Who Should Be What Civ's Leader

[Civman33]

Here is yet another thread by me. Replies are welcome. My choice, would be,

America: Washington, or FDR.
Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, or Hammurabi. ( The Classic. )
Greece: Still Alexander.
France: Napoleon, or Louis XIV.
Egypt: Cleo, or Ramesses II
England: Churchill, or Elizabeth I.
I know that there are some new leaders in the Custom and Creation thread, but im just curious. Who do you think would be a suitible leader?

 

[capnvonbaron]

Funny, you just described many of the leaders changed for Civ4.

 

[Civman33]

Yes. I know that.

 

[againsttheflow]

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Are you making a mod?

 

[Taras Bulba]

America: George Washington, Kenedy (mostly because I have some weird bias towards him, don't ask me why... he didn't really do anything THAT special)
Russia: Peter the Great
England: Queen Victoria
France: Charlemagne
Scandinavia: Eric the Red/Leif Ericson

those are just some quick ideas... I might come back with more

 

[CarthageFTW]

Taras Bulba I sooooo agree with you. Don't get me wrong, love the guy, but didn't do much that special (except Cuban Missle Crisis of course. 13 minutes from WWIII lolz)

Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar. I never really understood why Hammurabi was chosen over him...hmmm.
America: Washingtion, FDR (Really wish it was this guy), Linlcon, or Eishenhower
France: Nepoleon. Never understood Sid's choice here either...
Germany: Hitler. I know, I know, i'll probablly get ALOT of flack for this, but I stand by my choice.

And anyone curious as to why Tucumseh was never in any Civ games?

 

[TheOverseer714]

And anyone curious as to why Tucumseh was never in any Civ games?

I believe that Tecumseh is one of the names used for Iroquois Military Great Leaders.

 

[Civman33]

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Are you making a mod?

Nope. But I am working on a mod called, '' The REAL Beginning. '' About each civ starting on where I think would be suitable.

 

[Civman33]

Taras Bulba I sooooo agree with you. Don't get me wrong, love the guy, but didn't do much that special (except Cuban Missle Crisis of course. 13 minutes from WWIII lolz)

Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar. I never really understood why Hammurabi was chosen over him...hmmm.
America: Washingtion, FDR (Really wish it was this guy), Linlcon, or Eishenhower
France: Nepoleon. Never understood Sid's choice here either...
Germany: Hitler. I know, I know, i'll probablly get ALOT of flack for this, but I stand by my choice.

And anyone curious as to why Tucumseh was never in any Civ games?

And your right about France. Sid's choice doesnt seem right. I mean look, Joan wasn't the REAL leader of France during the HYW. ( Hundred Years War )

 

[Taras Bulba]

I believe Sid chose Joan because look at the other female leaders in Civ..... umm.. Cleo... Theodora (but that was the later addition)... Catherine.

Male to Female ratio isn't great... she was there to boost numbers I think. Since Joan did DO alot when she "ruled" it wasn't as if she was a BAD choice... just not the BEST

 

[Sharwood]

Well, this is an interesting argument, assuming two leaders per civ, not necessarily one male and one female, you still have to decide which civs to have in the game. I for one don't believe the Hittites have any part in the game, and you shouldn't have both the Sumerians and the Babylonians, particularly since we actually know very little about the Sumerians. Gilgamesh almost certainly wasn't even a real person. Still for the civs that have to be in the game, you have:

India: Ghandi and Asoka. Nehru and Indira on the shortlist.
England: Churchill and Elizabeth I. Victoria shortlisted.
America: Washington and Lincoln. FDR reserved. Ike's my favourite, but I don't think he fits.
China: Mao definitely. I'm not terribly familiar with Chinese leadership, so I'd probably go with the first Han Emperor?
Russia: Stalin and Catherine. Peter and Lenin shortlisted.
Germany: Bismark and Frederick II. Hitler shortlisted unfortunately. Germany was just too fragmented to pick anyone else for the whole nation.
France: Napoleon and Charlemagne. Joan, De Gaulle and Louis XIV shortlisted.
Rome: Caesar and Augustus.
Greece: Alexander and Pericles.
Egypt: Ramses and Cleopatra.
Carthage: Hannibal and... Maybe Hamilcar.
Babylon: Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar.
Persia: Cyrus and Xerxes.
Zulu: Shaka and Cetshwayo. Dingiswayo shortlisted.
Aztecs: Montezuma and... Nahuatl? The guy who fought a guerilla war to reclaim his kingdom the generation before Montezuma, I think that was his name.
Incas: Atahualpa and Manco Capac. Tupac Amaru shortlisted.
Japan: Tokugawa and Meiji.
Mongols: Temujin and Kublai. Batu shortlisted.

As for civs that are in the game and definitely should be:
Ottomans: Suleiman and Osman.
Spain: Isabella and Ferdinand. Charles I(V) and Phillip II shortlisted.
Byzantines: Constantine and Theodora: Justinian shortlisted. Have to have some women.
Arabs: Mohammed (although I can understand why not) and Saladin. Abu Bakr shortlisted, probably the wise choice. T.E. Lawrence just for my own amusement.
Korea: Wang Kon. Don't know who else.
Vikings: Knut and Gunnhild (again, we need some women). Ragnar and Hadrada (sp?) shortlisted.

Bear in mind I haven't had Conquests long, I might well be missing some that are actually in the game.

There's other possible civs who should really be in, but can't really be justified, such as extra European civs - the Dutch - and others that I'm not familiar enough with to comment on - the Iriquois. there are also some that flat out shouldn't be there - Sumerians and Hittites.

 

[Exwing17]

But doesn't the leader of a civilization reflect when that civilization was at its golden age, or at least the peak of its civilization.

I find America & Russia to have very interesting choices of leaders, as Lincoln + F15 don't really go that well, whereas Catherine was good for Russia, but the Soviet Union was definitely their peak.

USA - FDR or Kennedy (USA's peak is end of wwII to present)

Russia - Catherine or Stalin (I think Russia's peak was during the Soviet Union)

England - Elizabeth I or Churchill. Or Nelson/Wellington. Infact, Nelson is a bloody good call. (Churchill was our best leader, but wwII was the end of our #1 spot as a global power. And what would our special unit be? a spitfire? or a commando! I don’t know, I think our UU is exactly spot on, but it doesn’t have as much impact on the game as it should have. A Redcoat Infantry of the Line (before Nationalism) or Zulu-esc infantry, think that’s enfield rifles? I don’t know!  )

France – Napoleon or Charlemagne definitely. For a UU, would be difficult, once again it would probably be an musket infantry, and the French empire also created the idea of total war, fielding huge conscripted armies (levee en masse), maybe a National Guard unit somewhere around nationalism. Or the ability to conscript Regulars from cities or 5/6/1. If it was Charlemagne it would be a Knight unit, maybe a Jousting Knight 5/3/2.

Germany – after thinking Hitler, I read up on Bismark, and it should definitely be him. The man was a genius, he used to plan 20 years in advance, and foresaw the first world war! But the Franco-Prussian wars were his main success, and the main thing that was the needle rifle, or another cavalry. But its hard to slot all that in, as Civ doesn’t really have step by step unit upgrades, its all big jumps! If the leader was Hitler, then the Panzer is spot on!

Netherlands – William is probably correct, but Swiss Mercs as their UU? The dutch, like the English should have an overpowered naval unit. As navies are difficult to put a game winning impact on the game, especially seeing the age of sail is so short lived, they need to be great at what they do!


Ok, I think my boss knows I’m not working now!




Russia:

 

[againsttheflow]

I'd agree about Bismark, his unification of Germany was vital to their existence to say the least...

 

[1940LaSalle]

As said elsewhere, I'd advocate Theodore Roosevelt for the Americans: his time in the Dakota Territory would work reasonably well for ancient times and the middle ages; as president, he was instrumental in making the US a world power and shaping the modern presidency. As a backup, I'd suggest Ike, but most definitely NOT Kennedy: he did nothing of overwhelming significance, and damn near got us in a shooting war with the Soviets over the missiles in Cuba; there was also the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

I'd also recommend Frederick the Great for the Germans. Any monarch who invites Voltaire to become his resident intellectual has something going for him right there.

For the English, Churchill is obvious, but I have to wonder about Disraeli or Gladstone as possibilities.

 

[Exwing17]

England could even have Lloyd George. As he totally paved the way for an allied victory, and a WWI esc special unit for England would be really useful, as the total war philosophy of George's labour government was a major factor in victory!

 

[Civman33]

What I think should be the Dutch UU, is the West Indiaman. It could replace the Galleon and have an additional Attack bonus. That could be an idea.

 

[CarthageFTW]

India: Ghandi and Asoka. Nehru and Indira on the shortlist.
England: Churchill and Elizabeth I. Victoria shortlisted.
America: Washington and Lincoln. FDR reserved. Ike's my favourite, but I don't think he fits.
China: Mao definitely. I'm not terribly familiar with Chinese leadership, so I'd probably go with the first Han Emperor?
Russia: Stalin and Catherine. Peter and Lenin shortlisted.
Germany: Bismark and Frederick II. Hitler shortlisted unfortunately. Germany was just too fragmented to pick anyone else for the whole nation.
France: Napoleon and Charlemagne. Joan, De Gaulle and Louis XIV shortlisted.
Rome: Caesar and Augustus.
Greece: Alexander and Pericles.
Egypt: Ramses and Cleopatra.
Carthage: Hannibal and... Maybe Hamilcar.
Babylon: Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar.
Persia: Cyrus and Xerxes.
Zulu: Shaka and Cetshwayo. Dingiswayo shortlisted.
Aztecs: Montezuma and... Nahuatl? The guy who fought a guerilla war to reclaim his kingdom the generation before Montezuma, I think that was his name.
Incas: Atahualpa and Manco Capac. Tupac Amaru shortlisted.
Japan: Tokugawa and Meiji.
Mongols: Temujin and Kublai. Batu shortlisted.

As for civs that are in the game and definitely should be:
Ottomans: Suleiman and Osman.
Spain: Isabella and Ferdinand. Charles I(V) and Phillip II shortlisted.
Byzantines: Constantine and Theodora: Justinian shortlisted. Have to have some women.
Arabs: Mohammed (although I can understand why not) and Saladin. Abu Bakr shortlisted, probably the wise choice. T.E. Lawrence just for my own amusement.
Korea: Wang Kon. Don't know who else.
Vikings: Knut and Gunnhild (again, we need some women). Ragnar and Hadrada (sp?) shortlisted.

Bear in mind I haven't had Conquests long, I might well be missing some that are actually in the game.

There's other possible civs who should really be in, but can't really be justified, such as extra European civs - the Dutch - and others that I'm not familiar enough with to comment on - the Iriquois. there are also some that flat out shouldn't be there - Sumerians and Hittites.

Totally forgot about Hamilcar and I want to smack myself. Also Charlemagne. Honestly, I'd pick Charlemagne over Nepoloean because while Nepo's empire was larger (like the size of Europe larger), I think Carley had a more "stable" empire in terms of the people being happy and France's standing with the world (he wasn't at war with all of Europe for starters). I have to agree about the Sumerians, but not so much the Hitties. The conquered all of Asia minor (modern Turkey and Assryia.) The Hittes and the Egyptians had war on and off, culimating into the war of...dang...it's near Babylon/Isreal/Persia area. Can't remeber the town....dang it. Anyways, it was basically power chariots (Hitties) vs Speed/Agility chariots (Egypt). btw (and I'm ashamed to ask) whose's ike? Eishenhower? But still gotta say Americans FDR. Here's my revised list

Americans: Washington, FDR
Byzantines: Constantine
Egypt: Ramses
Persia: Cyrus
Carthage: Hamilcar
Russia: Stalin

 

[againsttheflow]

Would it not be Ramses II (the Great) that your thinking of? Just to clarify.


[edit] on looking it up I guess thats so common a misspelling that the wiki article will still take you right to the Ramesses page if you type in the above. Trust me. It also mentioned that it "is the name conventionally given in English transliteration to eleven Egyptian pharaohs of the later New Kingdom period." So maybe you were trying more of a blanket cover?

 

[Sharwood]

Totally forgot about Hamilcar and I want to smack myself. Also Charlemagne. Honestly, I'd pick Charlemagne over Nepoloean because while Nepo's empire was larger (like the size of Europe larger), I think Carley had a more "stable" empire in terms of the people being happy and France's standing with the world (he wasn't at war with all of Europe for starters). I have to agree about the Sumerians, but not so much the Hitties. The conquered all of Asia minor (modern Turkey and Assryia.) The Hittes and the Egyptians had war on and off, culimating into the war of...dang...it's near Babylon/Isreal/Persia area. Can't remeber the town....dang it. Anyways, it was basically power chariots (Hitties) vs Speed/Agility chariots (Egypt). btw (and I'm ashamed to ask) whose's ike? Eishenhower? But still gotta say Americans FDR. Here's my revised list

Americans: Washington, FDR
Byzantines: Constantine
Egypt: Ramses
Persia: Cyrus
Carthage: Hamilcar
Russia: Stalin

I think you're thinking of the Battle of Kadesh. I think that's the spelling. My theory on the Hittites is that they both; weren't around for very long, and; take up a slot that could go to another, more deserving civ. The dearth of African and East Asian civs is annoying.

@atf: Yeah, it's a very common misspelling. I know better, but still do it all the time because it's in many books I've read.

 

[Dachs]

India: Ghandi and Asoka. Nehru and Indira on the shortlist.

Why not Harsha instead of Indira? Or maybe Samudragupta, or Sivaji?

China: Mao definitely. I'm not terribly familiar with Chinese leadership, so I'd probably go with the first Han Emperor?

Gaozu wasn't bad, I suppose, but IMHO Taizong or Qin Shi Huang was far superior.

Russia: Stalin and Catherine. Peter and Lenin shortlisted.

Why not Ivan III?

Aztecs: Montezuma and... Nahuatl? The guy who fought a guerilla war to reclaim his kingdom the generation before Montezuma, I think that was his name.

Ahuitzotl was pretty good.

Incas: Atahualpa and Manco Capac. Tupac Amaru shortlisted.

Why not Pachacuti instead of Atahualpa?

Byzantines: Constantine and Theodora: Justinian shortlisted. Have to have some women.

If there have to be women, Eirene would be better than Theodora. She, you know, actually ruled by herself.

I think you're thinking of the Battle of Kadesh. I think that's the spelling. My theory on the Hittites is that they both; weren't around for very long, and; take up a slot that could go to another, more deserving civ. The dearth of African and East Asian civs is annoying.

Well, the Hatti (in their various forms) lasted for a good millennium. That's not bad, and a far greater longevity than the Zulu, for example. There's also the 'iron' bit to consider...and they were pretty bloody powerful for awhile, as evidenced by the cited Battle of Kadesh.