Remind me why Peaceman is leader again?

[whyidie]

I think personally playing civ has taught me about the existence of several leaders I'd never heard of (caveat-I wasn't really a history buff before civ I)

Same here, really liked multiple leaders from prior version (not sure which).

 

[ehecatzin]

There are certain leaders that are a staple of the game, but IMO excluding certain civs just so that they can be in game is not worth it. In this case, keeping Ghandi and excluding The Mughals, or adding Shaka just because he has always been there.

By adding Brazil they got pass the taboo of adding post colonial civs (besides America), hopefuly in Civ VI we can get Vijayanagar, Mughals and if they desperetly need Ghandi so much a modern India civ.

 

[Krajzen]

I would SO MUCH prefer Asoka The Great, builder of empire as powerful as Rome, over Gandhi, pacifist who never had political power :/

Also, India with pacifist Gandhi is extremely boring.

Personally if I would kick out Gandhi and put Asoka here, eliminated Shoshone to get Cahokia. Huns to get Golden Orde and Zulu to get Great Zimbabwe ;p

 

[whyidie]

I would SO MUCH prefer Asoka The Great, builder of empire as powerful as Rome, over Gandhi, pacifist who never had political power :/

Also, India with pacifist Gandhi is extremely boring.

Personally if I would kick out Gandhi and put Asoka here, eliminated Shoshone to get Cahokia. Huns to get Golden Orde and Zulu to get Great Zimbabwe ;p

Gandhi was the original hypercube, he gathered and wielded power in a totally different way and had a huge impact on the affairs of the world. Amazing dude.

Ashoka was something else too and in many ways was way ahead of his time. Would hate to include him at the expense of Gandhi though.

Heck, having Ashoka in could actually serve as the "liberation" of Gandhi and could lead to some very interesting playstyles for him as he isn't the typical conquering civ.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

But Mao doesn't appear in Civ 5 and Montezuma is actually Montezuma I. and not II. as usual.

Well, but it's a shame that civs only have one leader in civ 5.

That's embarassing it shows you I haven't played this game in a while.

Just to say, Gandhi or Napoléon are more populared. People like playing great history persons they know.

Napoleon was left out of Civ 3, France was led by Joan of Arc.

I think personally playing civ has taught me about the existence of several leaders I'd never heard of (caveat-I wasn't really a history buff before civ I)

I got my first Civ game (3) when I was 10, I had no clue who Shaka or the Zulu were, the only people I recognized were Lincoln, Elizabeth I (an advantage of living in both the US and UK), and some ancient ones like Cleopatra. I became interested in history shortly after playing the game.

 

[Arcaian]

I would SO MUCH prefer Asoka The Great, builder of empire as powerful as Rome, over Gandhi, pacifist who never had political power :/

Also, India with pacifist Gandhi is extremely boring.

Personally if I would kick out Gandhi and put Asoka here, eliminated Shoshone to get Cahokia. Huns to get Golden Orde and Zulu to get Great Zimbabwe ;p

After having lived near Great Zimbabwe and written a couple of essays on it during my final year of schooling, I have NO idea why you would want to get rid of the Zulus for Great Zimbabwe.

Yes, it was the largest 'city' in sub-Saharan Africa. But it was more than likely built by the Lemba people (more commonly known, if less politically correct as the Black Jews). The people who built it where then killed/subjugated by another, larger, less advanced tribe and nothing of its like was ever seen again in sub-Saharan Africa. The alternate theory is the larger tribe built it, but they ruled a large area at the time and instead of expanding Great Zimbabwe like you logically would they camped around it in their traditional buildings.

If you included the rulers of Great Zimbabwe, you'd either have to make a civ that had a great technical boost at the start but slower tech rate throughout the game (pretty horrible) or someone who starts with a technical boost but has very weak early game units. Both are interesting ideas I guess, but not worthy of a civilization for them. Great Zimbabwe was not indicative of some large, city building power in sub-Saharan Africa; more likely it was an influence from the Middle East, through the Lemba people.

 

[Syailendra]

yeah remove gandhi and peaceful trait of the indian! Put mahabharata style civ instead! Nepal can take the peaceful kind of civ! (be aware that this reply is written with dextromethrophan effect *cough cough*)

 

[PhroX]

yeah remove gandhi and peaceful trait of the indian! Put mahabharata style civ instead! Nepal can take the peaceful kind of civ! (be aware that this reply is written with dextromethrophan effect *cough cough*)

Why *remove* Ghandi/India? Why not just add another civ?

 

[digrosz]

Yeah we ultimately have the USA as well as various Indian tribes... So why no India with Ghandi as well as the Mugals?

 

[ehecatzin]

Yeah we ultimately have the USA as well as various Indian tribes... So why no India with Ghandi as well as the Mugals?

Main difference being the US is not a blob civ like India is. The thing with India is that in order to add either Vijayanagar or Mughals they have to rework India to make up for it.

This rework of India would sound unlikely before BNW and patches, however we already got another post colonial nation, and got a ravamped Germany (complete with UB), this gives me hope that if there is a third expansion they could rework India and add the Mughals.

 

[Dostayer]

I have to say that the inclusion of the Byzantine Empire with the Ottoman at the same time/the Arabs founding Damascus is much more irritating.
Or the non-inclusion of Israel/Israelites and on the other hand the inclusion of the Celts, or the Huns(They were nothing more than a nomadic tribe who sacked whoever stood before them)!
And TBH I'm kinda glad they left Mao out, he was responsible for a death of 70 million people and a lot of destruction.
Atleast they didn't put the wife of Gahndi in charge of India.


iPhone " Tapatalk

 

[TheLohoped]

I have to say that the inclusion of the Byzantine Empire with the Ottoman at the same time... is much more irritating.

Byzantine Empire: 330 – 1204, 1261 – 1453
Ottoman Empire: 1299–1923

From 1299 to 1453 these two empires existed at the same time. They were comlete opposites in culture from each other with Byzantium being the ancient european christian power suffering from stagnation and Ottomans being the innovative muslim conquerors from the east. They both deserve a place in the game.

And everyone should stop using "Istanbul and Constantinople are the same city" as the only reason to keep Byzantine Empire out of the game. It's just stupid. Not to mention that the Byzantines built the European part of the city and Otomans built the Asian part.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why after 5 straight civ games

This answers your question.

 

[seasnake]

I've long thought that Mughals should be in led by Akbar, with Gandhi more representing the modern India as we think of it today.

Mughals make my short list of 7 civs we still need to fill out the corners of history and the earth, my list goes:

Cherokee -- Led by Sequoyah, on of the greatest Amerindian nations of all time.
Colombia -- Led by Simon Bolivar, representing the Gran Colombia that threw of the Spanish and about half of South America.
Kongo -- Led by Nzinga Mbemba, a kingdom that ruled central Africa for 400 years or so.
Hittites -- Led by Supplilama, a superpower in the ancient world that vied with Egypt and Assyria.
Khazars -- Led by Sabriel, the pax Khazaria was a 200 year dynasty that secured central Asia. Little known fact, the Arabs in Baghdad had four great leaders they considered of equal dignity that together ruled the world superpowers: the Chinese Emperor, The Arab Caliph, the King of the Holy Roman Empire and the Khazar Khagan.
Mughals -- led by Akbar, such an amazing people, amazing buildings like the Taj Mahal and armies with Cannon mounted on Elephants!
Khmer -- led by Jaryavarman, the largest empire of Southeast Asia, builders of Angkor Wat, what's not to like?

 

[Dostayer]

Byzantine Empire: 330 – 1204, 1261 – 1453
Ottoman Empire: 1299–1923

From 1299 to 1453 these two empires existed at the same time. They were comlete opposites in culture from each other with Byzantium being the ancient european christian power suffering from stagnation and Ottomans being the innovative muslim conquerors from the east. They both deserve a place in the game.

And everyone should stop using "Istanbul and Constantinople are the same city" as the only reason to keep Byzantine Empire out of the game. It's just stupid. Not to mention that the Byzantines built the European part of the city and Otomans built the Asian part.

The Byzantines considered themselves as roman, not as a different entity (although it was more Greek than Roman).

But this thing is nothing when comparing to the inclusion of the Holy Roman Empire in my opinion.


iPhone " Tapatalk

 

[Syailendra]

Why *remove* Ghandi/India? Why not just add another civ?

err, mahabharata is indian national epic... Who says that i want to remove india? I want to show that ancient india is a bloody battleground. Bring a warmonger india with a maceman unit in ancient era, that would be a spinoff.
Nepal is on indian subcontinent, well known, and also good to represent a pacifist civ, as india replacement.

 

[TheLohoped]

The Byzantines considered themselves as roman, not as a different entity (although it was more Greek than Roman).

But this thing is nothing when comparing to the inclusion of the Holy Roman Empire in my opinion.

Did Byzantines consider themselves Romans? Yes. Were they actually Romans? Not really. They were the unique mix of Roman, Greek and Eastern cultures. While Rome, Greece, Byzantium and Ottomans controlled the same territories (Balkans and Anatolia) and the last three are real pain to fit on TSL map, all of them had a unique culture which is most important for the choise of civs to include in the game.

And I absolutely agree that the HRE civ in Civ4 was a ridiculous idea.

 

[PhroX]

err, mahabharata is indian national epic... Who says that i want to remove india? I want to show that ancient india is a bloody battleground. Bring a warmonger india with a maceman unit in ancient era, that would be a spinoff.
Nepal is on indian subcontinent, well known, and also good to represent a pacifist civ, as india replacement.

But *India* is a modern concept - it really came out of the British Raj more than anyting else. There were states that ruled large parts of the subcontinent in the past, but it's not like China where there is a reasonably consistent line of different dynasties ruling the same state, it was completely different, often unconnected, empires ruling over some of the same territory.

The people in the Mahabharata weren't Indian - again, this unified nationaility is a new thing - any more than Mughals were, or Mauryan's were, or the people of medieval Vijayanagara were, These were their own states, with their own histories and culture and deserve their own identity in the game, not being amalgamated into a modern identity based purely on the fact that they owned parts of the same territory, particularly given some of the "civilisations" that have made it into the game (*two* Amerind tribes, Polynesia, the Huns....).

 

[Gort]

I think Gandhi is popular as a leader since he has a clear "niche", same as Genghis Khan or Shaka. He's the dude who is significantly less likely to go to war with you, like how Genghis and Shaka are clear warmongers.

 

[Syailendra]

But *India* is a modern concept - it really came out of the British Raj more than anyting else. There were states that ruled large parts of the subcontinent in the past, but it's not like China where there is a reasonably consistent line of different dynasties ruling the same state, it was completely different, often unconnected, empires ruling over some of the same territory.

The people in the Mahabharata weren't Indian - again, this unified nationaility is a new thing - any more than Mughals were, or Mauryan's were, or the people of medieval Vijayanagara were, These were their own states, with their own histories and culture and deserve their own identity in the game, not being amalgamated into a modern identity based purely on the fact that they owned parts of the same territory, particularly given some of the "civilisations" that have made it into the game (*two* Amerind tribes, Polynesia, the Huns....).

but don't you think that a warmonger india is an interesting spinoff? For me it is as interesting as a cultural chinese of early Han. These people have a long written history filled with battle and peace, and sometimes a spinoff is surely needed.
And if the people in mahabharata not indians, who would you called them then? I think that it is ok to call them indians, as they've already did the same thing to the maoris an majapahitans.