think everyone knows who was);

You, sir, deserve to be slapped with a large, frozen trout.

 

[GoliathFF8]

- D. Dinis (made Portugal the center of Europe in culture)

I'm pretty sure Portugal was never the center of Europe in culture.

 

[Pidesco]

And you are right, too.

 

[Antilogic]

Any rate... Antilogic nailed it (living up to the reverse of his name, ironically ). Including older leaders is safer because they're less polarizing, and less polarization means fewer people offended, meaning more people will buy the game. As such I would pick Teddy Roosevelt over the other two, though they are both good choices, if for no other reason than because he was planned to be included in the game by Firaxis, but was rejected. Go look in your art files and you will see concept art for T.R.!

I often do that...Antilogic was actually a joke we had running in my high school years ago...the saying went something like "illogical logic is logical in an illogical way" or something else foolish like that. We also had antiphysics (you can push on a rope!), etc. It eventually developed into my screen name.

I also saw TR in the concept art...looked awesome, although he had a full pair of glasses and not a monocle. Looses a little of the humor value, but not much. He went blind in one eye due to his boxing in the White House, right?

If I could, I would replace FDR with TR in the game right now...just because we have too many WW2 leaders. For some reason, many people don't seem to read any history past a century ago. It's a shame too, because there are some real gems that people are missing out on.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

For some reason, maybe based on your quote or the ordering of the posts, it looked directed at me, and I interpreted it as such. From the line "why must you always have greater requirements for female leaders" it looked like it was in response to my post specifically. If it wasn't, then I'll offer an apology, and speak no more of it.


On Lincoln: Lincoln was a very different Republican than the Republicans today...ever since the split between T. Roosevelt and Taft, the Republicans lost their status as the liberal party and have become the conservative party. They only share the name, nothing else. In terms of their relative political positions compared to the standards of the day, all the US leaders in the game were quite radical.

I prefer older leaders because they tend to be less "polarizing" leaders than modern ones. My choices for America would probably be Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or T. Roosevelt (pick 2 or 3, names in chronological order because I have no distinct preference for any one over the other).

Oh, I know I'm right only technically...

 

[Archaelicos]

No!!!!

I don't believe he deserves a place in the game. He only died a few years ago.

I also heavily dislike him.

But Stalin's a fine chap worthy of an honorific!

 

[Tee Kay]

Well here's a few of my suggestions

America: Ronald Regan (Financial, Protective) (although perhaps it would be best to keep it like it is, it's rather balanced one Republican, one Democrat and one Unaffiliated)

Germany: Wilhelm II(Aggressive, Imperialistic) (lets just avoid that whole Hitler debate and use the guy from WWI)

Spain: Ferdinand

Portugal: Christopher Columbus (Expansive, Imperialistic)

Barbarians: Manbearpig (aggressive, imperialistic)

Persia: Xerxes (Imperialistic , Expansive)

Um... Columbus isn't even Portuguese. He's from Genoa, and worked for Spain.