Wang Kon: What a bizarre leader choice!

[MisterBarca]

Hmmm. I recall Sejong being a Korean leader in one of Civ games. Maybe my memory fails? I've only played Call to Power (and didn't like it frankly), prior to Civ IV.

I checked, and I stand corrected. Yi Song-gye was the Korean leader in Call to Power. And while not the best choice, Yi is far preferable to Wang. While Yi was an incompetent king, he was a great general before he was king.

 

[Chunky]

You skipped my post.

 

[MisterBarca]

You skipped my post.

Chunky, your post was was a sublime mix of humor and truth I just didn't think I had to respond to every post on the thread

 

[monkspider]

This was an interesting thread. I have long been an advocate of Sejong for Korean leader. Thanks for the good info.

 

[andrewlt]

alexander spoke greek, ruled over greece, its good enough.

as for the korean thing, dont much care.

That makes as much sense as Kublai Khan being China's ruler.

As weird as how the OP explained the choice of Korea's leader, it's not the only weird one. The Zulus are there again and they're a very anachronistic "power".

 

[yavoon]

That makes as much sense as Kublai Khan being China's ruler.

As weird as how the OP explained the choice of Korea's leader, it's not the only weird one. The Zulus are there again and they're a very anachronistic "power".

if kublai's dynasty lasted longer and the mongols already weren't separately such a powerhouse he probably would be a chinese leader.

getting conquered from a neighbor or outsider and being considered ur countries king is absurdly common. look at britain, its practically a procession of foreign invasion.

 

[MisterBarca]

if kublai's dynasty lasted longer and the mongols already weren't separately such a powerhouse he probably would be a chinese leader.

getting conquered from a neighbor or outsider and being considered ur countries king is absurdly common. look at britain, its practically a procession of foreign invasion.

I agree. For instance, Qianlong (another candidate for a Chinese leader more sensible to Mao) is considered one of the greatest Chinese emperors, in spite of the fact that he's not "Han" Chinese and his dynasty is of the Manchu tribe--precisely because the Manchus ruled China for a long time.

 

[Koelle]

Alone the choice of Korea is largely undeserved, so every leader choice is a bizarre choice. Btw, is Wang Kon chinese? Never heard of a Korean (apart from him) with the last name Wang

 

[Louis XXIV]

Found this. Might be interesting.

 

[goom]

Alone the choice of Korea is largely undeserved, so every leader choice is a bizarre choice. Btw, is Wang Kon chinese? Never heard of a Korean (apart from him) with the last name Wang

You're just bitter that Vietnam did not, will not, and never will make it into a Civilization game.

 

[azzaman333]

Possibly, no other Korean leader fitted well with the Civ 4 trait system. Just a thought.

 

[NikNak]

As sad as this sounds, let's all be realistic about this. The main reason for Korea's inclusion in this game and many other games made by western game developers isn't due to any real love of Korea. It's all about satisfying the desires of the very large installed base of PC gamers in Korea and getting their money.

As a person of korean descent, I can say I don't really mind either way. It's nice to see my ancestral country in the game, but I honestly wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if it wasn't included. As for Wang being the leader in Civ IV, I do consider it pretty lame. Oh well. I'm sure there are a few other less-than-optimal leader choices already present among the nations.

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Hey, they choose Alexander the Great for Greece. He's not even the correct nationality.

Catherine II was German by birth as well. *shrug* And Napoleon was a Corsican. Birth nationality really isn't a factor.

 

[Equendil]

Well, corsica was french anyhow, so Napoleon was born french, though maybe not french french.

 

[MISER SVM]

As an Overseas Chinese I support your petition for a more appropriate Korean leader choice (as China is kinda misrepresented in Civ as well).
I also think that Sejong would be the better choice, and as for the modern leaders, I don't think Koreans would like it to be represented by Kim Il-sung Or Syngman Rhee... Are the Korean gamers that much into Turn-based Strategy? I thought they'd prefer Starcraft, MMORPGs and the likes...

BTW: Vietnam MUST be in the next expansion. They are just another historically important Asian nation... And I would also say that the Tibetan, Uyghur (or some other Central Asiatic nation) Khmer, Thai, Mon and Malay People have to be included by Firaxis as well (oh, and Africa has also been grossly misrepresented...).

 

[MisterBarca]

Alone the choice of Korea is largely undeserved, so every leader choice is a bizarre choice. Btw, is Wang Kon chinese? Never heard of a Korean (apart from him) with the last name Wang

Whether Korea itself is deserving as a civilization is not at issue on this thread.

Regarding your question, there are many surnames that the Koreans and the Chinese share. "Lee" would be the most prominent example.

In terms of "Wang," yes, there are Koreans with the last name who cannot trace their lineage to China. In fact, there is a minor controversy regarding perhaps the most popular female actress in Korea regarding her ethnic origin. Her real surname is Wang, and she claims that she is Korean. while some Chinese tabloid claim that she is a descendant of relatively-recent Chinese immigrants.

Nonetheless, Wang is a rare last name in Korea--though it used to be slightly more common. The reason? When Yi Song-gye overthrew the Koryo dynasty founded by Wang, he tried to exterminate all nobles of of the Wang clan. He was relatively successful, though of course not fully so.

 

[MisterBarca]

Found this. Might be interesting.

Thanks, but I'd advise against relying on Wikipedia overmuch. As you probably know, Wikipedia has no quality control, and any troll can insert whatever he wants in there. In fact, entries for many prominent Korean historical figures or incidents have been hijacked by rabid Korean nationalists who go too far.

 

[MisterBarca]

Possibly, no other Korean leader fitted well with the Civ 4 trait system. Just a thought.

Explain yourself a bit?

 

[MisterBarca]

As sad as this sounds, let's all be realistic about this. The main reason for Korea's inclusion in this game and many other games made by western game developers isn't due to any real love of Korea. It's all about satisfying the desires of the very large installed base of PC gamers in Korea and getting their money.

As a person of korean descent, I can say I don't really mind either way. It's nice to see my ancestral country in the game, but I honestly wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if it wasn't included. As for Wang being the leader in Civ IV, I do consider it pretty lame. Oh well. I'm sure there are a few other less-than-optimal leader choices already present among the nations.

I agree. I would've bought and enjoyed Warlords with or without Korea.

But since Korea is in it, I think those who know about its history well should press for at least a minimum level of historical fidelity. Further, while there are indeed "a few other less-than-optimal leader choices already present among the nations," there is none as arbitrary and inexplicable as the choice of Wang.

 

[MisterBarca]

As an Overseas Chinese I support your petition for a more appropriate Korean leader choice (as China is kinda misrepresented in Civ as well).
I also think that Sejong would be the better choice, and as for the modern leaders, I don't think Koreans would like it to be represented by Kim Il-sung Or Syngman Rhee... Are the Korean gamers that much into Turn-based Strategy? I thought they'd prefer Starcraft, MMORPGs and the likes...

BTW: Vietnam MUST be in the next expansion. They are just another historically important Asian nation... And I would also say that the Tibetan, Uyghur (or some other Central Asiatic nation) Khmer, Thai, Mon and Malay People have to be included by Firaxis as well (oh, and Africa has also been grossly misrepresented...).

Sejong would be the "better" choice, but not the "best" choice, if Warlords supposedly built around those leaders who were warmongers. Sejong is a classic "builder" leader. My choice would be either Yon Kae-so-mun or Kwang-gae-to.

Actually, the difficulty names of the better leader choices makes me wonder: Did Firaxis come up with Wang Kon because he's oh so easy to spell and remember?

Given the lack of seriousness with which Firaxis approached Korea, I wouldn't be surprised.