What leaders would YOU choose?

[azzaman333]

But is it really more interesting to have the Cubans, South Africans and Amazons instead of the Babylonians, Mayans, and Byzantines?

No .

 

[Lars_Domus]

Hell no!
(Ten chars)

 

[Murky]

I think civ should only have historically deserving leaders from history.

 

[monkspider]

The main problem with voting for mixed is that you are essentially voting for Cubans, South Africans and Amazons over Babylonians, Mayans, Byzantines, Dutch, Sumerians and others.

Firaxis only has a limited amount of resources and if they include one of these quirky civs, it will come at the cost of one of the more deserving civs that many players are excited to see. In a perfect world, we could have all the major civs and the little quirky civs, but realisticially, it's not possible. I believe that a lot of the people who have voted for Mixed Civs are not fully aware of what they are voting for.

 

[NT_Jedi]

Only leaders which lead actual civilizations and had a serious impact in history should be included. If someone wants to be the leader of a successful or failed rebellion/religion/whatever they can mod the game. The game is called "Civilizations"... not "people from history" .

 

[theimmortal1]

William Wallace would be awesome in Warlords. He would fit the description of many of the traits.

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: Pre-emptive warning - let's keep this thread on topic, and not debates on why a leader is deserving, (in)famous or whatnot. It's about what leaders would you choose.

 

[harryhbarnes]

I want to see a mix but I do not want recent ( as in the last 20 years) leaders. Unless you add a lot of new leaders. I would like to see Siam's king from the 1800's that stoped colinization of his country, King David of Israel, or leaders from countries that do not exist anymore.

 

[IrishDragon]

i think you have to include famous leaders aswell

 

[MisterBarca]

Question: If you were put in charge of picking the leaders to be included in a future Civilization game, would you pick purely historic figures that "deserve" to be in the game, or would you pick a mix of historic figures AND other famous leaders, even if those leaders were not really in charge of an empire in real history?

Examples of deserving leaders: All leaders currently in Civ4, Gilgamesh of Sumeria, Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire, Pacal the Great of the Maya, Willem van Oranje of the Netherlands, Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire, Hammurabi of Babylon, Zara Yakob of Ethiopia, John II of Portugal, Suryavarman II of Khmer, Darius of Persia, Pericles of Greece, Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottomans, Tuthmosis III of Egypt, Harun al-Rashid of Arabia, Abraham Lincoln of the Americans, Alara of Nubia.

Examples of famous but not necessarily deserving leaders: Joan of Arc of France, Sitting Bull of the Sioux, Geronimo of the Apache, William Wallace of Scotland, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Queen Hippolyte of the Amazons, King Arthur.

Edit: To put it another way: would you choose an obscure but deserving leader (e.g. Zara Yakob of Ethiopia) over someone famous who was not really a leader of an empire (e.g William Wallace of Scotland)?

Alexman,

With all due respect, your question is terribly worded and at best imprecise.

What precisely is the ddistinction between "deserving" and "undeserving"?

At one point, it seems like the distinction chiefly consists of whether an individual was an actual "leader" of a nation or not. Hence, your example of Joan of Arc in the "undeserving" group.

But then you muddle the question by including actual "leaders" in the "undeserving" group as well: e.g. Reagan and Clinton.

So now is the distinction between those leaders who were famous v. "infamous" or whom many do not approve? Even then grouping Reagan among the "undeserving" sounds arbitrary, as he is quite popular and historians will likely rate him generously in the future.

There are other muddles in your distinction too. How does Gilgamesh and King Arthur belong on separate "deserving" v. "undeserving" groups? They were both mythical leaders!

Again, you should re-write your original post.

 

[Dale]

And deserving hits the lead again.

 

[alexman]

What precisely is the ddistinction between "deserving" and "undeserving"?

That answer is different for each one of us. The examples of deserving leaders above were according to my own criteria.

However, the question was not about specific leaders, but about the general principle of whether or not the game should include some leaders based purely on name recognition.

 

[shortguy]

I disagree about the inclusion of Pericles, for a few reasons:

1. He was a divisive figure. It would seem a little silly for him to be founding a city called Sparta, wouldn't it?

2. He was a very popular political leader, but he was nothing special as a general, and warfare was of paramount importance to the Greeks.

Certainly, he's not a bad choice, but I think someone like Cimon would be better. As a pro-Spartan Athenian, he bridges the gap somewhat, and he very skillfully led the pan-Hellenic crusade against the Persians after Salamis.

On the matter of name recognition vs. merit, I think it's a tough decision. One thing I think that's worth noting, though, is that the civilizations are more important than the leaders. Thus, a magnificent leader from a so-so civ shouldn't be included.

 

[King Flevance]

The main problem with voting for mixed is that you are essentially voting for Cubans, South Africans and Amazons over Babylonians, Mayans, Byzantines, Dutch, Sumerians and others.

Not really, mixed is voting for mixed leaders. Not mixed civs. I doubt Firaxis picks the leaders then the civs based off that. Rather they pick the civ then the leader. Like they would say "I want America in, who should we have be the leaders?" This is where I would like to se a good mix.

The creators claim that this is a "what if" game. So "what if" Ben Franklin had ran for election and won?

does anyone else miss abe likcoln from civ III

I do. He was also in 1 and 2. This is the first civ to not have Lincoln in it.

 

[MisterBarca]

I disagree about the inclusion of Pericles, for a few reasons:

1. He was a divisive figure. It would seem a little silly for him to be founding a city called Sparta, wouldn't it?

2. He was a very popular political leader, but he was nothing special as a general, and warfare was of paramount importance to the Greeks.

Certainly, he's not a bad choice, but I think someone like Cimon would be better. As a pro-Spartan Athenian, he bridges the gap somewhat, and he very skillfully led the pan-Hellenic crusade against the Persians after Salamis.

On the matter of name recognition vs. merit, I think it's a tough decision. One thing I think that's worth noting, though, is that the civilizations are more important than the leaders. Thus, a magnificent leader from a so-so civ shouldn't be included.

How about Epaminondas? He was both a master politician and battlefield strategiest. I disagree with your opinion regarding the relative merits of Pericles v. Cimon, but I think I've blown my load for the day regarding the ridiculous Wang Kon pick

 

[naterator]

6. Tupac Amaru (not the rapper)

no offense, but i think you are voting for the rapper. the rapper was sick, the ruler did little besides get his head chopped off by the spainiards.

 

[shortguy]

Epaminondas would be an excellent choice.

Maybe I'm being unfair to Pericles. I mention this, though, because I feel like Pericles falls as much in the category of famous as he does deserving. When someone thinks Greek leader, he thinks, "Alexander." When someone else (inevitably) complains that Alexander isn't "Greek" enough, they say, "Well, okay then. Pericles." Pericles is the second knee-jerk leader for the Greeks, when others arguably were better. It's a balance, I guess.

Though, reading your post on Wang Kon, I suspect Pericles wouldn't be the worst choice one could make.

 

[Louis XXIV]

no offense, but i think you are voting for the rapper. the rapper was sick, the ruler did little besides get his head chopped off by the spainiards.

I'd vote for Tupac Shakur to be a leader

 

[Dudj]

i have vote for "Deserving leaders only" but a pice of famus will be ok, but pleace give the babylon a place

 

[andrewlt]

I think Solon could be a good ruler of Greece. It could also be some Spartan and maybe even Theban leader. It doesn't necessarily have to be Athenian.