Why is Darius the leader of Persia?

[Louis XXIV]

OK, I just wanted to make sure we didn't get bogged down with Gandhi. He probably wouldn't be my first choice, but Civ games aren't made in a vacuum and he's always been there.

 

[Bamboocha]

No, I agree with you.
the civ should represent the country's entire history, not a small time period.

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

 

[bcaiko]

It really is neat that I can learn so much on these boards, since CivFanatics tend to be history buffs. I really don't know that much about Middle Eastern history.

 

[ForzaFiori]

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

 

[qalsip1977]

It really is neat that I can learn so much on these boards, since CivFanatics tend to be history buffs. I really don't know that much about Middle Eastern history.

Meh, most of the time it's probably the result of a google search, quick readthrough of wikipedia...and then passed off as original knowledge...

While there's probably a history buff or two lurking on these forums, I doubt it's everyone who acts like they're one, I am as guilty of it as the next guy

 

[Guanyu15]

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

Go play Europa. I'll meet you there!

 

[ShahJahanII]

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

Agreed, this would still represent the entire history of the civ, but you can play slightly differently with different leaders.

 

[ForzaFiori]

Meh, most of the time it's probably the result of a google search, quick readthrough of wikipedia...and then passed off as original knowledge...

While there's probably a history buff or two lurking on these forums, I doubt it's everyone who acts like they're one, I am as guilty of it as the next guy

Hey, it's your knowledge, whether you learned it off a wiki page or in a class for a history degree, or in HS. Your never required to cite wikipedia in an essay (as all encyclopedias are, by definition, "common knowledge"), so why should you have to in an online post?

for what it's worth, the historical facts I post are divided about equally between what I've learned (and am learning) for my history degree, and quick google searches, though I make sure any info I'm giving is backed up by some sort of legit cite, either a reference on wiki I can check, or a website sponsored by a big org.

 

[Louis XXIV]

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

That would be impracticable for most civs - even European civs. After all, who would lead England in the ancient era? I suppose you could say Boudicca, but what if they add the Celts? Same with the Iroquois for a modern era. Even something like the Aztecs, where you could have leaders of Modern Mexico, would get really complicated if they add the Inca to the game.

for what it's worth, the historical facts I post are divided about equally between what I've learned (and am learning) for my history degree, and quick google searches, though I make sure any info I'm giving is backed up by some sort of legit cite, either a reference on wiki I can check, or a website sponsored by a big org.

lol, I'm about the same way. I have a history degree, so some of my knowledge is due to that. I also have general interest in many areas of history. But I've certainly supplemented by knowledge with internet sites if I need to discuss something history-related here.

 

[qemist]

That would be impracticable for most civs - even European civs. After all, who would lead England in the ancient era? I suppose you could say Boudicca, but what if they add the Celts? Same with the Iroquois for a modern era. Even something like the Aztecs, where you could have leaders of Modern Mexico, would get really complicated if they add the Inca to the game.

And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

The problems you talk about are a consequence of the game's spanning thousands of years and the decision to associate the game civs with real nations. This leads to the need to pretend that nations are permanent. In reality no nation has lasted 5,000 years or anything close. It's futile to try to discern which native tribe was the "real" Mexico in say 1400. It's equally fallacious to equate modern Germany, Prussia (one germanic state of many), the HRE (not a nation), and ancient Germania (a geographical region).

 

[Mavfin]

That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.

Yeah, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have known what to do with a B-17, for example.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

Sorry, I meant the Maya. At least the Inca can point to modern day Peru.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Who cares about whose leading the Persians...just be glad that they finally got the damn Immortal right!

 

[That nerdy kid]

Prussia ---> Germany)

this is true.


And my Persian friend is fine with Darius. Greatest persian king and all that stuff.

 

[Thaitanium]

Why Ramkhamhaeng is the leader of Siam when Naresuan's Elephant was in 15th century while Ramkhamhaeng was in 13th.

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

 

[qemist]

Why Ramkhamhaeng is the leader of Siam when Naresuan's Elephant was in 15th century while Ramkhamhaeng was in 13th.

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

He reminds me of something I saw when I went down the wrong soi in the Patpong area. Ramkhamhaeng is probably a 19th century fabrication, anyway.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Ok, we can only speculate choices made in the game. I would like to see many things otherwise too.
I think Darius I is a good choise for the leader of Persians but why Gandhi is always headman of Indians, why not Asoka or Chandragupta II? Why is Wu Zetian and not Qin Shi Huang or Yongle (ok, she is a woman but still)? Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)? Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.
I just say that I prefer see many things otherwise, but in this thread we can speculate...

 

[ShahJahanII]

Ok, we can only speculate choices made in the game. I would like to see many things otherwise too.
I think Darius I is a good choise for the leader of Persians but why Gandhi is always headman of Indians, why not Asoka or Chandragupta II? Why is Wu Zetian and not Qin Shi Huang or Yongle (ok, she is a woman but still)? Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)? Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.
I just say that I prefer see many things otherwise, but in this thread we can speculate...

We all know those are the historically correct choices.
But it all depends on what the fans like.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)?

Not to rehash this topic, but, since you mentioned Wilhelm, it's a bit easier to illustrate. Think about where Germany was when both Wilhelm and Hitler's time in rule ended. Bismark unified Germany and left it in a place of relative stability.

Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.

I used to make this same mistake. Macedonia had some ties to Thrace, but they were mostly a Greek culture speaking a Greek dialect. The reason the idea that they aren't Greek has been maintained is because of Southern Greek bias. Essentially, the argument was they aren't Greek because they didn't have a Poleis with some kind of collaborative rule. But that doesn't affect whether they were actually "Greek." Alexander was Macedonian, Perciles was Athenian, Leonidas was Spartan, and Demosthenes was Theban, Dyonesius was Syracusan. All were Greek.

 

[Civciv5]

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

That's a great idea!
But it has some difficulties for some countries as they don't have "ancient" or "medieval"
leaders.
PS:I want to get rid of that Gandhi!Please,another Indian leader,everyone but NOT Gandhi.He was NOT a leader.
Sure,he achieved the independence of India,but why always Gandh?He is in every Civilization game.
Why?I think Wu Zetian is a good choice for China,sure she was cruel,but she was a great woman.