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

[Garand]

I agree that some of the leader choices were strange, and that the developers definitely strode for political correctness over historical significance and balance. On the other hand, some of their choices just make no sense at all. Here's what I think about the civs and their leaders:

Americans - Good choice for an old President and a new one. Personally I think Truman or Teddy Roosevelt might have been a more "all-American" choice for the modern President, but FDR is still a good choice. Overall, I'm pleased.

Arabs - Saladin is a perfect choice for leader of the Arabs.

Aztecs - Can't really say, don't know much about them, but Montezuma is of course their most famous leader.

Chinese - Another good mixture of the old Dynasties and modern China. No complaints.

Egyptians - Hatshepshut seems to be an obscure choice. They probably chose her to keep a token number of female leaders in the game. Ramses II would have been a far better choice for significance though.

English - Victoria or Elizabeth are both good choices, but I gotta agree, where's Churchill?! Seeing his computer-animated cherubic face smoking a big cigar would have been priceless.

French - Another good mixture between Imperial France and the French Monarchy. DeGaulle would have been a good choice if they wanted a modern alternative.

Germans - Bismarck and Frederick are good choices between the old Prussia and the new Germany. They stayed away from controversial choices like Wilhelm II or Hitler, which is good. They're inappropriate for this game.

Greeks - Nobody but Alexander.

Incans - No idea about the Incans, I'll take their word for it.

Indians - I don't know much about old India, but Gandhi is the obvious, wholesome choice for modern India. No complaints.

Japanese - Tokugawa is just fine, though Meiji might have been interesting as well. No complaints, really.

Malinese - Mansa Musa is about the only choice, but I admit I know little about the Malinese.

Mongols - Genghis and Kublai Khan were the obvious choices, also no complaints.

Persians - Xerxes or Darius are by far the more famous leaders, not sure why they weren't chosen... but it's not exactly game-breaking.

Romans - Octavius would have been a better choice I think than Caesar, since he was the first true Roman Emperor and the one who truly brought Rome together as a nation.

Russians - This is touchy. Peter or Catherine by themselves would have been fine choices, but both together just seems too much representation for Imperial Russia. I know a lot of people wouldn't like it, but Lenin would have been a better choice for a modern counterpart. Stalin is of course too controversial, but Lenin is less so and was the driving force behind the early Soviet Union. It's kind of a silly argument saying Lenin would be a poor choice because of his human rights record - Mao is in the game and he's not exactly a saint.

Spain - Isabella is a good choice, though a modern Franco (see my point on Lenin) or perhaps El Cid would have also been fine choices.

I hope in the expansion (which you know there will be) the Byzantines are added back in with Constantine and Theodora as choices. I loved playing the Byzantines!

 

[Slim_Chance]

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.

I see you have the same idea of politics that I do.

 

[Ninja Queen]

Every leader committed great crimes, with the exception of Ghandi, who was cool as far as liberals go.

Civ's like Pirates, it's a cartoonish representation of quite brutal yet romantic parts of history. Suspension of reality is the key to enjoyment.

Thus Stalin would be a great choice as much as Churchill or anyone else. Remember that both have been Time's "Men of the Year", and both committed huge crimes (one a lot more than the other, but still), and I think civ's approach to leaders is the same to Time's - people who have a huge effect on history. It's not an attempt at moralising or politicising, that's up to the audience.

If, however, the people who made it really think any of the leaders are anything but power-crazed murderers then I'd be amazed.

 

[Slim_Chance]

China - There's a famous Empress that I think should be added. Empress Wu I think.

Egypt - Ramses or Seti, or maybe an Old Kingdom one that built a pyramid.

England - Churchill, Pitt, Burke all good oicks

Greece - Pericles definitely a leader in the Athenian democracy, and a real Greek unlike Alexander.

Japan - Meji or Yamamoto for that matter


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

Persia - Xerxes, Darius, or Khusrau his tax reforms lasted until the 20th century in the middle east.

Rome - A republican leader would have been nice

 

[Louis XXIV]

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

Unless they add "egotistical" as a trait, I wouldn't want Alcidbiades. Leonidas isn't a bad choice, but I'm not sure how great a leader was (just that he died at Thermopylae).

England: Henry VIII or Richard the Lionhearted, maybe even Margaret Thatcher

Richard the Lionheart spent most of his reign not actually running England, since he was off fighting wars.

Greece: Agemennon (about as Greek as Alexander)

Was he definately a real person? I'm kind of hesitant to have people who may or may not have existed as leaders.

Egypt: Khufu

For a Creative, Organized leader, he would work well.

 

[Featauril]

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.

Yeah, it's not like Stalin was EVER in the game huh?

*coughciv1cough*

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=328&c=19

Notice how he was much more controversial at the time. I don't think the Soviet Union had even fell then.

 

[TracerBullet]

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.

I agree with you about Cleopatra, but Elizabeth I was a very influential and powerful English monarch. It's been argued that England never would have become a powerful empire if she hadn't become queen.

 

[Urederra]

Phillip the second for Spain, the ruler of the second largest empires of all time.

The phillipines were named after him.

 

[California Love]

Every leader committed great crimes, with the exception of Ghandi, who was cool as far as liberals go.

Civ's like Pirates, it's a cartoonish representation of quite brutal yet romantic parts of history. Suspension of reality is the key to enjoyment.

Thus Stalin would be a great choice as much as Churchill or anyone else. Remember that both have been Time's "Men of the Year", and both committed huge crimes (one a lot more than the other, but still), and I think civ's approach to leaders is the same to Time's - people who have a huge effect on history. It's not an attempt at moralising or politicising, that's up to the audience.

If, however, the people who made it really think any of the leaders are anything but power-crazed murderers then I'd be amazed.

Then, by your aguement, you would have to include Hitler. He was not only a Time's Man of the Year, but had an ever greater effect on history than Stalin. And lets face it, there not going to put Hitler in, so I beleive they shouldnt put Stalin in. And as for Mao...I think its complete crap that hes in when he was also a brutal murderer......it doesnt make any sense to sit out the two other genocidial dictators but to let him play. Personally, I would be for all three of them being in the game but not some in and some out...they all represented differnt and unique, however terrible, times in their nations histories, and maybe if people werent such *ussies they would get over it and realize its just a game. If Civ wants to base their games on history, I suggest they do it without worrying about political correctness or any of that other crap.

 

[Carver]

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.

Dude, I wish ppl like you would stop whining about political correctness just because you don't like the choices. There have been multitudes of female leaders through history.

 

[California Love]

Dude, I wish ppl like you would stop whining about political correctness just because you don't like the choices. There have been multitudes of female leaders through history.

Maybe people like him wouldnt whine about it if people like you didnt use it.
Political Correctness is trash...plain and simple.

 

[ranathari]

I think it was incredibly stupid of Fireaxis to give some civs one leader rather than two. I accept that there may (and most likely are) be good reasons for it, but it would make the game seem a lot more open if each civ had multiple leaders - an impression of freedom, however illusory it may be. There's certainly no excuse on the grounds of lack of suitable leaders, as others have pointed out in this thread.

 

[Carver]

Then, by your aguement, you would have to include Hitler. He was not only a Time's Man of the Year, but had an ever greater effect on history than Stalin. And lets face it, there not going to put Hitler in, so I beleive they shouldnt put Stalin in. And as for Mao...I think its complete crap that hes in when he was also a brutal murderer......it doesnt make any sense to sit out the two other genocidial dictators but to let him play. Personally, I would be for all three of them being in the game but not some in and some out...they all represented differnt and unique, however terrible, times in their nations histories, and maybe if people werent such *ussies they would get over it and realize its just a game. If Civ wants to base their games on history, I suggest they do it without worrying about political correctness or any of that other crap.

Did you even stop to think for 1 second that there may have been some determinant other than "political correctness?" Mao and Stalin accomplished much more than Hitler, and both have been in Civ.

Some of you ppl are so paranoid about pc-ness that you see it everwhere. Maybe they left out Hitler because he did nothing for Germany. Under his rule Germany was physically destroyed and its sovereignty was lost. Hitler made horrible military choices like not building a 4 engine bomber and using the Me-262 as a bomber rather than as a fighter and, oh yeah, invading the Soviet Union in the first place.

 

[California Love]

Did you even stop to think for 1 second that there may have been some determinant other than "political correctness?" Mao and Stalin accomplished much more than Hitler, and both have been in Civ.

Some of you ppl are so paranoid about pc-ness that you see it everwhere. Maybe they left out Hitler because he did nothing for Germany. Under his rule Germany was physically destroyed and its sovereignty was lost. Hitler made horrible military choices like not building a 4 engine bomber and using the Me-262 as a bomber rather than as a fighter and, oh yeah, invading the Soviet Union in the first place.

I dont think Stalin was a good ruler for the USSR, at all. But my point is, they were both VERY historically important.

 

[Little Raven]

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.

Nuts to that.

I'm a guy who programs for a living. As you can imagine, I look at other guys all day long.

Now you would have me staring at more guys all night long? When I could be playing with Catherine or Isabella? Yeesh. Count me out.

I just wish I still had Joan....yeah, the bald thing was off-putting, but she looked so cute in her little fur hat!

 

[California Love]

Nuts to that.

I'm a guy who programs for a living. As you can imagine, I look at other guys all day long.

Now you would have me staring at more guys all night long? When I could be playing with Catherine or Isabella? Yeesh. Count me out.

I just wish I still had Joan....yeah, the bald thing was off-putting, but she looked so cute in her little fur hat!

Dude, you need a woman, (I was gonna insert bad right here but your case is beyond bad) lol

 

[DBear]

Rome: Marcus Aurelius
Greece: Pericles
Russia: Lenin
Japan: Meiji
Spain: Philip II
Egypt: Ramses

 

[Ephor]

America - Andrew Jackson! Give some variety to the Americans, this guy was in no way financial, industrius, or organized (see: spoils system), and almost single-handedly took the office of presidency from second to the congress to the most powerful position in the nation.

Greece - Pericles, though Lycurgus would a good choice for a Spartan alternative (better than Leonidas, IMO). Honestly, I'd rather the Macedonians be their own civ instead of having them tangled up.

One drawback to Pericles, though, Philosophical/Industrius, which would best fit him, is a potentially gamebreaking combo.

Rome - Marcus Aurelius, how can you have philosophical as a leader trait and not include history's only true philosopher-king?

Russia - Lenin, if we're gonna have Mao, why not? Peter and Catherine are both excellent choices though, this is just a case of me wishing for a 3rd leader.

 

[Legionarius]

China - Sun Yat Sen
Rome - Augustus
Egypt - Ramses II

 

[Louis XXIV]

Then, by your aguement, you would have to include Hitler. He was not only a Time's Man of the Year, but had an ever greater effect on history than Stalin. And lets face it, there not going to put Hitler in, so I beleive they shouldnt put Stalin in. And as for Mao...I think its complete crap that hes in when he was also a brutal murderer......it doesnt make any sense to sit out the two other genocidial dictators but to let him play. Personally, I would be for all three of them being in the game but not some in and some out...they all represented differnt and unique, however terrible, times in their nations histories, and maybe if people werent such *ussies they would get over it and realize its just a game. If Civ wants to base their games on history, I suggest they do it without worrying about political correctness or any of that other crap.

IMO, Hitler damaged Germany in the long run, so his efforts that had a negative impact outweighed positive impact. By comparison, Stalin expanding the country and helped industrialize it, putting it on a level similar to the United States.