Where'd My Zulu Go?

[frekk]

People have heard of Zulu. Nobody has heard of Songhai.

There is really no reason to put in Songhai instead of Zulu.

Gee, and I always thought the great thing about civ is that it's educational and gets people interested in aspects of history that they didn't know about. Maybe it's been dumbed-down; I noticed the blurb on each tech and its historical facets doesn't come up when you get the tech in civ4 anymore, you have to go hunting in the civilopedia to find it.

 

[CHEESE!]

Realism is a good argument... to a point.

What if that 18th civ was, say, the Atlantian Empire?

Civ is a historical game. Realism has a place.

This.

 

[CHEESE!]

Shaka, however really was that much of a dick.

Personally, I wouldn't call one of the greatest generals in history, arguably as great as Napoleon or Mehmed, a 'dick'.

Shaka deserves to be in Civilization. The Zulu do not.

 

[Ahriman]

Personally, I wouldn't call one of the greatest generals in history, arguably as great as Napoleon or Mehmed, a 'dick'

Really? Cos he rates up there with Kim Jong Il and Mugabe as worst economic managers in history (forbidding anyone to plant crops, or drink milk, out of grief?).
One can easily have both traits (great general, dickishness) at the same time.

Shaka deserves to be in Civilization. The Zulu do not.

It sounds like they've increased "barbarian" faction cities and importance, maybe there is some way of working successful warlords into that. Heck, maybe that could be a Viking thing if they don't make the cut; I'd love to see barbarians coming in with Longships and raiding parties from the sea.
Another way to encourage a navy.

And Mongol-style invasions. Thats something I miss from early versions of civ; barbarian *hordes*, not just a few random units.

 

[CHEESE!]

Really? Cos he rates up there with Kim Jong Il and Mugabe as worst economic managers in history (forbidding anyone to plant crops, or drink milk, out of grief?).
One can easily have both traits (great general, dickishness) at the same time.

It just seemed rather an undignified and juvenile term to use.

 

[climat]

Gee, and I always thought the great thing about civ is that it's educational and gets people interested in aspects of history that they didn't know about. Maybe it's been dumbed-down; I noticed the blurb on each tech and its historical facets doesn't come up when you get the tech in civ4 anymore, you have to go hunting in the civilopedia to find it.

I completely agree with you

 

[Ahriman]

It just seemed rather an undignified and juvenile term to use.

Well, sure

But rather a lot of history's leaders were rather undignified and juvenile, particularly when it came to a total lack of concern for the well-being of those around them.

But IMO "dickishness" describes a certain personaly aspect that is hard to otherwise encapsulate; a willingness to perform petty cruelties and humiliations (or executions!) on whim, or just because they thought it was funny. And just a certain arbitrariness to decision-making, combined with a lack of empathy. Its one thing to cause deaths because they're your enemies, or for political purposes, its another to do it 'just because'.

Its the kind of thing you see in a lot of petty dictators, or their favored offspring.

 

[mossmonster]

Leader traits are now going to be called flavors. So according to your suggestion there could be a leader who is an "expansionist dickish flavor"?

I don't think so.

How about calling the characteristics "Sadistic" instead? Maybe a -1 happiness with resistance to rebellions, revolutions or cultural flipping?

OP: Don't worry, it sounds like you will be able to easily mod in any leader or civ name you want. For example, if you want to be Kim Jong-il leading Switzerland you can be.