Problem with leader choices.

[SalmonSoil]

So in civ 5 there is one leader for each civ. I'm fine with this, but it seems that the leaders were chosen based on recognition, and then to gain a balance of female leaders and avoiding certain taboos (Hitler).
I just think that some of the leaders are not good representatives of their nation.
For example, Alexander. His personality will likely lean towards conquest, whereas Greece has never really been an empire building civilization.

 

[MisterBarca]

Wu Ze Tian = farce.

 

[SirSaab]

Is this just a thinly veiled attempt at starting ANOTHER "why Hitler should be in civ thread?"

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Is this just a thinly veiled attempt at starting ANOTHER "why Hitler should be in civ thread?"

I'd prefer an overt thread that attempted to start a "why Wu Zetian shouldn't be in the game" thread.

 

[Zhahz]

I just think that some of the leaders are not good representatives of their nation.

Ok. That is YOUR opinion. Apparently the people getting paid to select leaders feel differently. You could post this here every week (nevermind, already happens) and get different selections weekly.

I happen to not give a crap since leaders are fluff and don't impact gameplay at all.

Why get all worked up over fluff?

The leaders are a decoration there to give historical feel and there are hundreds they could pick from and all would have equal impact on gameplay. Zero.

No point in getting worked up over civs either - they're just containers for stats in gameplay terms. People pick civs because they like them from history, national pride, they think they're cool - whatever. I pick a civ because it has a good bonus for how I play a game.

 

[Rusty Edge]

They are also trying to offer a variety of playing styles/personalities.

If they chose leaders according to who historians agreed best for each civ, there might not much variety.

If they chose leaders to characterize a particular civ, they might offend an entire market.

Wait for the mods and expansions.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I am concerned that Askia is misrepresented. I read a bio on him and he was more of a administrator and concensus-builder than a conquerer. That honor should go to his predecessor Sonni Ali. Askia built centers of learning and re-established trade routes that had been lost when the Malinese empire collapsed. He created a bureaucracy to help him run the Songhai empire. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca like Mansa Musa before him and was just as generous with his gold. It seemed like his biggest mistake was failing to adopt firearms for his army before his death.

Civ V makes him come off as a renessiance version of Africa's current crop of thug-despots.

 

[bjbrains]

There's obviously different desires (from Firaxis) at work here. They want the most publicly known representatives of civs, because those figures make people feel more comfortable/interested in them. They want a wide variety of leaders beyond a list of the most famous leaders (same with the civs), because they want a fresh-feeling selection of them. This includes historical variety (leaders like Ramkhamhaeng and Askia), the 3 female leaders (Catherine, Wu, and Elizabeth), and the introduction of new leaders for old civs (Harun al-Rashid and Oda Nobunaga).

Doesn't it follow that there will always be leaders who aren't the best candidates based on other criteria? The point is that they are all there for a reason, and trying to judge "worthiness" is never going to produce clear, objective results.

 

[Ahriman]

They aren't really trying to match the bonuses/theme with the specific leader that much.
What they do is pick the Civ, pick UUs and UA that make sense for that civ, and then pick a well-known historic to be the leader.
For example, for France the UUs are Musketeers (17th century) and Foreign Legion (20th century) and the ability is Ancien Regime (pre-revolution), while the leader is Napoleon (post revolution).

 

[Lyoncet]

I am concerned that Askia is misrepresented. I read a bio on him and he was more of a administrator and concensus-builder than a conquerer. That honor should go to his predecessor Sonni Ali. Askia built centers of learning and re-established trade routes that had been lost when the Malinese empire collapsed. He created a bureaucracy to help him run the Songhai empire. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca like Mansa Musa before him and was just as generous with his gold. It seemed like his biggest mistake was failing to adopt firearms for his army before his death.

Civ V makes him come off as a renessiance version of Africa's current crop of thug-despots.

A civ's special ability (and even their UUs) aren't meant to be representative of the chosen leader. It happens that way sometimes (Alexander, aside from the SA name not quite meshing, but close), but doesn't happen at all at others (Bismarck didn't field Landsknechts or Panzers, nor is Furor Teutonicus a facet of Industrial-era Prussia/Germany).

Plus, Mud Pyramid Mosque seems like a pretty good fit for Askia.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

It has been a while since a Hitler thread.....but i do understand what you are saying. With only a single leader per civ, the developers had to choose one facet of each Civilization's history to represent

 

[Dearmad]

Is this just a thinly veiled attempt at starting ANOTHER "why Hitler should be in civ thread?"

That would be YOU who brought that up... talk about a self-fulfilling question.

 

[Calouste]

Is this just a thinly veiled attempt at starting ANOTHER "why Hitler should be in civ thread?"

I prefer to call those "I'm a closet neo-nazi" threads.

 

[MacReady]

There is no Mao, there is no Stalin, so no Hitler is understandable.
But in Civ IV we had those two who were responsible for deaths of more people than Adolf, so he should also be.

I'm glad there are no comunists as leaders.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Closed, like announced.