Why does Spain get no love?

[AlphaShard]

Pretty sure Spanish dominates South America.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Brazil has ~40% of South America's land area and ~50% of continents population.

 

[r_rolo1]

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.

That was my point In case you don't know, the Inquisition in both Spain and Portugal was subordinated not to the church, but to the king ( well , to be more clear, they responded only to the pope, but the king had a strong hand in the nominations and the targeting ) ... think on it as the assasins of Henry VIII with Dominican clothes. Most of the victims of the Inquisition in Portugal and Spain were as much guilty of heresy as, to use a more modern example, the victims of the McCarthy commission were members of the Communist party ... a neighbour that didn't liked a certain person could easily call the Inquisition and say that the person had a suspicious behaviour just because ( and given that the delators had the right to a part of the confiscated goods of the victims.... ) and as the Inquisition was never wrong ... . Anyway Philip II didn't killed every Jew or Muslim here... if that had happened I would not be here writing this ( being myself descedent of Cristãos Novos )

 

[GoodGame]

Spain always gets Buddhism, so isn't that enough love?

 

[Rusty Edge]

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).

I've been playing LoR recently, but haven't drawn El Cid- I'll have to include him next game. Thanks, I forgot he was in there.


As for mythologized leaders, in the Civ I era I often named myself Gilgamesh and played as Babylon, or Connor MacCleod, but it really sucked to be England on a world map with that 6 tile landmas, or whatever it was. I figured it made more sense for Gilgamesh to live 6000 years than guys like Napoleon and Lincoln. I'm cool with it.

 

[noto2]

Nope, the only language that can legitimately make that claim is English (Austrailia).

LOL - true

 

[ICNP]

Spain always gets Buddhism, so isn't that enough love?

Nice. Yeah Spain, Japan, and China should all get another Leader. I think leaders should be based on time periods (because I play Rhye's and fall). So America is one of the worst. But when you look at it, Spain and the Netherlands don't do anything after their little period, so its not worth giving them more leaders. Now the Vikings on the other hand, should get Gustavus Adolphus, for representing a more modern sweden.

 

[Orzio]

Historicly speaking america dosnt rly deserv 3 leaders. But if you look where civilization games are sold america obviously deserv at the very least 3 leaders. Its obvious that most people rather buy a game with George Washington than some strange old spanish dude that the person never heard about. Same reason you see lots of leaders from recent time than old leaders most of the market never heard about more than in one sentence in an old history book.

But again America does deserv some credit seeing as they got 10-11/around 50 of the game wonders and 3-4/4 world projects depending on if you count the internet as american.

 

[noto2]

why wouldn't america deserve 3 leaders? It has dominated the planet for over 50 years now to a magnitude that no other hegemon ever has. The only hegemon that came close to dominating the planet in the way America has, was the British Empire.

 

[TheMadMonk]

So if US has 3 leaders than the Chinese should have 3 leaders.
If the Chinese have 3 leaders, than the Japanese should have 3 Leaders.
If the Japanese have 3 Leaders shouldn't the Russian have 3 Leaders?
If the Russians have 3 Leaders, then the Germans should have 3 leaders.
If Germany has 3 Leaders then shouldn't England have 3 Leaders?
If the English have 3 leaders... ¡Ay, caramba!

 

[ICNP]

why wouldn't america deserve 3 leaders? It has dominated the planet for over 50 years now to a magnitude that no other hegemon ever has. The only hegemon that came close to dominating the planet in the way America has, was the British Empire.

You have to look at things relatively. Rome dominated all of the surrounding regions of its known world, and if it still controlled the same territory, it would be a superpower. America is just too short lived, and with the USSR done, America has been declining in its ability to completely dominate. We can't even catch one guy living in the mountains. It's not like America is invincible either, especially Economically.

 

[kochman]

We can't even catch one guy living in the mountains.

According to a special forces soldier involved in the early stages of the hunt, we had him in our cross hairs and let him go...
Which is even more of a reason why we are failing in my opinion.

 

[Vael]

Every civ should have 10 leaders. Problem solved.

 

[ICNP]

Every civ should have 10 leaders. Problem solved.

Okay for America (that's 1/4 of all presidents) according to CSPAN 2009 that would be:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman
6. John F. Kennedy
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Woodrow Wilson
10. Ronald Reagan

Really, we'd need to come up with like 2-3 more traits in order to prevent from having 3 leaders with the same traits. I think 2 per country would be best.

 

[Rusty Edge]

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 ...

I'd have thought that would be like choosing Miles Standish of the Massacheusetts Bay Colony, or John Smith of Jamestown as American leaders. I guess that it's seldom clear or easy to decide when a civ originates, the American declaration of independence being an exception.

Well, if Spain officially considers Castillian monarchs Spanish, I'm fine with that.

 

[Saiko]

I think every civ should have 3-5 leaders, and Firaxis should add a few more traits, because I like diversity.

 

[r_rolo1]

I'd have thought that would be like choosing Miles Standish of the Massacheusetts Bay Colony, or John Smith of Jamestown as American leaders. I guess that it's seldom clear or easy to decide when a civ originates, the American declaration of independence being an exception.

Well, if Spain officially considers Castillian monarchs Spanish, I'm fine with that.

The numbering of the Spanish kings includes the Leonese and the Castilian Kings.... Check the ever useful wiki for more details

 

[Mrdie]

The problem with Carlos I (aka Charles V) is that he wasn't particularly Spanish, and some would say he'd be more deserving as a second leader for the Holy Roman Empire.

Ferdinand II was Isabella's wife, and doesn't really represent a different Spanish epoch. Take the US leaders: Washington (1700's), Lincoln (1800's) and FDR (1900's). Each represents a different century, whereas Ferdinand would be representing the mid 15th-early 16th century akin to Isabella.

Franco isn't really a good leader to put in either, "political correctness" arguments aside. At best a conservative could say that he prevented the "Bolshevization of Spain." Other than that (and the worthiness of inclusion on that basis is zero), what else? Spain was in poverty up until the 1950's, and diplomatically isolated until Franco's death in 1976, wherein his political order was immediately abandoned. "He won in a civil war thanks to copious amounts of German and Italian aid and the instability and weaknesses of the Republican Government and Army" doesn't exactly sound like a Civ-style ruler to me.

The Republican leaders (Azaña, Caballero, Negrín) have even less of a case to be in, since the Republic lasted all of 8 years and each led the country for less than 3 years during the 3-year civil war in which the Republic was defeated both from outside (lack of weapons, continual military losses) and within (loss of morale, Casado's coup d'état) and its order destroyed.

Why not Carlos III? He was probably the last good King the Spaniards had.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

The American President who presided over the greatest expansion of territory in the history of the country was James Knox Polk. Where is HE, hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I agree that someone else should be drummed up for the Spanish, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of times you see Itchybelly showing up on your borders.

Not that I have that problem, since I prefer to play as the Spanish myself.

 

[DrewTate]

King Fernando Torres. Solved.

Edit: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/24/article-0-01CA7D7500000578-657_468x329.jpg