Who Should Be What Civ's Leader

[Sharwood]

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

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.

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

I bow to your superior wisdom in this matter.

Why not Ivan III?

Thought about him, should have shortlisted him.

Ahuitzotl was pretty good.

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

Why not Pachacuti instead of Atahualpa?

See my fame comment above.

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

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

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.

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.

 

[Dachs]

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ), 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).

 

[Sharwood]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ), 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).

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.

 

[NickyH]

The thing with choosing leaders for civs is that you don't just go with talent, but with fame.

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.

 

[Sharwood]

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.

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

The above assertion is a correct one.

 

[Exwing17]

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!

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Exwing17]

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 ! very confusing... I wish these places would make up their minds and decide what to be called!

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Dumanios]

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 Empireacal the Great,Holkan

 

[ThePrussian]

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.

 

[againsttheflow]

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

 

[Sweetchuck]

Korea - Kim Jong Il, just for fun.

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

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.