We've talked about missing civs, how about missing leaders?

[Zany]

Please propose what leaders you think are missing. Not civs, leaders. Remember, you don't have to suggest what you think are better choices than those included in Civ IV, just those you think are also good choices. Please specify if you do think your choice for a leader is better than what the developers chose.

America - Abraham Lincoln, come on, he was in Civ III. But I do think Washington is a better choice and Roosevelt is okay, but this is an example
of Civ IV trying to be something else, something new, but then it becomes something bad.

Arabia - Abu Bakr! Obvious, but I do think Saladin was a better choice when you only get one leader for this civ.

Aztecs - No clue.

China - Again, no clue, but there must be dozens of good choices.

Egypt - Ramses! Nobody wants Cleopatra in. After all, that does not represent true Ancient Egypt. And was she really a great leader? No, she just famous.

England - How about a King?! Not sure what is the best choice though.

France - They made great choices, because Joan of Ark was not an actual leader of France!

Germany - Also pretty good choices, and they are placed well chronologically. Frederick in the days of Prussia and Bismarck representing true Germany.

Greece - How hard could this be? How about Pericles, he's just the first one who pops into my head.

Inca - No clue, yet again.

India - Good choices, Asoka represents an older India which I wanted since my first game of civilization (which was Civ III) and met Gandhi. Also, did Gandhi actually ever hold any form of Indian public office?

Japan - Another one that should be easy to come up with another leader for, but for some reason I am having trouble think of one with.

Mali - Is there any other known leader besides Mansa Musa?

Mongolia - Perfect choices, no one could replace Genghis and Kublai.

Persia - Xerxes or Darius. Why does this civ, above all others, have only ONE leader?!

Rome - Come on! How about Trajan?

Russia - Pretty good choices, but Stalin would represent another period in Russia's history.

Spain - I know almost nothing about Spanish history. You suggest a proper male leader.

 

[Dismal]

Churchill for England is the one that bugs me most...c'mon! Where is the bulldog!!

 

[Zany]

Good point. I would also like an older king. I wish some civs could have three leaders. That also leads me to say this: BRING BACK CIV TRAITS. How about there is 1 trait given to the civ and 1 assigned to the leader, or maybe 2 but make them slightly weaker. That way a civ isn't just a UU, the civ matters just as much as the leader. And also, the civ traits and leader traits would be completely different: different names and stats.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldn't mind Churchill and Stalin. I've been struggling to think of Lincoln's traits and it wouldn't be a bad argument to say that all he did was fight his own countrymen (his entire term was plagued by the civil war).

Xerxes I'd be against for the same reason you are against Cleopatra, he's only there because he's famous. I can't think of much he accomplished.

For Rome, I'm sure Xen has some good ideas. I think a Republican Roman would be better than a Roman Emperor, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Dismal]

I wouldn't mind Churchill and Stalin. <SNIP>

Stalin is a no no. Due to public relations there is simply no way they could put Stalin in the game. He was a murderous tyrant who murdered massive amouts of his own population.

If you want a Soviet era leader its got to be someone famous enough that everyone/most people will know they are but the person cannot be known for bad things. The only one that comes to mind is Gorbachev.

Just thinking of it from the point of view of public relations.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Gorbachev didn't make that many great accomplishments towards advancing the strength of the Soviet Union.

They did include Ghengis Khan and Kublai Khan and plenty of others I could probably name who did bad stuff, just like Stalin. Plus, wasn't Stalin the Russian leader in Civ1? Civ2 had Lennin, who isn't quite as controversial, but I don't think he accomplished as much as Stalin.

Since I'd rather add leaders to civs that don't have 2, I don't think adding Stalin to the game is a priority, but he is still very significant to Russian history.

 

[Kudos]

I would just like to see them stop with the politically correct crap. Their trying to balance the male/female ratio in subject that is male-dominated, and you end up with "Cleopatra" or "Elizabet I" when there are clearly better choices.

 

[Daniel Jackson]

Churchill they should really have. I'm thinking that for Russia instead of Catherine they should put in Ivan the Terrible or Ivan the Great (Don't have much to choose from as far as Tsar names go ), since they did a lot more for Russia. Preferably the Great than the Terrible though, since the Terrible resulted in years of civil war and internal strife...

 

[Dismal]

Gorbachev didn't make that many great accomplishments towards advancing the strength of the Soviet Union.

They did include Ghengis Khan and Kublai Khan and plenty of others I could probably name who did bad stuff, just like Stalin. Plus, wasn't Stalin the Russian leader in Civ1? Civ2 had Lennin, who isn't quite as controversial, but I don't think he accomplished as much as Stalin.

Since I'd rather add leaders to civs that don't have 2, I don't think adding Stalin to the game is a priority, but he is still very significant to Russian history.

I know he didn’t make any great achievements but at the same time he didn’t murder people or otherwise screw things up. Khan x 2 had power centuries ago and no one really remembers or cares. I’m sure a number of current leaders did naughty things (No examples, I’m not thinking at the moment heh) but it’s not as recent.

 

[spymonkey]

I would have loved to see the other Roosevelt in the game, but I guess I'm just a sucker for the monocle. As for the Chinese, you could add Sun Yat Sen or Chiang Kai-Shek or some such, and Meiji for the Japanese.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Ivan the Terrible would be like having Nero as a leader. Stalin-like killings without the progress.

BTW, Kudos, I think Elizabeth was a very important British leader, regardless of gender (and there aren't that many clearly better British choices, when you consider how much the country flourished under her rule).

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Lincoln-
aggresive, for fighting the civil war
industrious, the industrial revolution was just taking off in 1860s and he made good use of the railroads and mass production.

 

[Daniel Jackson]

Ivan the Terrible would be like having Nero as a leader. Stalin-like killings without the progress.

Except for, of course, establishing relations with Western European powers, taking Tatar strongholds and expanding the empire faster than any other tsar. Though after that he did go more than a little crazy, yes, hence why Ivan the Great would be a better choice.

Honestly I just think all the nations with two leaders should be spaced throughout time better. Not much choice with the Americans, but should the Mongols really have two leaders, especially so close together?

 

[Zertez]

Stalin is probably a big no-no now do to the world-wide popularity of the game. There is still people alive who suffered through his brutal acts in Russia and that could play some part as well. Khan and other leaders commited horrible acts as well but time has passed so it doesnt hit as close to home and no one is alive who personally went through it, that makes a big difference.

 

[Shakes]

I think they should have included Clinton as an American leader. You could have his leaderhead always have a woman's head cropped out on the bottom of the frame. And if you're playing a female leader, he could have all kinds of funny pickup lines.

Dubya would be another good choice. He could have Dick standing behind him pulling puppet strings as he talks. And when you're at war with him and he doesn't want to talk to you, they could show him reading "my pet goat".

Roosevelt and Washington are too boring in comparison.

 

[Shylock]

If you want a Soviet era leader its got to be someone famous enough that everyone/most people will know they are but the person cannot be known for bad things. The only one that comes to mind is Gorbachev.

Kruschev (sp?), Lenin, and Breznev were comparativly clean. Why not them?

 

[Ruffin]

Ditto Pericles for the Greeks. Leonidas or Acibiades would also suffice if you wanted to keep the militaristic character of the Greeks intact.

 

[KabeDerlin]

I would just like to see them stop with the politically correct crap. Their trying to balance the male/female ratio in subject that is male-dominated, and you end up with "Cleopatra" or "Elizabet I" when there are clearly better choices.

Woah. Elizabeth the first was a very good English Queen. In a book I read about the thousand most influencial people of the last mellenium she was number 2. She was a great Queen and deserves a spot in Civ just as much as (IMHO) Alexander

Ditto Pericles for the Greeks. Leonidas or Acibiades would also suffice if you wanted to keep the militaristic character of the Greeks intact.

I think Alexander represents the military aspect of Greece quite well enough. Pericles would've been nice though...

Roosevelt and Washington are too boring in comparison

I'm glad Washington is in it, Was he in Civ 1 or 2? I think it's always been Lincoln... Washington is another one of my heroes. Great guy, very smart, well deserving a place as a leader in Civ. Roosevelt.... Not so confident about...

 

[Truronian]

England: Henry VIII or Richard the Lionhearted, maybe even Margaret Thatcher
Spain: El Cid (wrong on many levels, but if France had Joan of Arc, I don't see why not )
Rome: Hadrian, Octavian ??
Greece: Agemennon (about as Greek as Alexander)
Germany: Frederick Barbarossa
Egypt: Khufu
India: Indira Ghandi (for a change)

 

[Dismal]

Kruschev (sp?), Lenin, and Breznev were comparativly clean. Why not them?

You didnt just mention Lenin and call him clean, did you?
Read up on him (not meant as an insult) and you'll see he had some fun red terror.