The inevitable leaders thread

[climat]

Armenia too was the other one I was thinking of. Great history, one of the first Christian nations in the world and plenty of good leaders, both ancient and modern.

What a coincidence!

 

[kivanc]

each gamer could -most rightfully- ask his nation to be in the game. but IMO, civs fulfilling some criterias should be in the game only. just consider how much a state has effected the destiny of earth to judge its appereance in the game. it would increase politics discussions too much, like "that state is in the game so why ours is not?"

shortly, i believe nations of 5mio pop could be represented as a city state in the game. because it would seem weird to me to see a small earth country being a fearsome enemy of china in the game.

 

[kivanc]

I would love to play as Ataturk, so I am fully behind this idea.

turks might be represented with 3leaders.

1) Mustafa Kemal Ataturk representing 20th cent Turkey
2) 1leader from medieval era: probably Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed II) from Ottomans
3) 1leader from an earlier era; attila or teoman of huns or alparslan of seljuks

 

[Jayrad]

America- Washington, Lincon , Kennedy
China- Mao*1,Kulbi Khan
Britain-Elizibeth, Churchill, King Henry VIII
France- Louis- the one who got killed in the revolution,Napoleon, Degaulle
Germany,Fredrick Barbabossa, Charlemagne, Hitler*2
No Native America
Russia- Stalin, Catherine, Peter
Rome Julius Ceaser, Augustus Ceaser, Constantine.
Byzantines-Justinian I, Alexius Commenus.
Egypt Cleopatra, Tutmose III (Hatty's Brother/ Husband)
Spain Isabella, Charles
1*-Mao represents Modern Communist China
2*- Hitler had one of the biggest effects on Germany and all of Europe even though he did Horrible Things.

 

[kivanc]

America- Washington, Lincon , Kennedy

Off. Kennedy a leader in the game? He was popular yes but this is a strategy game.
Then, Sarkozy and Berlusconi should also be in the game with your approach.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sultan II. Abdulhamid.

What, the Red Sultan? Butcher of Armenia? Enemy of the Parliament? Destroyer of the nation?

 

[Pangur Bán]

LOL ... Kennedy. Charismatic? Yes. Died tragically and "prematurely"? Yes. Significant president? Nope. Not even a decent president in his short time. His cult in the US and abroad is a good lesson about the cultural effects of "martyrdom" (compare the legacy of another overrated mediocrity, "Marilyn Monroe"). I can't think of any president in the 20th century I'd put him in front of ... but to even suggest he's even near FDR is just incomprehensible. I'll admit though he is more significant than the rest of his waste of space criminal family of parasite nepotists ... purely by being president though.

 

[kivanc]

What, the Red Sultan? Butcher of Armenia? Enemy of the Parliament? Destroyer of the nation?

i can't really figure out what's that dispute got to do with the game. but as here comes an insult, i have to reply.

i have armenian friends here in Turkey. i mean, there are turkish citizens of armenian origin living in peace, they are a part of the country. still why is there this dispute? because some rich men try to increase their political power with this arguement.
armenian state reminds this dispute all the time but they should know that getting along well with Turkey would bring many benefits for them.

the whole event is about the Van riot. while turks fighted in many different fronts against many countries in world war I, an armenian riot takes place in the province of Van. What a timing and coincidence, isn't it? Doesn't it smell like a war-enemy intelligence service business?

Within all that chaos, both the riot and the war against russia in east front, many citizens fleed out of Van. Some Turks stayed to help the military in means of logistics while some Turks fleed west. And also some armenians fleed south and east.
So most of the armenians moving out of Van left willingly. East anatolia is full of mountains and it was winter. During their displacement, some died. That is the case.

 

[Tee Kay]

the whole event is about the Van riot. while turks fighted in many different fronts against many countries in world war I, an armenian riot takes place in the province of Van. What a timing and coincidence, isn't it? Doesn't it smell like a war-enemy intelligence service business?

Within all that chaos, both the riot and the war against russia in east front, many citizens fleed out of Van. Some Turks stayed to help the military in means of logistics while some Turks fleed west. And also some armenians fleed south and east.
So most of the armenians moving out of Van left willingly. East anatolia is full of mountains and it was winter. During their displacement, some died. That is the case.

I am not talking about that. In 1915 Abdulhamid II had already lost his throne and was under house arrest and played no part in whatever happened. No, I'm talking about his earlier pogroms against the Armenians in 1895.

In any case, Abdulhamid II leadership skills weren't exactly admirable.

 

[kivanc]

I am not talking about that. In 1915 Abdulhamid II had already lost his throne and was under house arrest and played no part in whatever happened. No, I'm talking about his earlier pogroms against the Armenians in 1895.

In any case, Abdulhamid II leadership skills weren't exactly admirable.

Hamidian massacres issue is cloudy. most probably it is an espionage mission of another nation, not Abdulhamid's order.

Anyway, Abdulhamid as a leader could be strange together with his different characteristics. if he would be a leader in civ4, he should be specialized on espionage and lawmaking. However if turks would have 2/3leaders, he shouldn't be 1 of them. about him;

* used to forbid many things
* ruled the empire >30 years in its weakest days so just don't expect any great military success from him
* he was politically quite wise. that helped him to stay in throne such a long time, a success against his internal rivals
* he just used the parliament as he liked and took benefit from it. then found an aliby and banned the parliament when he felt a threat from them.
* he gave much importance to intelligence & espionage
* he is also famous with some of his critical decisions which would take long to tell

 

[LeonardoDFinchy]

I'd like to see more hated leaders included, to rail against or to intrigue the evil cherub in each of us. Hitler is the obvious choice, though he would have to be removed from the German version. Richard Nixon and Margaret Thatcher are a couple modern choices, while Charles I could make for an interesting play, though that might be better suited to a scenario. I'll admit my personal list runs dry here, but I reckon bad leaders should be included with good, so long as the mediocre and impactless remain excluded.

 

[kivanc]

I'd like to see more hated leaders included, to rail against or to intrigue the evil cherub in each of us. Hitler is the obvious choice, though he would have to be removed from the German version. Richard Nixon and Margaret Thatcher are a couple modern choices, while Charles I could make for an interesting play, though that might be better suited to a scenario. I'll admit my personal list runs dry here, but I reckon bad leaders should be included with good, so long as the mediocre and impactless remain excluded.

Margirit?? She is a politician, man. Politicians have no place in this game. This is a war game, not a "democratic" election. Noone would like to pick her as a leader in the game, except a few republican english guys maybe. Even Hitler might be reasonable in the game as this is a war game.. But I can't find any motivation on picking Margie as a leader.

 

[LeonardoDFinchy]

Margirit?? She is a politician, man. Politicians have no place in this game. This is a war game, not a "democratic" election. Noone would like to pick her as a leader in the game, except a few republican english guys maybe. Even Hitler might be reasonable in the game as this is a war game.. But I can't find any motivation on picking Margie as a leader.

Well don't forget Churchill was also a politician, and for the same party, too. Hitler was voted in democratically (though there was a bit of arsing about to do it), as were all the American Presidents. They are all politicians. Why would Maggie (who was Prime Minister for 15 years, longer than Churchill, and longer than Hitler was Chancellor and Fuhrer of Germany, and during which the Falklands war happened, helping her get reelected) be disqualified for any of the reasons you put forward?

Some, english lefties maybe, might like to fight against her. I'd like to give her a good slap myself. She also fits into the 'unattractive female leader' category proposed earlier.

And civ is not a 'war game'. There is war in it (a lot) but it is not a war game.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Thatcher would not be in, at least until when Civ XXI comes around in the year 2051. That's because for all of the game's history, all of the leaders have died before the year 1980. De Gaulle and Mao are the 'youngest' leaders in the game series so far, having died in the late 1970s.

So leaders like Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Blair, and so forth, are all out of the picture for a very long time.

 

[LeonardoDFinchy]

And that's a reason I can understand. Too much chance of litigation or accusations of slander, etc. Just throwing those out there.
I just didn't agree with camarilla's reasoning.

 

[cybrxkhan]

And that's a reason I can understand. Too much chance of litigation or accusations of slander, etc. Just throwing those out there.
I just didn't agree with camarilla's reasoning.

Yeah, exactly, if leaders who are still alive (or only died recently) were put in, that would not be very good for the market.

Like if they put in Reagan for the Americans, liberals are going to go like "WTH! FIRAXIS SUPPORTS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!". And then if they put in Obama for the American civ, conservatives will go "WTH! FIRAXIS SUPPORTS THE DEMOCRATS!"

 

[kivanc]

Well don't forget Churchill was also a politician, and for the same party, too. Hitler was voted in democratically (though there was a bit of arsing about to do it), as were all the American Presidents. They are all politicians. Why would Maggie (who was Prime Minister for 15 years, longer than Churchill, and longer than Hitler was Chancellor and Fuhrer of Germany, and during which the Falklands war happened, helping her get reelected) be disqualified for any of the reasons you put forward?

Some, english lefties maybe, might like to fight against her. I'd like to give her a good slap myself. She also fits into the 'unattractive female leader' category proposed earlier.

And civ is not a 'war game'. There is war in it (a lot) but it is not a war game.

it is really funny to classify one of the old millenium's (1000-2000) greatest leaders as a "politician". Winston CHurchill was far above that, he was a very influential leader and a war-hero. and his rule lasted for many decades.

There is no issue that Margirit can be counted near close to WC.

also, i agree with cyberxhan. living leaders to be IN the game is less-likely to be.

 

[Arakhor]

His rule lasted many decades? Do you actually know about British politics? He was Prime Minister for probably ten years at tops, had spent some 20 years beforehand being utterly scorned by Parliament and was a useless peacetime leader. An influential war leader, certainly, and a great orator and speech writer, but hardly one of the 20th Century's greatest leaders.

 

[kivanc]

i know about ENGLISH politics and ok i might have exaggurated his time of rule i was just surprised to see a comparison of him with Margirit.

but he is, sure, a very influential leader, 10 years or more anyway. he is a symbol.

not every leader is good for both peace and war periods. that cannot be a criteria. everybody says Genghis Khan is great but we don't know how he was doing in peace periods

 

[Arakhor]

No one has ever been Prime Minister of England, so please refrain from using smarmy capitals and showing off your ignorance.