Possible new leader for each civ

[Zongo]

FOR

Babur for India.
Akbar for Persia.
Harun al Rashid for Arabia.
Gustav II Adolf for the Vikings, if the Scandinavian people are ok with that. Or we could rename the civ "scandinavia", which is far less toothy than the RAGING TERROR OF THE MONK-EATING WOMANIZING VIKINGS, I agree.
One of the Meiji ministers for Japan - not the emperor Meiji, he basically gave the name to somebody's else era.
Oliver Cromwell in place of Churchill for England.
Henry of Navarre in place of De Gaulle for France.
Otto the 1st or Maria Therese of Austria for the Holy Roman Empire.
Constantine for Bysanthium.
Traian for Rome - the apogee of the empire.
Sargon II for the Babilonians.

AGAINST

I second the motion of not making this thread the Adolf thread. We all know that some evil villain are in (it helped being long dead, or siding with the good guys in big wars), but let us not indulge in bad habits, ok?
Besides, if I could pick one, I'd go with the screaming mad topmodel of North Korea. I dig the clothes, I am sucked in by the hairdo. Not even Dr. Evil or the austrian guy (yes, Hitler was austrian) could match that.

Persia is not in Civ Revolutions? Really? One of the most significant countries in the history of the spinning muddy rock? I hope this is not because of today's Dr. Strangeloves.

Suggestions for leaders who belong to countries not currently in the game. It would be smarter to put those suggestions as reasons in the "possible new CIVS" thread. Where I would post rabidly for the Assirians, the Phoenicians, Brasil and Tibet.

North American indians in the game. The globe had plenty of funkier guys. These particular ones happened to be easy-to-kill neighbour of an emerging nation in the imperial age. The reason behind it has either to do with the drunken feeling of easy massacre, or the "we are sorry that you are dead" psycosys.

 

[cybrxkhan]

i wouldn't say war is good. but i wouold say war has victors, and the victors take all the spoils while the rest suffer. but soldiers and civilians from any sides are usually not the victors.

 

[Luso]

i wouldn't say war is good. but i wouold say war has victors, and the victors take all the spoils while the rest suffer. but soldiers and civilians from any sides are usually not the victors.

Because both sides loses so without war is better.

 

[Zongo]

Because both sides loses so without war is better.

War is inherently a force of destruction and consumption. While it is always negative for economies driven by production (as it was the case up to the Industrial Revolution) it may actually be positive for economies driven by consumption, because it stimulates consumption when this is flagging.

The classic example is the 1929 slump: a US financial crash due to massive overinvestment in new technologies, which would have been a success if not for the weakness of the consumer market. It spilled to Europe thanks to US cutting investment positions in the Weimar Republic to recover money, incidentally destroying the german recovery and paving the way to, yes, him again.

The following Great Depression ended only thanks to the Second World War, which greatly helped the US economy in many ways: it pushed production to high levels (replacing the production quota of Europe), it granted new markets (the European colonies were no longer militarly and economically controllable from the Old Continent) and it transformed the international credit situation.
In fact, before the war the US was a net debitor, after the war it was a net creditor: France and Britain bought US weapons and supplies with loans.

As another example, one could also say that the Iraq war greatly benefited US corporations: oil drilling and distribution companies, military contractors, security firms, digital surveillance providers, premium logistic companies. They all were faring badly beforehand: oil was cheap, the US army was downsizing, liberty was still lurching forward and foreing competition was unrestricted by "national security" or "spoil of war" strings.

 

[ChinaCIV]

China: Kang Xi (Qing), Zhu Yuanzhang(Ming), Tang Taizong(Tang) , Liu Che(Han) ,Xuan Yuan(myth)

 

[anglosaxon]

I still think Athelstan should be added - little known, but a real English Warrior-King.

 

[Angst]

@Zongo
Instead of Gustav Adolph, I would add Margaret I.

 

[Zongo]

@Zongo
Instead of Gustav Adolph, I would add Margaret I.

The "Kalmar Union" Queen, right?
I agree, she would be a good choice, too. More ecumenical, less Swedish. She is less known outside Scandinavia though, probably because she was not so keen in "armed tourism" as Gustav Adolph. Pity there are no traits for diplomacy, they would fit in her case. Say, +1 attitude from every civ, +1 happiness from courthouse and jail, +100% speed for building custom houses.

 

[Angst]

yes, Kalmar Union queen... sniff, makes us nationalistic danes all proud

 

[Zongo]

yes, Kalmar Union queen... sniff, makes us nationalistic danes all proud

The funny thing is that, according to Wikipedia, she was formally queen of Sweden and Norway, but not of Denmark.

I find the history of Scandinavia puzzling.

Culturally Norway, Denmark and Sweden are not far apart. I am not negating individualities, I am just comparing to other states born out of more etherogeneous people. Great Britain and Spain for instance, or even France before the francification of Brittany, Languedoc, Alsace.

Moreover, the religious, economic and socio-political structures of Scandinavia remained always relatively close to one another.

Finally, there has never been much mutual hatred. For instance, the new embassies of the three countries in Berlin were built together, close to one another, with a single external wall enveloping them all.

What strikes me is that, so far, no unification process has been successful. There has been plenty of moments in history when being a united country would have benefited Scandinavia. Heck, it would have likely been a world power. Of course the same can be said of Germany and Italy in the Renaissance, but there were there massive obstacles to the unification process (size, foreign meddling, the Pope, the Reformation) not present in the north.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

And there is one more important leader we still haven't mentioned.

BATU KHAN!

He conducted the only successful winter campaign in Russia. But there's more.

WILLIAM THE CONQUERER

He conducted the last successful invasion of England.

Or how about...

BOGDO KHAN

He created the Mongolian nation as we know it today in the early 1900s.

 

[Angst]

The funny thing is that, according to Wikipedia, she was formally queen of Sweden and Norway, but not of Denmark.

I find the history of Scandinavia puzzling.

Culturally Norway, Denmark and Sweden are not far apart. I am not negating individualities, I am just comparing to other states born out of more etherogeneous people. Great Britain and Spain for instance, or even France before the francification of Brittany, Languedoc, Alsace.

Moreover, the religious, economic and socio-political structures of Scandinavia remained always relatively close to one another.

Finally, there has never been much mutual hatred. For instance, the new embassies of the three countries in Berlin were built together, close to one another, with a single external wall enveloping them all.

What strikes me is that, so far, no unification process has been successful. There has been plenty of moments in history when being a united country would have benefited Scandinavia. Heck, it would have likely been a world power. Of course the same can be said of Germany and Italy in the Renaissance, but there were there massive obstacles to the unification process (size, foreign meddling, the Pope, the Reformation) not present in the north.

She wasn't formally the queen of Denmark, instead she placed her wacko son Erik of somthin somthin as a puppet and ruled the nation through that.

And of course Scandinavia could've been a world power. At least the Kalmar Union was 'formally' a regional superpower just as the HRE, only with more influence on it's provinces.

Dang, you Swedes

 

[Antilogic]

FOR

Babur for India.
Akbar for Persia.
Harun al Rashid for Arabia.
Gustav II Adolf for the Vikings, if the Scandinavian people are ok with that. Or we could rename the civ "scandinavia", which is far less toothy than the RAGING TERROR OF THE MONK-EATING WOMANIZING VIKINGS, I agree.
One of the Meiji ministers for Japan - not the emperor Meiji, he basically gave the name to somebody's else era.
Oliver Cromwell in place of Churchill for England.
Henry of Navarre in place of De Gaulle for France.
Otto the 1st or Maria Therese of Austria for the Holy Roman Empire.
Constantine for Bysanthium.
Traian for Rome - the apogee of the empire.
Sargon II for the Babilonians.

AGAINST

I second the motion of not making this thread the Adolf thread. We all know that some evil villain are in (it helped being long dead, or siding with the good guys in big wars), but let us not indulge in bad habits, ok?
Besides, if I could pick one, I'd go with the screaming mad topmodel of North Korea. I dig the clothes, I am sucked in by the hairdo. Not even Dr. Evil or the austrian guy (yes, Hitler was austrian) could match that.

Persia is not in Civ Revolutions? Really? One of the most significant countries in the history of the spinning muddy rock? I hope this is not because of today's Dr. Strangeloves.

Suggestions for leaders who belong to countries not currently in the game. It would be smarter to put those suggestions as reasons in the "possible new CIVS" thread. Where I would post rabidly for the Assirians, the Phoenicians, Brasil and Tibet.

North American indians in the game. The globe had plenty of funkier guys. These particular ones happened to be easy-to-kill neighbour of an emerging nation in the imperial age. The reason behind it has either to do with the drunken feeling of easy massacre, or the "we are sorry that you are dead" psycosys.

Wow, I agree with a number of your posts, including the replacement of WW2 leaders with others. Can we cut Mao and Stalin too? That way, those pro-Hitler posters couldn't say "Well, Mao and Stalin are in! Ha ha!"

I think Otto I fits more for Germany, but I haven't revised my list much since BtS was released. I renamed the HRE Austria in my game, and changed Charlemagne to Charles V.

I haven't looked too much for new Indian, Arab, and Persian leaders. I'm starting to work on those civs now before I post my list.

However, I'd put in Meiji as a figurehead leader, much like Victoria. Instead of having to pick between Gladstone and Disraeli, they instead went with Victoria to represent 19th century England (and, for that matter, the British Empire). However, that's just to avoid the argument of "which oligarch did more"...

 

[aronnax]

WILLIAM THE CONQUERER

He conducted the last successful invasion of England.

.

Wrong buzzer sound...EHHHHHH

The last successful invasion of England was during the Glorious Revoloution

anyway

Give me my Spanish Leader! It would be great to have a Charles V or Phillip II in charge of Spain. Or Ferdinad would do to.

 

[lutzj]

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

That's like saying England should be part of France/Vikings because it was created as we know it today by the Norman Invasion.

 

[Adder]

Charles V - Holy roman empire
Willem III - Netherlands
Tamerlane - Mongolia
Oda Nobunaga - Japan
Franco - Spain
Marcus Aurelius - Rome
Canute the Great - Scandinavia
Arminius - germany

I don't think we should add 4th leaders for civs anyway, perhaps when all have 3

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

You guys are ignoring the poor Aztecs, as they are IMO the civ with the greatest need for a new leader. They've been in every Civ game (not including the expansion packs) and they still have only one choosable leader, whereas the Ottomans, who came in the series with Civ3's first expansion pack, have two choosable leaders.

Spain, China, and Japan come next. I really can't believe the only enlightened Chinese Emperor in Civ4 is a Mongolian leader. And what's so great about Qin Shi Huang? He burnt books. It's not like he created any world wonder in the game.

IMO every leader in Civ1 is now playable!

 

[Antilogic]

I believe Qin Shi Huang worked on the Great Wall, which is a wonder in the game (now).

I'd rather have Moctezuma I instead of II for the Aztec leader. Now, at least, we have a decent Aztec in command who didn't oversee the fall of his civilization. Then, we can talk about additional leaders.

Please, no Franco. Why does everybody leap on the 1930's-1950's leaders whenever they have to think of a new leader? Phillip II oversaw Spain at its finest, but had budget problems of his own...despite that, I would still pick him over Franco.

For Rome, my suggestion was Trajan, but another non-50 BCE to 50 AD range emperor would be nice. There are a lot of good Roman leaders to pick from. Canute isn't a bad choice though. I have to read more about Nobunage before posting an opinion, but for a more modern Japanese leader, the Meiji Revolution springs to mind.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I'd rather have Moctezuma I instead of II for the Aztec leader. Now, at least, we have a decent Aztec in command who didn't oversee the fall of his civilization. Then, we can talk about additional leaders.
QUOTE]

Same here. But Montezuma II has been in every Civ game (even if you don't count the expansion packs).

 

[DrSun]

I give Swein Forkbeard credit for making this list, but I decided to use his list and make some modifications and traits for each leader.

America: Theodore Roosevelt (Imperialsitic, Aggressive)

Arabia: Abu Bakr (Spiritual, Expansive; similar to Civ 3)

China: Li Shimin (Financial, Organized), Sun Yat-Sen (Philosophical, Charismatic)

Egypt: Abdul Gamal Nasser (Protective, Industrious)

England: Duke of Wellington (Philosophical, Financial)

Ethiopia: Haile Selassie I (Spiritual, Philosophical)

France: Joan of Arc (Protective, Spiritual)

Germany: Whilhelm I (Financial, Industrious)

Holy Rome: Frederick Barbarossa (Imperialistic, Organized)

India: Chandragupta Maurya (Financial, Industrious)

Japan: Meiji (Industrious, Imperialistic)

Korea: Kim Il-Sung (Protective, Organized)

Persia: Timur (Aggressive, Financial)

Russia: Vladmir Lenin (Philosophical, Industrious)