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

[Little Raven]

I'm glad to see they ditched Joan of Arc. Louix XIV isn't a bad choice, but I think Charlemagne would be better.

*sniff* Don't cry, Joan. They just didn't understand you. And we'll....we'll always have Paris....in the springtime!

 

[Urederra]

Yes, all things considered, probably a better choice than Isabella. What about Alfonso X? Most of the work of the Reconquista was fulfilled in his time wasn't it?

Nicknamed the Wise, so you have a philosophical trait that Isabella or Phillip II won't. I think it is bad that they only provided one leader for Rome, Greece, Egypt and Spain, yet, the mongolians have two. And if they think it is because those civilizations only had a golden age so the two leaders would be too close in time and too similarm then, what about Kublai and Genghis? they are grandson and granfather for God's sake!


Maybe they have an expansion in mind.

And every time I look at the history of the Mongol empire over the internet I read that they built the largest empire in world's history. Internet is full of (insert your favourite profanity), the British and the Spanish empires were larger than the Mongol one.

 

[Karnak]

Why do people keep talking about Cleopatra? She isn't in the game, for which I am glad. Hatshepsut is not Cleopatra.

Hatshepsut: b.~1530 BC - d.1482 BC
Cleopatra: b.69 BC - d.30 BC

Almost 1,500 years separate the two.

Furthermore Hatshepsut was one of the best Pharoahs Egypt had. She is one of the few female figureheads in Civ IV that can be seen as being there without any need for PC considerations. Her acheivements make her fully worthy of being there. Just because somebody is a woman does not mean they didn't do things making them worthyof being included in the game.

Now...

They should have done two Egyptian leaders (I suspect that we'll see some existing Civs get additional leaders in expansions). I think that Khufu and Ramses II are the most obvious choices for the second (can we have more than two?) leaderhead for Egypt. No Greeks.


For the Persians I'd say Darius, except that his rule and traits would be so similar in game terms to Cyrus. Given that I'd go with Xerxes.

For Greece I think Pericles would be the way to go after the obvious Alexander.

For Rome I'd rather they hadn't used Julius Caesar (for all those saying Churchill could be used because he wasn't the technical ruler, well, Julius Cesaer never was thechnically ruler either) and had used Augustus Caesar to represent the Empire and Lucius Junius Brutus to represent the Republic.

 

[zeeter]

Ok, I have a solution. Let's everyone just put whatever leader's name they want to into the game. We can also get some bitmaps or something for the pictures during diplomacy. Then everyone is happy.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It was nowhere near the same level as America...All Stalin did was help draw up a super power facade that the real union hid behind. The Soviet Union was trash.

Even so, the appearance of Soviet strength lasted longer than that of Hitler. He also did expand Soviet territory into Poland and the Baltic States, as well as strengthen their influence on the governments of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, etc.

 

[Featauril]

I also miss some good African tribes, the leaders in this game are focussed a lot on Europe and Asia.

It's the first time the Zulu aren't in the game!

People, this nation *actually* killed riflemen with spearmen! It deserves to be in civ only for that reason!

 

[sydhe]

For the civs with only one leader:

Egypt: Rameses II seems obvious, but why not Menes or Ptolemy I or II?

Spain: It's hard to come up with one who isn't close in time to Isabella or is still alive (Juan Carlos I). I'd say Charles II/V

Persia: Since we have one from ancient Persia (and I think Cyrus is a perfect choice), Shapur II to represent Sassanid Persia

Rome: Constantine the Great