What leaders would YOU choose?

What type of leaders would you pick?

  • Deserving leaders only

    Votes: 83 49.1%
  • Mix of deserving and famous leaders

    Votes: 86 50.9%

  • Total voters
    169
Voted for deserving leaders only.

To be honest, I fail to see how some leaders in Civ4 (and Civ3, for that matter) meet that criteria. But as long as the game stays entertaining, it's ok with me.
 
I would go with the deserving Firaxis did. The real question is who is deserving? Constantine and Mohamed...?Homer and Socrates....? Leonidas(spartan king at Thermopylae) and Xerxes....?
 
alexman said:
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.
I checked for "deserving" leaders but would like to emphasize that this - for me - means just "real" leaders, that is, people who really have run the state.

A good example for this would be Bismarck, who wasn't head of the state (that was the King of Prussia, later the German Emperor [note: not Emperor of Germany!] and King of Prussia), but head of the government. Nevertheless, he is the symbol of a certain era and the policy of that era run by the state which he ruled.

The counter-example clearly is Hannibal, who is the most prominent Carthaginan, but never was much involved with leading the Carthaginan state. Therefore, he seems to be an obvious choice, but just gives a strange and wrong feeling.
 
Hannibal is fine, because if he had taken Rome (when he had the chance after Cannae) he could have become the ruler of the Italy. And after the lost war he became "Sofetim" (kind of consul of Carthago), the effectively highest position at this time, and helped his country to recover. Gandhi is fine, because he was the leader of his country on the way to freedom - and his wisdom still influences people all over the world after so many years.

I think whoever had such an influence that she/he positively changed the way of his country for decades or even centuries is a legitimate candidate - ruler or not. (Hitler and Stalin certainly do not belong to this category for me)

from the German forum said:
I vote for Donald Duck!
- the Disney empire destroys the city of Gotham!

- citizens of Duckburg convert to the Marvel company!

- Donald Duck becomes a vassal of Black Pete! :crazyeye:
 
monkspider said:
If we accept some of the undeserving leaders on the list, does this mean will have the Cubans as a Civilization? The South Africans? The Amazons?
I don't know if people who are voting for the second option are really thinking this through.
You have a problem with S.Africa do you?!?I think that Sittting Bull defently needs to be in the game as well as the Mugal Empires Founder.
 
Commander Bello said:
I checked for "deserving" leaders but would like to emphasize that this - for me - means just "real" leaders, that is, people who really have run the state.

A good example for this would be Bismarck, who wasn't head of the state (that was the King of Prussia, later the German Emperor [note: not Emperor of Germany!] and King of Prussia), but head of the government. Nevertheless, he is the symbol of a certain era and the policy of that era run by the state which he ruled.

The counter-example clearly is Hannibal, who is the most prominent Carthaginan, but never was much involved with leading the Carthaginan state. Therefore, he seems to be an obvious choice, but just gives a strange and wrong feeling.

You are wrong about Hannibal.

After his defeat at Zama, Hannibal was the chief administrator of Carthage--in which capacity he proved to be fantastically able. Further, prior to his invasion of Rome, Hannibal was the de facto ruler of the Spanish parts of Carthage with little interference from Rome.
 
MisterBarca said:
You are wrong about Hannibal.

After his defeat at Zama, Hannibal was the chief administrator of Carthage--in which capacity he proved to be fantastically able. Further, prior to his invasion of Rome, Hannibal was the de facto ruler of the Spanish parts of Carthage with little interference from Rome.

Oops. I meant to say "little intereference from Carthage," not "Rome" :blush:
 
I think whoever had such an influence that she/he positively changed the way of his country for decades or even centuries is a legitimate candidate - ruler or not.

Thus Joan of Arc is a suitable candidate.

(Note to Firaxis, make a Joan of Arc leader just so there are more female leaders (that I can stare at :drool:)):mischief:
 
Slavic Sioux said:
You have a problem with S.Africa do you?!?I think that Sittting Bull defently needs to be in the game as well as the Mugal Empires Founder.

I'd still argue that the Iroquois are more deserving than the Souix.
 
CF4L said:
I would go with the deserving Firaxis did. The real question is who is deserving? Constantine and Mohamed...?Homer and Socrates....? Leonidas(spartan king at Thermopylae) and Xerxes....?

Xerxes was hardly deserving. He failed in his invasion of Greece despite having mobilised the greatest army the ancient world had seen. He was unskillful as an administrator and eventually ended up assassinated.
 
They do not necessarily need to be deserving leaders, however they should not be in my opinion (a) mythological (King Arthur, Hyppolyta), (b) not actual leaders (Joan of Arc) or (c) too recent (Reagan).

Also, please choose leaders for civilizations that have at least some claim to civilization status and avoids modern countries. For example, Mandela would make a horrible choice because "South Africa" is hardly a civilization worth mentioning. I would much rather see Ethiopia, Zululand, Mali or Songhai. America is probably the only "new" state that deserves a civilization status. Things like Australia or Canada don't.
 
azzaman333 said:
Thus Joan of Arc is a suitable candidate.
She didn't rule the country. Making her a leader is like making Einstein a leader of Americans. They fit in with the great people, not civilization leaders.
 
Commander Bello said:
The counter-example clearly is Hannibal, who is the most prominent Carthaginan, but never was much involved with leading the Carthaginan state. Therefore, he seems to be an obvious choice, but just gives a strange and wrong feeling.
You are right, however there are not that many actual historical leaders of Carthage that would be recognisable to people, so Hannibal can imo stay.

At the opposite end of this spectrum is Joan of Arc as a leader of France - a country with countless of recognisable, ACTUAL leaders, from Louis XIV to Napoleon to de Gaulle to Philippe Augustus - thus there is no excuse whatsoever for making someone like Joan of Arc a leader of France.
 
taillesskangaru said:
Xerxes was hardly deserving. He failed in his invasion of Greece despite having mobilised the greatest army the ancient world had seen. He was unskillful as an administrator and eventually ended up assassinated.

Agreed. If you want an additional Persian king, Darius I is the right candidate. In fact, he is generally considered the greatest among the Persian monarchs.
 
Martinus said:
She didn't rule the country. Making her a leader is like making Einstein a leader of Americans. They fit in with the great people, not civilization leaders.
I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Martinus said:
You are right, however there are not that many actual historical leaders of Carthage that would be recognisable to people, so Hannibal can imo stay.

At the opposite end of this spectrum is Joan of Arc as a leader of France - a country with countless of recognisable, ACTUAL leaders, from Louis XIV to Napoleon to de Gaulle to Philippe Augustus - thus there is no excuse whatsoever for making someone like Joan of Arc a leader of France.

He's wrong. Hannibal did serve as the administrative head in Carthage after the 2nd Punic War. He also governed the Spanish parts of Carthage--which was really an independent fiefdom unto itself--much like Caesar and his Gaul experience.
 
naterator said:
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.

Amaru was the last ruler of the Incan who lead his people against the Spanish. He's the Montezuma of the Incans, so if Monty is in why not Amaru?
 
Top Bottom