Which Current Civs Need New Leaders?

[Veera Anlai]

Ah, your opinion... My opinion... You know what they say about opinions.
But it would be historically accurate, which seems to be what you and a lot of other people want.

 

[Ohwell]

Russia- Peter the Great... Catherine is just fine though
England- Elizabeth is perfect. Definitely NOT Churchill, he may have been a great orator but he wasn't much of a ruler. And plus, Lizzy ruled England at its prime.
France- Charlemenge is good
Germany- Bismarck as well, is also good
Egypt- Ramsses II

 

[Kal-el]

On the subject of leaders and historical awareness:

Why not use this opportunity to educate the civ community. Just because people may recognize one “leader” more than another, does not necessarily equate to the more recognizable individual being a better choice. I see no reason for not using the mods as tools for disseminating historically accurate information.

Since we are the ones making these mods, why not pick the greatest leaders for these new civs. I know we have civers from all over the world on these boards, so why not take this opportunity to educate the rest of us on who you consider was your civ’s greatest leader.
Just because most people might consider a leader obscure, people in the know will know that that “obscure” leader is a better choice than some more “recognizable” leader, and we as a community have our level of awareness raised that much more by including the “obscure” leader. By using the “obscure” leader and including a decent civilopedia entry, that civilization’s history is done real justice and the mod creator doesn’t look like an uneducated country bumpkin.

I know, that I do not know everything about all these new civs that are being proposed, and I would not dare to suggest that I know who should be the leader of most of them. I have some ideas about a few of them, but I defer to those people who are more knowledgeable. I do know, that Joan of Arc was never a Head of State, she lead the French army for a short time, but that does not qualify her to be a leader in Civ3. She could be added in the Great Leaders list, but not the Civ Leader. Likewise, Ghandi is a horrible choice, as far as I am concerned. He lead a peaceful revolution, but he is an inappropriate choice for a game such as Civ3 that involves much more warfare than Ghandi would ever approve of. Having one of the most peaceful people of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

So, for the betterment of the community, I suggest that we not necessarily go with the “obvious” choice, and instead dig a little deeper and provide an educational experience along with a fun gaming experience.

 

[Athelstane]

Well, how about Henry VIII for England.

I think Otto von Bismarck is a great choice. Peter the Great was a good suggestion for Russia. But seriously, Tutankhamon for Egypt? If they hadn`t found his tomb, nobody would have heard of him. He died very young. (Teenager I think). Ramses II is a much better suggestion.

I also think Ghandi is a good choice. Who would you use otherwise?

 

[Kal-el]

For India, I suggest either Asoka or Chandra Gupta I.

 

[Veera Anlai]

Nice speech Kal... But I still say I'd rather play as somebody interesting and that I know about than some Historical nobody. As for educating people, it's a noble cause, but this is a video game, and certainly not a historically accurate one. You might as well protest the game for disseminating false or skewed historical information ^_^

Let's face it, if we play by the history book, the game will be filled with middle-aged white males, with maybe a couple African or Asian guys. Bland, boring, bleech. I'll take some uniquity and diversity over a historically accurate manfest, or a game filled with nobodies, any day.


((By historical nobody, I mean that they aren't in most High School history books.))

 

[Kal-el]

Well, if you are talking about US highschool history books, thats not saying much.

Our secondary education system is in severe need of an overhaul. I think most American's would agree with me on that. The reason you haven't heard of them is simply because they weren't in your history book. Are you telling me that you would like to limit your understanding of history and the world to what you learned in your high school history books? Why?

There is so much more to learn in the world beyond what you can get in those four years in high school. I don't know where you are in your education, but high school is only one step in the process, and an early step at that.

One reason that so many other countries dislike the US so much is our precieved egocentrism. This attitude, that if its not in your high school text book then its not important, only feeds into this perception.

I can only hope that more people are of a similar mindset to mine.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Nice speech Kal... But I still say I'd rather play as somebody interesting and that I know about than some Historical nobody. As for educating people, it's a noble cause, but this is a video game, and certainly not a historically accurate one. You might as well protest the game for disseminating false or skewed historical information ^_^

I agree that Civ3 is lacking in the historical accuracy department, but that is why I am working on a very extensive mod that attempts to remedy much of this.

Let's face it, if we play by the history book, the game will be filled with middle-aged white males, with maybe a couple African or Asian guys. Bland, boring, bleech. I'll take some uniquity and diversity over a historically accurate manfest, or a game filled with nobodies, any day.

Not necessarily. Queen Elizabeth is a great choice for the English and Catherine the Great, while a bit frumpy looking, is a good choice for the Russians as well. My main objection to her is just that she looks so unintimidating. They should have made her younger and hautier. And obviously there would not be middle-age white guys leading the non-white civs.

((By historical nobody, I mean that they aren't in most High School history books.))

Your persistence in calling these people nobodies only demontrates your lack of knowledge and not their actual historical significance.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I'm not saying that I don't want to learn about them; I'm saying I don't want to play as them. The novelty of playing as Joan of Arc is much greater than the novelty of playing as somebody you didn't know existed until you loaded up the game and read the civilopedia. It's just hard to get excited over the prospect of playing as one of twenty or so King Louis, or playing as an obscure Indian with an unpronounceable name.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I know they're important historically. When I say nobodies, I'm meaning that nobody outside of a college history student, professor, or someone who has a rather unusual high school history class would ever have heard of them. Whereas almost everybody has heard of Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, etcetera

 

[Antiochus VII]

There's a catch here on 'historical nobodys'. One persons historical nobody is a fascinating and well documented leader to the next person. Chandragupta is a bit distant, but if you do know about him you might find his accomplishments fascinating. His grandson Asoka (who no American ever hears about of course) is a better example for me personally (he was a buddhist who devoted himself to enlightened administration and good works). Louis XIV the 'Sun King' is a still better example, probably the best documented leader France ever had before the modern press.

It all comes down to personal preference. But I'd take the leader with the most accomplishments - even if I wasn't familiar with him/her personally.

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
I'm not saying that I don't want to learn about them; I'm saying I don't want to play as them. The novelty of playing as Joan of Arc is much greater than the novelty of playing as somebody you didn't know existed until you loaded up the game and read the civilopedia. It's just hard to get excited over the prospect of playing as one of twenty or so King Louis, or playing as an obscure Indian with an unpronounceable name.

Personally I would rather play as someone with real rather than perceived (i.e. Popular) historical significance.

I also don't get very excited over playing as someone of historically little significance, even if they are of the Politically Correct gender.

On the subject of American history books, I think the problem you guys have might start with the fact that there's a World History Class and an American History Class - sheesh, to think there would be two different histories

Exsanguination: I agree 100% with you on the subject of Hitler - I think a lot of Germans would too.

 

[Veera Anlai]

Exsanguination: I agree 100% with you on the subject of Hitler - I think a lot of Germans would too.

Odd how you can be pro-Historical Accuracy and against Political Correctness, yet you still don't want the most powerful, historically meaningful, and most logical leader of Germany in the game. He's far more historically important than some of these people you all have been suggesting.

And if you dare construe that I revere Hitler or agree with his teachings in any way from this post, there be some ear tweaking in your future

 

[Isak]

Odd how you can be pro-Historical Accuracy and against Political Correctness, yet you still don't want the most powerful, historically meaningful, and most logical leader of Germany in the game. He's far more historically important than some of these people you all have been suggesting.

Hitler was not important to the construction of the German country, soul or culture - only the de-construction of the same. Tell me how that makes him a great leader

 

[Kal-el]

How can you say that Hitler is the most powerful and historically meaningful leader in German history? Bismark is by far more historically significant and is someone that the German people can be proud of. Germany had a long and proud history before Hitler pushed himself onto the scene. He fed on that history and destroyed a nation. The people of Germany still feel deep guilt and shame over the atrocities commited by Hitler and his Nazi Regime.

Why include someone in the game who is so reviled by his own people and the majority of the world? In that sense I am definitely for Political Correctness. It would be very un-PC, and I would think would offend a vast majority of the civ community, to have hitler leading the Germans.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I never said he was a great leader. Just the most historically important, well-known, and made the greatest changes in German culture.

I think the big problem here is a difference in how we want to choose our leaders. I prefer variety and interest, and apparently Firaxis does as well. Ya'll want historically accurate ), which I find bland. (Hard to do really, since there is very rarely a clear greatest leader for each civ)

How *does* historically accurate figure in anyways... If we want historically accurate, I think there are more than a few simulators on the market. There just isn't going to be a way to make this game historically accurate, the game is meant to be fun to play, not to teach lessons about History. I thought it was great to see Joan of Arc as a bald new age fanatic, or Cleopatra wearing a sun bonnet. Not historically accurate, but fun. So I'll take my Joan of Arc instead of King Louis the XX.

 

[Kal-el]

I am pretty sure that Hitler did not make the greatest changes in German Culture. Its just that you are more aware of the effect he had on American culture due to the historical proximity of WWII.

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
I never said he was a great leader. Just the most historically important

To whom? The germans?

, well-known

Yes - he did appear on tv, that's right - Bismarck never thought of that

and made the greatest changes in German culture.

Gesundheit! - I can't wait to hear what our german CFC regulars think about this statement

I think the big problem here is a difference in how we want to choose our leaders. I prefer variety [and interest, and apparently Firaxis does as well. Ya'll want historically accurate ), which I find bland.

- Are you saying you find history bland???? - Personally, I find downtrodden clichés and Euro/Ameri-centric biases a lot more bland than historical accuracy - and besides, Firaxis are in the business to sell a game. Modders shouldn't worry to much about selling their mods, unless they want a lawsuit.

(Hard to do really, since there is very rarely a clear greatest leader for each civ)

Sounds like you're starting to pick it up - it's true that this is something that requires a bit of discussion and thought - that is not enough to deter me, and I doubt it would deter you.

How *does* historically accurate figure in anyways... If we want historically accurate, I think there are more than a few simulators on the market. There just isn't going to be a way to make this game historically accurate, the game is meant to be fun to play, not to teach lessons about History.

.. and if you're in for a quick holler, I recommend investing in Monty Python's Complete Waste Of Time.. but seriously, I don't demand historical accuracy from Civilization games - a bit of respect for Historical accuracy is appreciated though.

I thought it was great to see Joan of Arc as a bald new age fanatic, or Cleopatra wearing a sun bonnet. Not historically accurate, but fun.

I thought so too - the first time I saw the pictures - I still laughed more at the Monty Python game, and it's ok, since I didn't really expect Civ3 to be earth-shatteringly fun in the laugh-till-you-drop kind of way.

So I'll take my Joan of Arc instead of King Louis the XX.

And the ultimate irony is, if you knew who Louis XIV was, you could already now begin to imagine the extremely fun leaderhead pics that could be made, and it would definitely bring more than a smile to your face....

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by Isak
And the ultimate irony is, if you knew who Louis XIV was, you could already now begin to imagine the extremely fun leaderhead pics that could be made, and it would definitely bring more than a smile to your face....

Amen!

And amen to Kal-el - HS history textbooks tell us squat about what really happened and who is really important. in fact, they take just the approach you do Veera Anlai, they tend to sugarcoat the facts and stay focused on the "big, famous" leaders.

I prefer historical accuracy as long as it doesn't interfere with morals and values. Hitler was a great leader for Germany, up until 1937. he made Germany the most powerful nation and shut it down with equal efficiency.

I stand by my original proclamation, henceforth known as the Proclamation of the 19th post of thread 30453. And you can hold me fast to it.

 

[Veera Anlai]

Pfah, I'm shutting up now. It's an unwinnable argument for either side, since we're arguing over opinions.

I'll take my Joan of Arc, and you can make your Charlemagne ;-)