Possible new leader for each civ

[jkp1187]

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.

Antilogic:

The comment was actually there to mock an earlier poster who said something similar. I probably should have added something like this to clear it up, along with a quote from the original poster:

[EDIT: Wait. I guess I already included the smiley. Oh well, not my fault you didn't read the entire thread.... ]

That said, Woodrow Wilson's influence in the 20th century abroad (Versailles Treaty, popularizing the concept that every two-bit ethnic group deserves its own state,) and at home (restrictions on civil liberties/ethnic segregation of the Federal government,) was significant enough that he probably should be a candidate for inclusion. I hope you will note that, in my mind, 'significance' does not equate with good policies or someone I actually thought was a good leader, merely a great one.

Franco was highly influential in modern Spanish history, not just "during WW2" -- he ruled Spain from 1938 until he became old and invalid in the early/mid 1970s. Objectively, his legacy was mixed. Brutal, yes absolutely, but the modern Spanish state would not exist today but for him. Spain was mostly peaceful and, during the 1960s, prosperous during his rule. From our modern vantage point that seems like something that would have happened better under an enlightened liberal regime, but this is not necessarily the case and, in any event, a period of prolonged peace and economic growth is an accomplishment considering the context of previous Spanish history.

For obvious reasons, I shy away from making the comparison (especially because it is used so often with Hitler, who for equally obvious reasons is beyond the pale,) but certainly Franco's rule was not more brutal or bloodthirsty than some of the other leaders represented in this game, and an argument could be made that the Spanish enjoyed more freedoms than peoples under many of his contemporaries in the world did (two of those contemporaries, by the way, are already in the game.)

And, yes, it doesn't hurt that Franco was a WW2-era leader. It would be consistent with the fact that many of the other WW2-era leaders are also included. I'd also make an argument for Ataturk....that is, if the powers that be wouldn't mind renaming the "Ottoman" empire the "Turkish".

If you haven't heard of Sun Yat-Sen, you really need to read about him.

No comments on that other "JKP", James K. Polk?

 

[LtCowprod]

Replace Lincoln with Eisenhower, then its settled. We already got one Roosevelt. Also I find Lincoln to be kind of a sketchy one. Sure he was well known but we might as well have Nixon. Everybody knows Lincoln was the first corrupt Republican! So just add another General in the mix. America is bloodthirsty!

BTW I'm still thinking and maybe Teddy wouldn't be bad. That is... IF we can get him a start like all units receive 500% vs Bear. I hate when those things kill my scouts so I''m good with that one.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Spanish : Franco

YES! Finally, somebody suggests Franco!

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.

5000 years? It's not 3000AD. China proper (For sure) begins with the Zhou 1122BC. The Shang, coming 1600BC, which i'd *might* allow as the beggining of Chinese civilization, if more concret evidence comes up. Shang evidence comes from almost all records from the Zhou, and left little or no evidence behind as a concrete civilization. And, since your going with 5000 years, means your including the Xia, which is almost exclusively by any serious historian taken as a mythical civilization. If you've studied any sort of Chinese civilization, you'll realize that they often reference to a mythical "righteous" past, before their current civilization, being a key concept of Confucianism. The idea that Chinese civilization is a 5000 year old standing civilization that *never* changed, and has always exhisted is just blatant occidental view of the "mythical" Orient. Most historians who seriously want to study East Asian civilization disregard the mystical modern view of the Orient, and look at it with reality and based on concrete facts (as we do with Western history).

 

[Rusty Edge]

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).

Agreed about Teddy.

Also agree that it's pointless to have a different name and face on the same behavior. That's why I think the greatest need for another leader is for Japan to have a leader who represents another era- imperial, corporate post-war, anything but isolationist.

I also think that America doesn't need more leaders. Two are adequate.
Did Spain have a great leader who wasn't religious?

 

[Luso]

Salazar and Franco are similars,but Salazar was smartest than Franco during the WWII

 

[Blaarg]

Celts - Robert the Bruce

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Scots =/= Celts.

 

[Blaarg]

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

Cleo's entire 'reign' she was nothing but a vassel of Rome. There are far better choices for Egpyt.

 

[Blaarg]

I don't know why people keep mentioning Franco for Spain, he did nothing special. There are far better choices for Spain.

 

[Archaelicos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Scots =/= Celts.

I do believe you're incorrect. The Scottish people, geopolitically, culturally, ethnically, are generally considered to be a part of the Celtic heritage, along with the Irish, Manx, Welsh, and Cornish. And that little spear of France, I forget what it's called. Saxony or whatever. No that can't be right. Well check a map.

 

[Uberfrog]

And that little spear of France, I forget what it's called. Saxony or whatever. No that can't be right. Well check a map.

Britanny, you mean...

 

[RedRalph]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Scots =/= Celts.

youre wrong. Celts = most

Irish
Manx
Welsh
Cornish
North-West French

People

 

[Archaelicos]

Britanny, you mean...

Ah yes. That would make sense.

 

[Luso]

Spain dont need a new leader.

 

[Tee Kay]

Most historians who seriously want to study East Asian civilization disregard the mystical modern view of the Orient, and look at it with reality and based on concrete facts (as we do with Western history).

Much of what we know about ancient civilisations in the Middle East (Hebrew, Egypt, Sumer, etc) are stories handed down with no concrete proof. In short, myths. There's a very fine line between myths and facts when ancient history is concerned.

As for the Chinese leaders, yes I agree there should be a third Chinese leader. Qin and Mao, while well-known figures and really strong personalities, are both paranoid, democidal dictators. If a third leader is ever added, then should be Tang Taizong or Han Wu Di, the sort of leaders who led China perhaps 1000 years ahead of West.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

Much of what we know about ancient civilisations in the Middle East (Hebrew, Egypt, Sumer, etc) are stories handed down with no concrete proof. In short, myths. There's a very fine line between myths and facts when ancient history is concerned.

As for the Chinese leaders, yes I agree there should be a third Chinese leader. Qin and Mao, while well-known figures and really strong personalities, are both paranoid, democidal dictators. If a third leader is ever added, then should be Tang Taizong or Han Wu Di, the sort of leaders who led China perhaps 1000 years ahead of West.

thank you!

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

One thing that has always bothered me, is that how come leaders like Mao and Stalin are allowed in the game when millions died under their rule, far more than were ever killed in the holocaust by nazi germany. Is it because they killed their own people and Hitler killed the neighbours? and somehow killing your own is acceptable? anyone follow my logic? Or maybe its because they "won", and therefore history was written by them rather than by the opposing side. who knows. not that i want hitler in the game. far from it. just some random thoughts.

 

[LightSpectra]

Hitler isn't in the game because all Nazi symbols are banned in Germany, and that's a large market Firaxis doesn't want to give up.

 

[Dribble18]

I'd like to see more leaders, lots of leaders. I'm not for doling out leaders for civs if I can't think of any just so every civ has 2. For instance Carthage are fine with Hannibal, Sumeria don't need another leader. Similarly I haven't got a problem with one Civ having loads of leaders, if they are all signifacnt historical figures.

Leaders I'd like to see (in no particular order):

Teddy Roosevelt
Edward I (of England)
Oliver Cromwell
Gustav Adolphus (rename Vikings to Scandanavia)
Maurice of Orange
Henri IV (of France)
Frederick Barbarossa (of The Holy Roman Empire)
Marcus Aurelius
Cardinal Richelieu
Phillip II (Spain)
Charles V (Holy Roman Empire?,large European holdings)

This is a very Euro-centric list. This is because it is what I know. I'm certain Eastern Civs have many suitable candidates who I'd like to see in Civ. I'm not going to list leaders I know nothing/very little about.

One issue though is traits. I think 3 traits is too many and repetition would not be good either. Therefore the solution would be more traits. This has its own problem as thinking of more traits is quite hard, they seem to have the bases covered. However there isn't a military trait, there are several.

So logically more traits could follow a theme such as relegion. A "Fanatic" trait could work (maybe a different name) unsure of effects but more out and out aggressive than spiritual. A reshuffle of traits could make Issabella have both relegious traits. Other areas that could have traits could be espionage (paranoid?, bit negative) or an exploration trait (extra move on scouts + ships maybe other effects, not sure what to call it).

 

[Angst]

Spain dont need a new leader.

... They do. One leader to represent 1400-1800 Great Power? When America (200 years, 100 years Great Power) have 3? Then, Spain need another one.

 

[aronnax]

... They do. One leader to represent 1400-1800 Great Power? When America (200 years, 100 years Great Power) have 3? Then, Spain need another one.

Meh not so great after Philip II, a series of weak kings or any that did anything special. So I suggest something before 1588