Which Current Civs Need New Leaders?

[Kryten]

I've been following this thread with some interest.

Like Kal-el, I too am a lover of history. After all, there is several thosands of years of human history available. And how does one gain access all this knowlege? Simple....read a book.
I for one would much rather read about real historical events and leaders instead of fictitious stories about dragons, elves or starships for example.

Anyway, you have all given me a cunning plan ("Oh no!" groans Exsanguination, "What's he thought up this time!").

Why have just one 'Ruler' for each civ?
There are four civ periods, and the 'Ruler' of each civ changes clothes to fit that age.
Sooooo.....why not have a different FACE in each period?

Example: the English could have:-
Boudicca in the ancient period
Henry in the medieval period (there are 8 to choose from!)
Churchill in the industrial/WW2 period
Thatcher in modern period (NOT a favorite of mine, but very influential)

France could have:-
Vercingetorix in the ancient period
Louis in the medieval period (this time you have some 18 to choose from!)
Napoleon in the industrial period
De Gaulle in the modern period

Last of all, Germany could have:-
Arminius in the ancient period (the victor of Teutoburger Wald)
Frederick Barbarossa in the medieval period (of the Holy Roman Empire)
Hitler in the industrial/WW2 period ("controversial Kryten!")
Chancellor Kohl in the modern period (the first Chancellor of unified Germay in 1990)

About Hitler: Evil man. As was Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and Genghis Khan and the Mongols, and the Spanish Empire (for what they did to the Aztecs plus the Inquisition), and the Aztecs (because of their human sacrifices), and the Romans (for killing people in the arena purely for pleasure), and the Crusaders (for their massacres). and the Assyrians (see Crusaders), or the English (for all their massacres), or the Americans (for what they did to the Native Americans).......
Where do we draw the line?
Either we admit that these people existed or we 'sanatize' history and try to pretend that they never happened.

As for the ruler's name, why not just give then a nice general purpose name in the CivEditor such as 'the leader of the XXXX people'. But their real name could be part of the 'Leader Animation', like this......

 

[Jewell Man]

Hmmm... Lesseee... Hitler vs. Bismarck. Bismarck of Hitler... oh dear oh my. How shall I decide. Well... did Hitler have a Battleship named after him? NOOOOOOOOOO!

But who is this "Mr. Spee" fellow?

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Kryten
I've been following this thread with some interest.

Like Kal-el, I too am a lover of history. After all, there is several thosands of years of human history available. And how does one gain access all this knowlege? Simple....read a book.
I for one would much rather read about real historical events and leaders instead of fictitious stories about dragons, elves or starships for example.

Anyway, you have all given me a cunning plan ("Oh no!" groans Exsanguination, "What's he thought up this time!").

Why have just one 'Ruler' for each civ?
There are four civ periods, and the 'Ruler' of each civ changes clothes to fit that age.
Sooooo.....why not have a different FACE in each period?

Example: the English could have:-
Boudicca in the ancient period
Henry in the medieval period (there are 8 to choose from!)
Churchill in the industrial/WW2 period
Thatcher in modern period (NOT a favorite of mine, but very influential)

France could have:-
Vercingetorix in the ancient period
Louis in the medieval period (this time you have some 18 to choose from!)
Napoleon in the industrial period
De Gaulle in the modern period

Last of all, Germany could have:-
Arminius in the ancient period (the victor of Teutoburger Wald)
Frederick Barbarossa in the medieval period (of the Holy Roman Empire)
Hitler in the industrial/WW2 period ("controversial Kryten!")
Chancellor Kohl in the modern period (the first Chancellor of unified Germay in 1990)

About Hitler: Evil man. As was Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and Genghis Khan and the Mongols, and the Spanish Empire (for what they did to the Aztecs plus the Inquisition), and the Aztecs (because of their human sacrifices), and the Romans (for killing people in the arena purely for pleasure), and the Crusaders (for their massacres). and the Assyrians (see Crusaders), or the English (for all their massacres), or the Americans (for what they did to the Native Americans).......
Where do we draw the line?
Either we admit that these people existed or we 'sanatize' history and try to pretend that they never happened.

As for the ruler's name, why not just give then a nice general purpose name in the CivEditor such as 'the leader of the XXXX people'. But their real name could be part of the 'Leader Animation', like this......

I thought of this a while ago but never posted it (nobody ever responds when I post an idea) so I inevitably agree.

I wish that bismark and hitler existed in different ages. You can only play against 4 different leaders.

 

[Jewell Man]

Originally posted by hzm



I thought of this a while ago but never posted it (nobody ever responds when I post an idea) so I inevitably agree.

I wish that bismark and hitler existed in different ages. You can only play against 4 different leaders.

Whaddya mean? Hitler would make a good stone-age barbarian. At least he acted like one... That leaves you with Bismarck, in all his glory, as the Industrial age leaderhead.

What would be a good leaderhead for industrial age Rome? Mussolini is obvious if you're going for infamy, but I think a more appropriate leader would be Giuseppe Garibaldi... but I suspect perhaps we was just as infamous in his own day.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Kryten
I've been following this thread with some interest.

...

Anyway, you have all given me a cunning plan ("Oh no!" groans Exsanguination, "What's he thought up this time!").

Why have just one 'Ruler' for each civ?
There are four civ periods, and the 'Ruler' of each civ changes clothes to fit that age.
Sooooo.....why not have a different FACE in each period?

...

As for the ruler's name, why not just give then a nice general purpose name in the CivEditor such as 'the leader of the XXXX people'. But their real name could be part of the 'Leader Animation', like this......

This is a great idea. I was trying to figure out how to make it work with the name issue and hadn't thought of your obvious solution.

Here is how I like to split up the eras:
Ancient: 4000BC-1000AD
Middle: 1000AD-1800AD
Industrial: 1800AD-1920AD
Modern: 1920AD-2050AD

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Jewell Man


Whaddya mean? Hitler would make a good stone-age barbarian. At least he acted like one... That leaves you with Bismarck, in all his glory, as the Industrial age leaderhead.

Hmm, something tells me that won't end up giving me the effect I want.

 

[Pangur Bán]

PERSIA - Cyrus the Great, most certainly; in my opinion one of the most important men in history. Greater than Alexander the Great since he created the Persian Empire, and it lasted. Alexander merely took it over, and even then it fell apart after his death. The fact that the mediocre failure Xerxes is there in front of Cyrus is a grand testament to firaxis' poor quality of research.

FRANCE - Napoleon. There's no contest between him and Joan of Arc. Louis XIV and Philip Augustus are also good contenders.

ENGLAND - it's hard to argue that Elizabeth is not a good contender, but personally, when everything else is even, I tend favour people who obtain power through merit rather than inheritance. Thus, I'd prefer someone like Oliver Cromwell. My top choice would be Neville Chamberlain, but only because I'm sick of reading people nominating Winston Churchill. I don't think that someone responsible for so many military and finacial plunders before he took office can be a realistic nomination, especially as he did more than any other man in causing the fall of his nation's empire. Richard the Lionheart, Henry VII, Edward I, Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror are also acceptable contenders.

RUSSIA - Catherine is decent contender, but Peter the Great was a very special ruler, and I think Russia owes much more gratitude to Peter than Catherine. Behind Peter I think I'd put Stalin, Lenin and Catherine on equal footing.

GERMANY - Bismarck's fine, although Frederick II of Prussia, Prince Metternich of Austria and Otto the Great would also be acceptable.

GREECE - Alexander's fame and even his historical importance make him the ideal candidate, but I personally think his father, Phillip II was a greater man. Epaminondas is another good candidate whose lack of fame is thoroughly unjustified.

 

[sealman]

I think that they all are fine in their own ways with the exception of France. Joan was a leader of the french armies, not the leader of the nation. That is like saying General Patton should be the leader of America.

I would prefer Peter in Russia and Ramses II for Egypt but we need our leaders. And as mentioned before, Cleo was not Egyptian and if I recall my Russian History correctly, Catherine was German (someone care to either correct me or support me on this one?)

I would also prefer someone better for China who was there during the 'Golden Age of China' but don't know much about Chinese History to pick one.

Hitler and Stalin would both be bad choices. Both did thrust their nations ahead only to help them detroy themselves (Stalin many decades after his death). Both are not even though of well in thier homelands, oh and Hitler was Austrian not German and Stalin was Georgian not Russian, but that really does not matter, see Cleo and Catherine.

 

[Jewell Man]

Originally posted by sealman


I would also prefer someone better for China who was there during the 'Golden Age of China' but don't know much about Chinese History to pick one.

I don't know if it was their golden age, but how about the first Emperor, Qin Shihuangdi, credited with being the first to unify all of China (or at least what was then considered all of china). I think that's his title rather than his name. Anyway, he's the guy that was buried with all the Terra-Cotta warriors.

Among other things, he is credited with introducing standardized weights and measures across China, standardizing the writing system, and he's also been credited with creating the Great Wall of China, though during his time it wasn't very much like the wall we know today.

There's a great movie revolving around this guy that I highly recommend: "The Emperor and the Assassin". Be prepared to read subtitles though. Even if you don't like the genre, watch it for "Gong Li" - whatta babe.

 

[SaDis†iK]

We're all forgetting one thing...

Austrian and German was one in the same.

Austria was ran by the Habsburg family, they were a German faction that got large enough to the point where they didn't want to join the German Empire with the rest of the German factions.

Austrians are Germans in a sense that they come from the same lineage, speak the same language, and have fought together in both world wars.

It's just a shame that the Austrian cities aren't under Germany in Civ 3... like Wien, for example.

 

[Schizo_Angel]

Hmmm, I think elizabeth is a better choice than churchill for an english civilisation (Don't get me wrong, a great man)

But its not really representative of britain in its 'golden age' shall we say?
Where as caeser was pretty much around at the peak of romes glory (please dont correct me on this, Its bound to be a bit off)
Or cleopatra, or tokugawa.

I think Queen Victoria would be a good choice. Though I am in two minds about this
1) She was the head of the worlds greatest superpower at the time, which shaped and built the modern world
2) She mostly sat on her arse all day. Not the most active of leaders



So should the leaderhead represent the country in its glory, or go by who was the most influential? Perhaps romulus and remus (or some Italien king, depending who founded rome) Should be the most important leaderhead?

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by sealman
I think that they all are fine in their own ways with the exception of France. Joan was a leader of the french armies, not the leader of the nation. That is like saying General Patton should be the leader of America.

I would prefer Peter in Russia and Ramses II for Egypt but we need our leaders. And as mentioned before, Cleo was not Egyptian and if I recall my Russian History correctly, Catherine was German (someone care to either correct me or support me on this one?)

I would also prefer someone better for China who was there during the 'Golden Age of China' but don't know much about Chinese History to pick one.

Hitler and Stalin would both be bad choices. Both did thrust their nations ahead only to help them detroy themselves (Stalin many decades after his death). Both are not even though of well in thier homelands, oh and Hitler was Austrian not German and Stalin was Georgian not Russian, but that really does not matter, see Cleo and Catherine.

I TOTALLY agree about France and I am French. Might be they (Firaxis) were influenced by the recent Luc Besson movie. Jeanne d'Arc as a leader YES, as the Great Leader: NO. And her role was definitely not the same as the one of Bismarck in Germany.
Napoleon is more an International Emperor than a real Great French leader and his memory is still controversial. Louis the XIVth sounds to me the best choice.

About Catherine II for Russians. Since there were so many small states in the German Empire", they were able to provide kings or queens to most European courts. The current English dinasty is Hanovrian for instance so I would not worry too much about Catherine II's German blood.

About China, why not Qin ShiHuangDi since he unified China during his short dinasty thus enabling the Golden Age of the Han. The Chinses still call themselves with that Han name BTW.

About Egypt, as infamous as her love relationships might have been, I think it is a pity to have to choose Cleopatra. She was a Ptolemaic sovereign and that was the last stand of Egypt. Definitely not a Golden Age leader in any case. Hatchepsut for a queen or Ramses II since he is famous. The real Golden Age leader though was Thoutmosis III (right after Hatchepsut) 1480 - 1448 BC. Egypt then stretched from Euphrates to the 4th cataract.

Mongols : why Timoujin when you have Genkis Khan.

I am not convinced by Japan (Meiji / industrial era sounds better to me) or India (but what India before ?) either.

 

[mrtn]

If someone just make a replacement to Mao, I'm happy. Having Mao as a leader is just as bad as having Stalin. Both were deranged murderers.
I agree that Jeanne d'Arc is a strange choice, but it's not as revolting as having Mao.
By the way, she should be called Jeanne, as she's not from Dallas.

 

[gael]

It would be good if you could have different leaders for each era, and assign a government preferance for each of those leaders or eras.
That way when Hiltler and Mussolini come into power there is a chance that facism (created as a mod) would hit the world etc.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

France: Louis XIV
Germany: Friedrich Barbarossa
Persia: Dareios (The Great); why was it Xerxes? I'll never understand.
Egypt: If you want a woman, Hatshepsut; otherwise Ramses; Cleopatra was a Greek chick.
India: Ashoka - it was always annoying getting the sh*t beaten out by Mahatma Gandhi...
China: Just an older one, please no modern Communist leader, that's a shame for the old Chinese culture.

 

[Schizo_Angel]

For all those that are offended by firaxis' choices : they had to pick roughly the most well-known leader for each civ.

Im not saying I agree with the leaderheads though.

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

Originally posted by hzm
Can you honestly say cleopatra was the best choice for the leader of the egyptian civilization?

The best leaders for Egyptians would be Menes (founder of the 1st dynasty)
or Ramesse II look at those acheivements

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Ancient thread but a topic I'd like to discuss...

I think just about all of the leaderheads that came with the game stink. Just about all of them have no real resemblence to the real historical people they are suppose to be. I mean you have 2 crossyed female leaders, one Queen who looks like she's a ghost who just came from the grave to haunt you, a young Julius that looks like a Modern teenager with his hair cut, a dark haired Alexander with equal hair traits to Ceasar (legend is that Alexander had light complectioned hair), and a bunch of others poorely represented. Lincoln seems to be the only good one with a good likeness. All the rest just look like Cartoons.

I much prefer the created leaderheads by the community and I just wish there were some made to replace Isabella and Elizabeth.

If we're talking alternate leaders, I'd like to see George Washington for the Americans, Maybe Augustus/Octavious or Constantine for the Romans. Constantine would also work for the Byzantines. Napolean or Louis for the French, Churhill or George (so I can crush him) for the English, and Tut or Ramsese for Egypt. Russia could have anyone else. Carthage could have Dido. There are so many good alternatives for better leaders. Especially for better LOOKING leaderheads.

Thanks for letting me get that off my shoulders.

 

[odintheking]

Well, first of all, WOW. This was a 4-year-old bump. Just for your information, you would be better off opening a new thread. Alot of those leaderheads you want are already done. I know R8FXT made Dido, and Shiro made Ramses.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

how do people find these really old threads?