Which leader shouldn't be in, in favor for a Japanese and Spanish one?

[TheLastOne36]

You people take everything seriously until you see the 'lol', don't you

Isn't that what's it's for?

 

[aelf]

I chose De Gaulle and Lincoln

Why? first of all they are third leaders. unesscary

Churchill and Stalin are third leaders.

Second, I can think of better leaders fors France

It's "for", comrade.

Third, I dont like De Gaulle and I personally dislike America being a civilization

I dislike the idea of a second Japanese leader and I don't think there's a big case for a second Spanish leader either. I also dislike jam and hammies. Next!

 

[aronnax]

Churchill and Stalin are third leaders.



It's "for", comrade.



I dislike the idea of a second Japanese leader and I don't think there's a big case for a second Spanish leader either. I also dislike jam and hammies. Next!

Ah, I miss this.

I know Churchill and Stalin are third leaders. I just think every civ should have 2 leaders first before we add new third leaders

Next, you make mistakes when you type. Stop being such a grammer police.

The last bit was unneccesary.
I want another Jap and Spanish leader is because I dont wan't to play agaisnt a isolanist and a religious fanatic every time i play with Spain and Japan

 

[aelf]

I know Churchill and Stalin are third leaders. I just think every civ should have 2 leaders first before we add new third leaders

So you should vote them too.

Next, you make mistakes when you type. Stop being such a grammer police.

Well, I've seen you make like a bazillion mistakes.

The last bit was unneccesary.
I want another Jap and Spanish leader is because I dont wan't to play agaisnt a isolanist and a religious fanatic every time i play with Spain and Japan

My point is, so what if you dislike them? It's not going to change anything. Furthermore, somebody can dislike the very opposite things, so the developers can't please everyone.

 

[aronnax]

I would vote for them, but you realise they dont have options I can click

Plus I think they are much better rulers than Lincoln and De Gaulle. (Okay maybe not Stalin)

Hey, I am just voicing my opionion in a disscusion page called a forum!
If everyone followed your "point" this page will be so dead.

 

[aelf]

I would vote for them, but you realise they dont have options I can click

How about an honourable mention, eh? If you're going to give an argument like that one, you should explore such implications, else people are just going to point out the gaping hole in your reasoning.

Plus I think they are much better rulers than Lincoln and De Gaulle. (Okay maybe not Stalin)

What makes you say so? Is it based on any fact? Churchill was kicked out office when the war was ending, and he made many horrible mistakes when it came to the colonies. for Stalin.

Hey, I am just voicing my opionion in a disscusion page called a forum!
If everyone followed your "point" this page will be so dead.

Well, you better back your opinions up. This is Civfanatics forum, not Gamefaqs or something.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, you better back your opinions up. This is Civfanatics forum, not Gamefaqs or something.

QFT- you have as much right as anyone to voice an opinion, but that doesn't mean that we're not allowed to debate the points you make. If you want to prevent that happening, you can either construct a bullet-proof argument in defence of your case or you can leave. Simple as that.

 

[aronnax]

How about an honourable mention, eh? If you're going to give an argument like that one, you should explore such implications, else people are just going to point out the gaping hole in your reasoning.



What makes you say so? Is it based on any fact? Churchill was kicked out office when the war was ending, and he made many horrible mistakes when it came to the colonies. for Stalin.



Well, you better back your opinions up. This is Civfanatics forum, not Gamefaqs or something.

Alright then, if you want it that way.

I would have rather chosen Churchill then De Gaulle. But I would rather pick some other leader like Charles V, Akbar or Louis the Victorius. And dont treat me like a four year old, I know the things Churchill did, good and bad. Okay I want another Spanish or Japanese Leader is because, as I mentioned I dont like playing agaisnt religious psychos and isolanist but I wanna play agaisnt Spain and Japan. I mean think about, everytime that state pops up you know you are most likely not gonna be friends with it. I could kill off the two using custom game or use random personalities, I know. However, I prefer having locked personalities because its quite fun to know how each character reacts and how to play with it. But Isabella and Ieasuysu is just too extreme. Sometimes I play a world map or a europe map or some fixed scenario but I wont be able to give them a miss. Lastly, I still stand by the believe that all Civs should have two leaders first before we add third leaders. Spain and Japan, two of the most powerful empires ever, have been given miss in two expansion packs! I mean Celtia has two leaders! CELTIA!!! Which I hardly consider to be an Empire. And they just add De Gaulle and Lincoln. One which I think did nothing special (There were plenty of resistance leaders in time, this one is not any special) and the other was pretty okay. I admire Lincoln, but we already have two great American Leaders and we can stop at them.

BTW, nobody gave them an honorable mention, why should I?

Yeah, Stalin should be given the boot... ...

 

[aronnax]

Funny that you only picked my post and not anyone else.

 

[aelf]

I would have rather chosen Churchill then De Gaulle. But I would rather pick some other leader like Charles V, Akbar or Louis the Victorius. And dont treat me like a four year old, I know the things Churchill did, good and bad.

De Gaulle pretty much did for France what Churchill did for England. And I think his decolonisation policies came off better.

Okay I want another Spanish or Japanese Leader is because, as I mentioned I dont like playing agaisnt religious psychos and isolanist but I wanna play agaisnt Spain and Japan. I mean think about, everytime that state pops up you know you are most likely not gonna be friends with it. I could kill off the two using custom game or use random personalities, I know. However, I prefer having locked personalities because its quite fun to know how each character reacts and how to play with it. But Isabella and Ieasuysu is just too extreme. Sometimes I play a world map or a europe map or some fixed scenario but I wont be able to give them a miss.

How about Monty, then? Mansa? Many single leaders represent different extremes. Do you want to make a case for an alternative to every one of them?

And being friends with Toku and Izzy is a matter of diplomacy. If you really want or need them as friends, I don't see why you can't make the effort.

Lastly, I still stand by the believe that all Civs should have two leaders first before we add third leaders. Spain and Japan, two of the most powerful empires ever, have been given miss in two expansion packs! I mean Celtia has two leaders! CELTIA!!! Which I hardly consider to be an Empire.

Err.. the Celts were a pretty darn big bunch. The Celts of Boudica weren't really the same as the Celts of Brennus. And they were good metal smiths and great warriors that once defeated the Romans. I don't see how they are unimportant.

Japan? It has such a short history as a great power and a lack of great charismatic leaders, many of them belonging it to the Sengoku era like Tokugawa.

As for Spain, it's more reasonable. However, IIRC, Spain's golden age wasn't very long and it quickly got eclipsed by other powers, by Britain at sea and by France on the continent. The greatest contribution of the Spanish was the colonisation of South and Central America, and Isabella does cover that as a patronness (is there such a word?) of exploration. And since she also covers the Reconquista (and the Inquisition), she is perfect and there really is no pressing need for another Spanish leader.

And they just add De Gaulle and Lincoln. One which I think did nothing special (There were plenty of resistance leaders in time, this one is not any special) and the other was pretty okay. I admire Lincoln, but we already have two great American Leaders and we can stop at them.

Obviously, you don't know much about De Gaulle. A local resistance leader wouldn't have made it so big. How many people know the leader of the Polish resistance? De Gaulle kept France at the forefront of diplomacy even though it was defeated. FDR and Churchill would have been happy to keep him at the sidelines, but he wouldn't stand for that. And his success could simply be measured by the fact that the French had a zone of occupation in post-war Germany. Have you heard of the Polish, Belgian or Dutch zones of occupation?

He also served as President during the Fourth (?) Republic and facilitated France's transition from a tired colonial power to a modern European state. He also ruffled a lot of feathers, though, which explains his relative unpopularity.

I'm just saying all this off the top of my head.

As for Lincoln, I'm not surprised at all. It's an American-made game, and I would have thought that Lincoln would be there before FDR.

BTW, nobody gave them an honorable mention, why should I?

Funny that you only picked my post and not anyone else.

I have actually made a few posts on the same subject in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[Capt Ajax]

I voted for the De Gaulle and Lincoln because I'm a Southerner and I despise the French

 

[LittleOberon]

This poll makes no sense: if you want to add a new leader for japan or spain, you don't need to supress any of the existing ones. Or did i miss something ?

 

[cybrxkhan]

as for the WOrld War II leaders, they may or may not have been useless dirtbags, BUT, i don't really like the thing in that a good number of leaders are representing a decade or two of history are in the game. really. two, three at most. but we have, what... Mao, Stalin, FDR, Churchill, De Gaulle... thats quite a lot

 

[aronnax]

De Gaulle pretty much did for France what Churchill did for England. And I think his decolonisation policies came off better.

Thats your opionion, not my mine

How about Monty, then? Mansa? Many single leaders represent different extremes. Do you want to make a case for an alternative to every one of them?

Its easy to be friends with Monty than it is with Isabella, Mansa isnt that extreme. At least they talk to you....

And being friends with Toku and Izzy is a matter of diplomacy. If you really want or need them as friends, I don't see why you can't make the effort.

Pleasing one of them, especially Isabella means getting everyone to hate you. I proved it through one of my games

Err.. the Celts were a pretty darn big bunch. The Celts of Boudica weren't really the same as the Celts of Brennus. And they were good metal smiths and great warriors that once defeated the Romans. I don't see how they are unimportant.

Oh they razed a few cities and yet london still stands doesnt it? As for Brennus, I actually dont know much about him. Not important

Japan? It has such a short history as a great power and a lack of great charismatic leaders, many of them belonging it to the Sengoku era like Tokugawa.

Japan's time in the Sun was short, but it was a brilliant time in the sun. You have to agree that they deserve another leader.

As for Spain, it's more reasonable. However, IIRC, Spain's golden age wasn't very long and it quickly got eclipsed by other powers, by Britain at sea and by France on the continent. The greatest contribution of the Spanish was the colonisation of South and Central America, and Isabella does cover that as a patronness (is there such a word?) of exploration. And since she also covers the Reconquista (and the Inquisition), she is perfect and there really is no pressing need for another Spanish leader.

150 is not long? And not quite true, Isabella died in 1504. Aztec and Incan was conquered in 1524 and 1572. A good two decades. I agree with you Reconquista parts but Spain's Greatness was at a hieght in the reign of Charles I and Phillip II. We should have one of them as a second leader of Spain. (I am leaning towards Charles as Phillip was a bit of a failure)

Obviously, you don't know much about De Gaulle. A local resistance leader wouldn't have made it so big. How many people know the leader of the Polish resistance? De Gaulle kept France at the forefront of diplomacy even though it was defeated. FDR and Churchill would have been happy to keep him at the sidelines, but he wouldn't stand for that. And his success could simply be measured by the fact that the French had a zone of occupation in post-war Germany. Have you heard of the Polish, Belgian or Dutch zones of occupation?

He also served as President during the Fourth (?) Republic and facilitated France's transition from a tired colonial power to a modern European state. He also ruffled a lot of feathers, though, which explains his relative unpopularity.

I'm just saying all this off the top of my head.

I think it is the Fifth...
To me its a guy that knew how to talk. He was still a resistance leader for French no matter how well-know he is. I dont know much about his life as president so i cant judge for that but he made a good speech, brave men, blah blah blah but again he just dont seem so special compared to so many like him. For example, Emperor Hongwu, founder of Ming, was a poor peasant that became an influential speaker and a rebel leader agaisnt Yuan China. Quite like him! De Gaulle is just not special

As for Lincoln, I'm not surprised at all. It's an American-made game, and I would have thought that Lincoln would be there before FDR.

I have actually made a few posts on the same subject in this thread and elsewhere.

10 characters

 

[aelf]

Thats your opionion, not my mine

It's based on facts, unlike yours.

Its easy to be friends with Monty than it is with Isabella, Mansa isnt that extreme. At least they talk to you....

Share her religion and ta-dah! She will love you to bits. You can still never trust Monty.

Pleasing one of them, especially Isabella means getting everyone to hate you. I proved it through one of my games

You probably just need more skills.

Oh they razed a few cities and yet london still stands doesnt it? As for Brennus, I actually dont know much about him. Not important

You are not important. Come on, give me some good, factual arguments that make sense.

Japan's time in the Sun was short, but it was a brilliant time in the sun. You have to agree that they deserve another leader.

Why do I have to when you have not provided any sensible argument? "You just have to agree with me" fanboy mentality, FTW

150 is not long? And not quite true, Isabella died in 1504. Aztec and Incan was conquered in 1524 and 1572. A good two decades. I agree with you Reconquista parts but Spain's Greatness was at a hieght in the reign of Charles I and Phillip II. We should have one of them as a second leader of Spain. (I am leaning towards Charles as Phillip was a bit of a failure)

As I said, Isabella was a patron of exploration, so her inclusion does touch on the Age of Discovery period. Anyway, the conquest of the Aztecs and the Incas weren't that impressive, IMO on par with Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia. The exploration part was more impressive.

To me its a guy that knew how to talk. He was still a resistance leader for French no matter how well-know he is. I dont know much about his life as president so i cant judge for that but he made a good speech, brave men, blah blah blah but again he just dont seem so special compared to so many like him. For example, Emperor Hongwu, founder of Ming, was a poor peasant that became an influential speaker and a rebel leader agaisnt Yuan China. Quite like him! De Gaulle is just not special

"Blah, blah, blah" - yup, that's all you've been saying.

Anything solid?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Blah, blah, blah" - yup, that's all you've been saying.

Anything solid?

That's rich coming from someone who thinks "blah blah blah" is an effective counter-argument...

Not that I agree with easier side, I just thought that was a really lousy response.

 

[danieldaniel]

Hmmmm... I know very little about Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia, but I certainly wouldn't call Hernán Cortés' conquest of Mexico unimpressive - Despite the obvious technological gap between spaniards and aztecs, one must admit that it takes a lot of courage and cunning to lead a group of about 800 men to conquer an empire of millions - Cortés was a brilliant man, and what he did in Mexico is one of the most fastinating episodes in world history, ethical considerations aside... or at least that's my opinion, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it, as there are plenty of books about the topic available for anyone who is interested.

Back on topic, i don't really care about japan and spain getting another leader and I think it's already a little too late to be discussing this kind of stuff, back in July it was fun to talk about the HRE and poland and spain and japan and boudica and so on, but why bother now?

 

[Rusty Edge]

This poll makes no sense: if you want to add a new leader for japan or spain, you don't need to supress any of the existing ones. Or did i miss something ?

Onagan, in his original post-

"Which of the 6 new leaders of existing civilizations would you have left out, so there was room for the missing leaders."

It's a what would you have done poll. I'd have left out Darius until I had better artwork, and picked a non-isolationist Japanese leader to take his place.

Yes , I find Izzie tiresome at times, but I alwas conclude that any Spanish leader I can think of would have also been a religious zealot, relatively speaking, but not as pretty. Oh well.

So I voted only once.

 

[Cornhog]

I *kinda* agree that Lincoln, De Gaulle, Churchill or Stalin should go because they are third rulers. But Lincoln is the man! In addition to being America's greatest leader, he's been in Civ games since the beginning. I'd rather kick out FDR because (not to bring up THAT debate again) the general consensus is that its Lincoln -> Washington -> FDR as the top 3. And Lincoln is just part of this GAME'S history.

But when it comes to adding another Spanish or Japanese leader... I don't claim to be an expert on either country's history, but are there any leaders (game play wise) that are substantially different? Spain has a lot of expansive, religious nutjobs like Isabella, and Japan has a bunch of militant, isolationist nutjobs like Togu. I suppose you could have a post WW2 Japanese leader or Franco for Spain? I'm not saying there aren't any worthy leaders, I'm just saying I don't know any that are worthy AND substantially different.

(Please, don't flame me with some nationalistic crap. I'm talking in game play terms.)

Meanwhile, Stalin is nothing like Peter, Churchill is nothing like Elizabeth, and Lincoln is nothing like FDR.

 

[aelf]

That's rich coming from someone who thinks "blah blah blah" is an effective counter-argument...

Not that I agree with easier side, I just thought that was a really lousy response.

I was just quoting him. He actually said "blah, blah, blah". I found that quite funny, as if he doesn't believe in what he is saying himself with the whole non-commital attitude. And, in truth, I see little of anything else in his arguments, and everything can be encapsulated in that. These are the reasons why I zoomed in on it.

Hmmmm... I know very little about Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia, but I certainly wouldn't call Hernán Cortés' conquest of Mexico unimpressive - Despite the obvious technological gap between spaniards and aztecs, one must admit that it takes a lot of courage and cunning to lead a group of about 800 men to conquer an empire of millions - Cortés was a brilliant man, and what he did in Mexico is one of the most fastinating episodes in world history, ethical considerations aside... or at least that's my opinion, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it, as there are plenty of books about the topic available for anyone who is interested.

Well, Mussolini is not without credit in conquering Abyssinia. He actually won when his predecessors failed miserably before, owing mainly to his modernisation fo the Italian armed forces. But it's still a case of an advanced civilization bullying a backward one. And if Mussolini used illegal chemical weapons, Cortes was also underhanded when he attacked the natives who welcomed him. Besides, the Spanish nearly lost it at one point, and would have, had the Aztecs decided to pursue them instead of letting them regroup. I just don't think the whole conquest thing was so great. They just got there first, and for that I do give credit to Spanish exploration.