1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who Should Be What Civ's Leader

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Civman33, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    The thing with choosing leaders for civs is that you don't just go with talent, but with fame. There's no point picking someone based solely on fame of course, but a combination of fame and talent goes a long way. That's why I'd choose Cleopatra over Hatshepsut as an Egyptian female leader. Indira is considerably better known than any of those three.

    I bow to your superior wisdom in this matter.

    Thought about him, should have shortlisted him.

    Is that who I was thinking of, or another guy?

    See my fame comment above.

    Again, fame. Plus, even though Irene ruled herself, I just think Theodora and Justinian did a better job overall.

    That's longer than I thought they lasted. I was aware of only a few centuries. I honestly thought they didn't last as long as Assyria. And yes, discovering Iron Working is incredibly important - both in life, and civ - so maybe they should be in. I still stand by my second point though. If the total number of civs were increased, I'd have them in a heartbeat.
     
  2. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    I suppose fame is a pretty important criterion. Though it would be more...educational...to play it this way, I guess I hadn't thought about people being disappointed in not being able to play who they want to. Fringe historical figures like those dudes I mentioned can always be modded in.
    Ahuitzotl was Moctezuma's immediate predecessor, but he didn't fight a partisan conflict that I remember. Instead, he basically doubled the size of the Aztec empire. Pretty skilled military commander, probably the best Mesoamerican one that we know of.
    I usually err on the side of attributing the success of that reign less to the rulers themselves and more to the able military commanders, like Belisarius, Narses, and Mundus, as well as the civil administrators like Tribonian and John the Cappadocian. IMHO she wasn't all that great, and gets disproportionate attention because Procopius spent entirely too much of his Secret History writing about her. (His description of her time as a prostitute alone would probably warrant censure on grounds of pornography in, for example, Alaska. ;)) Which makes her more famous, which as you indicated is a pretty important factor.
    Well, Assyria lasted for quite some time, too (off and on, in various forms, for about 13 centuries, with several periods of major decline and conquest by other states like Mitanni :p), and they made pretty important contributions in warfare, mostly in the field of siege technology and tactics. There are several other, more deserving civilizations, though, I agree...the lack of a Southeast Asian one whatsoever, for example, is simply atrocious (glad that was rectified in Civ IV).
     
  3. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    And certainly would be in no time. I agree, it would be far more educational to have them in, but if we're limiting it to two, I don't see how they can make it.

    The guy I'm thinking of was Ahuitzotl's contemporary then. From what I remember, he and Ahuitzotl joined forces to defeat some invading group, culminating in that group being absorbed into their respective empires, the first, last, and only time the Aztecs did such a thing. After his death, Ahuitzotl immediately conquered his kingdom.

    Oh of course, generals and administrators are often more important than the actual leaders. But her reign was more impressive than Irene's, at least in my opinion.

    That's also about 500 years longer than I thought the Assyrians lasted. I'm beginning to think my vast historical knowledge is not as vast as I thought. if I had my way, there'd be at least one SEA civ - Khmer or Thai - at least two more sub-Saharan civs - Ethiopia and probably Mali, though the Songhai are up there - and a Polynesian civ - probably Tonga, though Hawaii is also a chance.
     
  4. NickyH

    NickyH Bismarck with lipstick…

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    A Goody Hut in Sweden
    Another thing to add to that is the civ traits (agri, sci, militaristic etc). It's a bonus if the leader is from a time period when the civilization is considered to match those traits.
     
  5. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    I think the traits go with the leader themself, not the Civ. At least, that's what I think they did with Civ IV (never played it, so not sure). So different leaders of the same civ had different traits.
     
  6. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    The above assertion is a correct one.
     
  7. Exwing17

    Exwing17 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    You also have to remember that the leaders coincide with the Civs golden age. So its no point having Richard the Lionheart as Englands leader, when their UU/Golden Age is supposed to be 1800-1900 (era). Not that I would have Richard as englands leader, as he didnt even speak the bloody language.

    And kudos to your exceptional mesoamerica knowledge!
     
  8. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    That's a damn good point Exwing. Although quite a few cultures have had several golden ages, it's a good idea to go with a leader who called the shots during the height of a particular civilisation, at least when you have a large amount of choices.
     
  9. Exwing17

    Exwing17 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    Some cultures/empires had very long lives as well, and as you mentioned often had numerous highs. Its also very difficult to gauge when a civilizations height was...

    For example, India has ghandi as its leader, and a war elephant as its UU. That would imply that when India was at its golden age was the 1960s, but yet they were still using elephants in their army! Bit strange... :)

    I don't even think there was an "india" back when there was War Elephants!

    Chairman Mao - Chinese Rider?! - communist leader with a Dynasty esc UU and a country that wasn't a country until way past its golden age ! :p very confusing... I wish these places would make up their minds and decide what to be called!
     
  10. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    I think the UU just goes with whatever unit was relatively unique for that nation, not the golden age, or associated with a particular ruler. For example, Rome's UU is easy, it has to be the Legion, and every Emperor would have had them. But Greece's obvious UU is the Hoplite, yet its obvious leader is Alexander. Macedon, and by extension its rulers, was reknowned not for Hoplites, but for its Pikemen.

    Likewise, Nasser - whom I'm bumping up to the shortlist for Egypt - certainly had nothing unique in his time, his military was comprised of Soviet equipment. So the War Chariot is still the obvious choice there.
     
  11. Dumanios

    Dumanios MLG

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875
    I think the leaders and UUs should be,as follows:

    Rome:Julius Caesar,Legionary
    Egypt:Ramses the Great,War Chariot
    Greece:Alexander the Great,Hoplite
    Babylon:Hammurabi,Asharittu Bowman
    Germany:Otto von Bismark,Landsneckt
    Russia:Catherine the Great,Cossack
    China:Tang Taizong,Cho-ko-nu
    America:George Washington,Minuteman
    Japan:Tokugawa Ieyasu,Samurai
    France:Napoleon Bonaparte,Grand Battery
    India:Ashoka,War Elephant
    Persia:Cyrus,Immortal
    Aztec Empire:Montezuma,jaguar Warrior
    Zululand:Shaka,Impi
    Haudenosaunee Confederation:Hiawatha,Tomahawk Warrior
    England:Elizabeth I,Man-o-war
    Mongolia:Genghis Khan,Keshik
    Spain:Isabella,Conquistador
    Scandinavia:Hareld Hardrelda,Longboat
    Ottoman Empire:Suleiman the Magnificent,Janissary
    Celtic Tribes:Cunobelin,Gallic Swordsman
    Arabia:Abu Bakr,Ansar Warrior
    Carthage:Hamilcar Barca,Sacred Band Infantry
    Korea:Wang Kon,H'wacha
    Sumer:Gilgamesh,Vulture
    Hatti:Mursilis,3-man Chariot
    Holland:Willem van Oranje,West Indiaman
    Portugal:Joao II,Carrack
    Byzantium:Justinian I,Cataphract
    Inca Empire:Huayna Capac,Chasqui Scout
    Maya Empire:pacal the Great,Holkan
     
  12. ThePrussian

    ThePrussian Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297
    With respect to Civilizations and their leaders.

    There is no singular peak in a Civilization's life span. There are spans of greatness interrupted by spans of fallen state.

    Really there have been five different Americas; revolutionary America, Civil war America, Imperialist America, WWII America and Cold War America. Take your pick of the leader, Washington, Lincoln (Davis if you are that way), Teddy, FDR and Regan. I am a paleo-American and I pick Washington.

    JFK wasn't great. If you wanna put JFK on that list I also make the move for Jimmy Carter.

    There have been several different Britains; divided Britain, united britain, expansionist and colonial britain, imperial britain and then the War period and Post-war period. All of which are great times in that Isle's history.

    And China is the same way. You actually have three leaders for the same time period, Mao, Chiang and Sun-yet Sen.

    Take your pick.
     
  13. againsttheflow

    againsttheflow unpolitically uncorrect

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    northern CA
    I think you've hit the nail on the head ThePrussian as to why one pick (even one set of traits or one uu) is never going to satisfy a countries history...



    I have to say it
    Spoiler :
    mods :yup:
     
  14. Sweetchuck

    Sweetchuck King

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Korea - Kim Jong Il, just for fun.
     
  15. Dishpan_Hans

    Dishpan_Hans Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Ann Arbor
    I think there should be a bad leaders available.

    Rome: Nero

    America: Harding

    England: Neville Chamberlain

    Of course that would apply more torward Civ 4, where leaders have traits. There'd be negative leader traits. :king:
     

Share This Page