Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by noto2, Dec 20, 2009.
But China never really accomplished anything outside of China.
What you're saying however is also related to the time each of these civilizations was in force. Ancient Greece and Rome were regional players according to current standards, but they were world players in the circumstances of their time. I mean, during the hellenistic period the various Greek kingdoms streched from Europe to India, even for the short time they survived. And Rome ruled most of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East in its heyday. In those times they didn't have the means to travel across the ocean, nor to cover vast land distances in reasonable time, so they were pretty much as grand as they could be.
My point is that you shouldn't count world significance in terms of territory controled, the impact of a civilization should always be taken in the context of the corresponding time period.
And even for the accomplishments within China, the benefits to be had from them are... debatable.
I see what you mean. I agree that Spain would seem to need more leaders, until we look at the subsequent leaders. Spain had kind of a flash in the pan period, summed up mainly by Izzy's period. I agree that America shouldn't have 3 leaders...
The Vikings were global, in the sense you mention, before anyone else. Their impact was easily huge (creation of the modern Russian race, trade throughout the Mediterranean, their progeny taking over England for the last time by force, etc). It would seem to call for another leader too by that sense, but I think just finding Ragnar was a bit of a challenge for firaxis... because it was rather decentralized in the case of the Vikings.
So, as far as the point of Spain being lead by another, the best anyone really came up with is Phillip II, and he blew it by losing.
well Kochman ... Rangar isn't even a 'true' person but somewhat of a myth ... and there've been several good suggestions about who the leader should instead been ... one name allways popping up when talking Vikings is Canute
Canute, Eric the Red, Lief Ericson... I can certainly think of other too.
Honestly, before Civ included Ragnar, I had never even heard of him...
They invented gunpowder, the compass, and many other tools that the eventually got to the Europeans hundreds of years later, tools that the Europeans used against the Chinese. They didn't engage in many military actions outside their large east asian sphere of influence but their technological achievements played a huge part in Europe's industrial revolution, Civilization is not defined only by military accomplishment.
Anyways, there are a lot of reasons that Spain does not have a modern leader but there is no reason that they don't have another leader from the time period that they were the dominant European power.
The destruction Philip's spanish armada wasn't even his fault. The english did defeat them, but it was the hurricanes that chased the armada around the British Isles that destroyed the fleet. Even then, the spanish rebuilt their fleet and it was one of the most powerful fleets during the holy wars of the seventeenth century. Spain should definately have more leaders: at least Philip II for holding one of the largest empires in history, or Charles III for recreating Spanish power ( starting industrialization, regaining control of the colonies, and extending spanish power in Italy and the Carribean).
Personally would want to see the caballero in as well, but I think politics would get in the way of that.
I've always felt that a major reason Spain and Japan didn't have other options was because you could change the face, but the charcacter would remain essentially the same... it would feel like you were playing against a re-skinned leader. Although it was easier to come up with a japanese leader who wasn't an isolationist than a Spanish leader who wasn't a religious extremist.
Who would you suggest as another Spanish leader, why, and what would their traits be?
He lost... he was at the helm... Just like presidents take the credit or blame for losing wars that they didn't actually fight themselves.
No, that was all Imperial China. Communist China (the China we're talking about) hasn't done anything worthwhile.
I was pointing out that he didn't lose his fleet becuase of bad generalship, bad management of resources, or logistical complications, it was because of the weather. And by the way, Philip wasn't on the ships, Medina Sidonia was the noblemen who was placed in charge of the fleet and by all standards of the day he did a fine job leading the armada against the English. In fact, for years after the event the English said that God basically wiped out the Spanish armada because they certainly didn't do it.
Bad wording... when I said "helm"... I meant the helm of the nation, commander in chief.
He lost, indirectly, but president's almost always lose wars indirectly.
LoR use El Cid (SPI/CHA); it's a very cool leaderhead, and not a bad choice if you can accept heavily mythologized leaders (Gilgamesh, Ragnar, etc).
Who is talking about Communist China ? IIRC QSH was not exactly a member of the Communist party, you know ...
About the argument that China never did anything big outside of China... well, you know that China didn't started with the size it has today, right ? In fact China is probably the more effective civ in terms of not losing what it gets
On the argument that " even for the accomplishments within China, the benefits to be had from them are... debatable" ... you could print that in every civ in the game. The Moors of the Iberian penisula probably didn't liked as much of being ruled by Christian kings, the people of Provence or Bretagne didn't seen with good eyes the rise to power of the king of France, the native Americans definitely did not liked the rise of the USA .... I could go on for all the civs in game. If you want to justify less leaders for china because of that , you need to start chopping everywhere ...
Well, Philip II was far of your ordinary religious zealot ... atleast we was no more zealot than, say, Henry VIII or Elizabeth I and , regardless of being a good or bad leader ( we have Churchill in game, that, by any objective standarts, was the direct agent of the disentegration of the British empire .... or Boudica, that commited suicide in face of defeat ... ), it would not go bad ... if you want ( as the official historigraphy of Spain does ) to count with the Castilian kings as Spanish ones , Alfonso X ,the Wise , would be a very nice choice as a non-zealot leader ...
Do you really believe this?
I mean, Henry was so unzealous he split from Rome and created a new church that would allow him to do what he wanted. That is not really something that is zealous.
Elizabeth? She didn't kill all the catholics (despite catholic backed forces attempting to kill her many times, including the Pope!)... If she were a zealot she would have killed all the catholics as the French zealots killed all the protestants during the Day of the Placards, etc.
Phillip II, well, the Inquisition was still the order of the day under him... now that is zealousy.
So, after all this is done shall I start a thread about lack of dutch leaders? [/sarcasm]
does an entire continent speak Dutch?
Nope, the only language that can legitimately make that claim is English (Austrailia).
Separate names with a comma.