Possible new leader for each civ

[Luso]

I mean.... Lisbon was during the reign of D.Dinis,search it in History.

Colombo was Portuguese,he born in a small town called Cuba in the Alentejo,the name he gave to the first land he reach,which was the island Cuba.
Colombo was a "spy" of D.João II to put spain out of the portuguese way to India,in ancient documents D.João II refers Colombo as a "special friend" of Portugal before his arrival in spain.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Egypt: Cleo!!! For me, she is the only one leader that there isn't in Civ 4! And she should be!

Holy Rome Empire (HRE): Barbarrosa! But HRE shouldn't be a civ (my opion Israel should be in here instand)!

Maya: Fire Is Born see NationalGeographic Ago/07

Native America: Hiawatha. I've fun with him in Civ3!

Portugal (my sweet home): Infante D. Henrique (Henry for the freinds); D. Afonso Henriques (the Man who give us the name Portuguese, the 1st ); D. João I; and well he isn't my favoure portuguese leader (quite the opposite) Salazar !

Spain (our sweet hated-loved neighborer ) : Carlos V or Philip II

Well! This is who I add!

 

[Zenon_pt]

Sorry duble post it!

 

[aronnax]

Here, after much thinking, selection, elimation and decision-making, I have picked the best new leaders for each Civilisation except for a few.

America - Teddy Roosevelt
Arabia - Uthman Ibn Affan
Aztec - ?
Babalyonia
Byzantium - Constantine
Carthage - I dunno, Hanno?
Celtia - Uhhh...Asterix?
China - Wu Zeitian (To have more female leaders) otherwise Taizong of Tang
Egypt - Thutmose III
England - William I, the Conqueror
Ethopia Yohannes IV
France - Charles VII, the Victorious
Germany - Amazingly I can't think of anything
Greece - ???
Holy Roman Empire - Maria Theresa (Not too bad as Empress, fills up the female gap too)
Inca - ?????
India - Chandragupta Maurya
Japan - Tomoyoto Hiediyoshi(can't spell)
Khmer - Indravarman I
Korea - Sejong the Great
Mali - Mansa Wali Keita
Mongolia - Odeigan Khan
Neterlands - Maurice of Nassau
Ottoman - Osmali I
Persia - (Ancient) ??? (Savafrid) Abbas I
Portuguese - Afonso I
Rome - Claudius
Russia - Ivan III, the Great
Sumeria
Spain - Charles V
Viking - Canute the Great
Zulu - Nelson Mandela?

 

[GeneralMatt]

England - William I, the Conqueror

Yeah, he would be a good one, though you could argue he was more French/Viking than English.
But he did put in place a lot of institutions (Including supposedly rewarding one of my ancestors for a good performance at Hastings haha..)

 

[Archaelicos]

Egypt - Khufu
England - Richard I
France - Robespierre, Clovis I,
Greece - Archidamus
Native America - Cochise
Celtia - Robert the Bruce
Roman - Publius Scipio

 

[Vrenir]

A lot of good ones have already been mentioned, but here are a few that haven't (or haven't been as often):

England - Edward I (Longshanks)
French - William the Conqueror, Richelieu
Spanish - Franco
Celts - Robert the Bruce
Greeks - Capodistria
Romans - Marcus Aurelius
Germans - Theodoric
Turks - Attaturk
Egyptians - Akenaten
Zulus - Dinuzulu

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I had Edward I right up my mind! But I don't think Akhenaten should be a leader.

 

[aronnax]

A lot of good ones have already been mentioned, but here are a few that haven't (or haven't been as often):

England - Edward I (Longshanks)
French - William the Conqueror, Richelieu Too be fair, he aint French, was never the King of France or Ruler of French people, he just spoke French
Spanish - Franco A dictator? And a modern one too. Sorry we dont need another one
Celts - Robert the Bruce
Greeks - Capodistria
Romans - Marcus Aurelius
Germans - Theodoric
Turks - Attaturk We got Ottomans no Turks Try again
Egyptians - Akenaten
Zulus - Dinuzulu

I had Edward I right up my mind! But I don't think Akhenaten should be a leader.

Agreed. He is best remenbered for making everyone worship him.

 

[Quildavyr]

Atatürk was a general of Ottoman army.If De Gaulle is in the game,then he can be too.

And for Germany:Angela Merkel.She is the first after all

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the focus needs to be on Civs in Vanilla who inexplicably only have one leader, despite two expansions (Spain, Japan, Inca, Aztec, Arabia, Mali). Then more leaders for the one-leader-civs added in Warlords and BtS (Zulus, Vikings, Babylon, HRE etc...)

If every civ has at least two leaders, they could have a coup d'etat random event, whereby an AI Leader is replaced, giving the nation different leader characteristics and perhaps wiping away some old grievances. So, for example:

"There is a coup d'etat underway in Persia. A charismatic young revolutionary, Darius, is fighting the current ruler Cyrus for the throne.

Option 1: This is an outrage! Send finanical aid to the current ruler to quell these renegades: (-300 gold, 75% chance Cyrus win with +2 relationship boost. 25% chance of Darius win with -1 relationship boost).

Option 2: Viva la revolution! Send financial aid to the revolutionaries: (-300 gold, 75% chance Darius win with +2 relationship boost. 25% chance of Cyrus win with -2 relationship boost).

Option 3: This is none of our concern (50:50 chance of win)."

Perfect for ousting that annoying leader next-door.

 

[Antilogic]

Egypt: Cleo!!! For me, she is the only one leader that there isn't in Civ 4! And she should be!

Okay, your other suggestions seem pretty good, but why Cleopatra? Both Hatshepsut and Ramses II are half-decent picks for the Egyptians, but there are several other good pharaohs that were, I don't know, Egyptian. Thutmose and Menes/Narmer (name depends on whether you read the Greek account or others) are both names that have received recognition as good ideas before. Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, descended from a Macedonian general of that name who conquered Egypt. Not to mention she didn't exactly lead Egypt to a Golden Age either, but rather subjugation to Rome.

On the issue of the Turks...we could always just rename the civilization Turks, and understand that it mostly represents the Ottomans. Like how the German civilization is only led by Prussians.

 

[kristopherb]

English- Cromwell, Thatcher

 

[MilesGregarius]

I think the focus needs to be on Civs in Vanilla who inexplicably only have one leader, despite two expansions (Spain, Japan, Inca, Aztec, Arabia, Mali). Then more leaders for the one-leader-civs added in Warlords and BtS (Zulus, Vikings, Babylon, HRE etc...).

Agree wholeheartedly.

If every civ has at least two leaders, they could have a coup d'etat random event, whereby an AI Leader is replaced, giving the nation different leader characteristics and perhaps wiping away some old grievances.

You got my vote. The reverse would be fun, too: after centuries of nurturing close relations with a peaceful, tech-trading neighbor, suddenly his psychotic heir cuts all trade links and starts throwing mega-stacks at your cities.

 

[Frank Dahl]

The point of different leaders for the same civilisation is - to me - to represent the difference in that civilisation over time. Take for instance the Aztec - did their different leaders really differ that much from each other? Didn´t they all like war and religion? Take the mongels - didn´t all leaders more or less like riding horses into strange lands?
As said, a civilisation like Russia has been dominating over time in different ways, and so, different leaders are justified as a choice. But having two leaders, which essentially should have the same traits, doesn't make much sense.

 

[kristopherb]

The point of different leaders for the same civilisation is - to me - to represent the difference in that civilisation over time. Take for instance the Aztec - did their different leaders really differ that much from each other? Didn´t they all like war and religion? Take the mongels - did´t all leaders more or less like riding horses into strange lands?
As said, a civilisation like Russia has been dominating over time in different ways, and so, different leaders are justified as a choice. But having two leaders, which essentially should have the same traits, doesn't make much sense.

You have point then you think of first/ second/third riech.

 

[jkp1187]

Here's my pick:

America: Don't really need a fourth leader (though if i'm going to add one then probably Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson

AAAAAAAAA! NOOO! I HATE Woodrow Wilson!

I don't think that America really needs a fourth leader, but if we must include one, I say either T. Roosevelt or James K. Polk....Aggressive/FInancial for the first, Expansive/Imperialistic for the second.

Similarly, if you must have a fourth English leader, Oliver Cromwell (Spiritual/Aggressive) would be a nice addition.

For the others -- instead of Hindenburg, I suggest that the de facto ruler of Germany during WWI, Erich Ludendorff (Protective/Aggressive), would be a nice wildcard selection. Franco (Spiritual/Protective) in Spain would complete the WW2 club. Sun Yat-Sen (Charismatic/???) is also a very obvious third leader for China.

I would prefer also to see John Ross (a/k/a Kooweskowe), Cherokee leader, as the second Native American leader.

 

[Antilogic]

T. Roosevelt really strikes me as the Charismatic/Imperialistic type...I second your Polk traits. If only there was a "Bombastic" trait for T. Roosevelt, then it would be perfect.

There is no point in having multiple leaders for the same Civ if the traits are the exactly the same as the other leaders...to an extent, it is historical time period representation, but it is also picking the greatest leaders you can find of that culture/people and putting them into the game. You may have a duo like Julius and Augustus, both from a particular time period of Roman history but both considered to be fabulous politicians. And their traits are different, so you do have different gameplay with them. Sometimes, fame plays an important role (ex. Aztec leader), although Firaxis has gotten quite better at excluding popular names that really don't match the civilization or were not that great, or even of the same ethnicity as the people being led (*cough Cleopatra *cough).

@jkp1187: Wow, if the sole criteria for placing leaders in Civ was whether or not you liked the leader, that would be fine. Care to back it up?

I would also suggest you look at something beyond the 20th century for leaders. Hindenburg or Ludendorff would be horrible choices for Germany. King Otto I would be a much better selection to represent Medieval Germany. I would also suggest Barbarossa, but he may fit the HRE better. Franco is not a good choice for Spain--he was just a dictator during WW2. If you could explain why you believe he is so fantastic he deserves a slot in Civ, I'd be willing to consider him. However, from what I can tell, Franco is just another WW2 name that people throw out because the only history they've studied is WW2. For additional Chinese leaders, I have seen the following names listed on this board: Liu Che, Zhao Kuangyin, Tang Taizong, Deng Xiaoping or Wu Zetian. I'll add Sun Yat-Sen to the research group, because I don't recognize the name.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

T. Roosevelt really strikes me as the Charismatic/Imperialistic type...I second your Polk traits. If only there was a "Bombastic" trait for T. Roosevelt, then it would be perfect.

There is no point in having multiple leaders for the same Civ if the traits are the exactly the same as the other leaders...to an extent, it is historical time period representation, but it is also picking the greatest leaders you can find of that culture/people and putting them into the game. You may have a duo like Julius and Augustus, both from a particular time period of Roman history but both considered to be fabulous politicians. And their traits are different, so you do have different gameplay with them. Sometimes, fame plays an important role (ex. Aztec leader), although Firaxis has gotten quite better at excluding popular names that really don't match the civilization or were not that great, or even of the same ethnicity as the people being led (*cough Cleopatra *cough).

@jkp1187: Wow, if the sole criteria for placing leaders in Civ was whether or not you liked the leader, that would be fine. Care to back it up?

I would also suggest you look at something beyond the 20th century for leaders. Hindenburg or Ludendorff would be horrible choices for Germany. King Otto I would be a much better selection to represent Medieval Germany. I would also suggest Barbarossa, but he may fit the HRE better. Franco is not a good choice for Spain--he was just a dictator during WW2. If you could explain why you believe he is so fantastic he deserves a slot in Civ, I'd be willing to consider him. However, from what I can tell, Franco is just another WW2 name that people throw out because the only history they've studied is WW2. For additional Chinese leaders, I have seen the following names listed on this board: Liu Che, Zhao Kuangyin, Tang Taizong, Deng Xiaoping or Wu Zetian. I'll add Sun Yat-Sen to the research group, because I don't recognize the name.

Sun Yat-sen was a leading Chinese revolutionary in the early 1920's and instrumental in overthrowing the Qing. He ruled parts of China for a time, and was succeeded by Jiang upon his death in 1926? of skin cancer, I believe. Both Mao and Jiang claimed to be his true successor for political purposes. Sun himself espoused almost Nazi-like beliefs in race and racial struggle, but was that sort of republican that wanted "democracy" but not quite democracy, if you get my drift...

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

I know this game is made by an american company, but really, we dont need another american leader. there are many civs in the game with a much longer, fuller, richer history than america (no offense intended, but its the truth), like japan and china who would warrant an additional leader way more. why china only has 2 leaders when it is the longest standing civilization EVER (over 5000 years) and is still a major player globally (their economic growth is frightning) is beyond me. (Ozymandias obviously forgot the chinese). off topic, 1 in 5 people globally is chinese. scary sh*t eh?

Spain needs another leader too. Even though i'm portuguese i would not begrudge them another one. but only if portugal got one too...

For Portugal, let me say that Colombus was not a leader, he was a sailor. It's like saying Captain Cook should be an english leader. And Salazar is not a good idea either. just like Franco is not a good idea for Spain.