Why not Hannibal??

[Le Sage]

I'm glad they chose Dido. She looks hot.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I feel they should have male and female leaders to choose from, like in Civ II.

I always hated that. It feels very cheap when you come across an example of a Civ that has just never had any great female rulers to speak of. A good example is France. If you want to have a female French leader who people have actually heard of, you have to choose between Marie-Antoinette (who was Queen but didn't do any ruling, was very unpopular and had her head chopped off) or Jeanne d'Arc (who was a military leader rather than a political one, and was only really around for two years).

I'd much rather have the opportunity the choose between two genuine leaders (say, Charles De Gaulle or Napoleon) than between one genuine leader and one who frankly doesn't deserve to be there but is there purely because she was a woman. And before anyone says anything, I'm a girl, so I'm allowed to say that.

The leaderheads should also change with the times. Here we are supposed to have an advanced game, the newest version of Civilization, and they leave some of the coolest things out. I don't get it. Did they not have enough time to add good ideas from the past? Or were they just simply overlooked? Either way if they added a few more things from the past, even if they were optional, based on player preference. CiV would be a more rounded game. The game would have the best of everything.

I dunno. It went quite well with previous installments in the franchise but for some reason I quite like how the leaders are constant throughout history in CiV. They have obviously been rendered in a much more realistic way, and time has been taken to depict them in an environment and wearing clothes fitting for when they were around historically. If you were to start updating them with each era, not only their clothes would have to change, but in many cases so would their surroundings. They would end up not looking like themselves any more.

 

[Krzowwh]

We have Wu Zetian, who has hardly that influential to Chinese history, besides being it's only female leader.

Which was quite an accomplishment in itself, given that Chinese succession law complete forbade it at the time, and that she defeated such rebellions within her domain.
Furthermore, she was the first ruler who officially supported Buddhism in China, which has caused it to become the largest religious influence in China. She was also rather paranoid and ruthless, as well as one of the most corrupt leaders of China.

Plus, she only ruled for 14 years.

And in only those 14 years, she did all this. Seems like a fairly good choice, and one of the better ones in Civilization V.

 

[Nikola]

It's better that way,but i also liked various leaders for one civ like in CIV

 

[Nyanko]

Which was quite an accomplishment in itself, given that Chinese succession law complete forbade it at the time, and that she defeated such rebellions within her domain.
Furthermore, she was the first ruler who officially supported Buddhism in China, which has caused it to become the largest religious influence in China. She was also rather paranoid and ruthless, as well as one of the most corrupt leaders of China.

And in only those 14 years, she did all this. Seems like a fairly good choice, and one of the better ones in Civilization V.

Still, despite all of her achievements; there are better choices out there for Ruler of China. Mao, Qin Shi Huang of Qin, Liu Bang of Han, Zhu Yuanzhang of Ming, Zhao Kuangyin of Song... All worthy rulers

 

[oliver]

They have too change the leaders around for marketing purposes and to disinguish the game from past ones

 

[Yngvi]

Still, despite all of her achievements; there are better choices out there for Ruler of China. Mao, Qin Shi Huang of Qin, Liu Bang of Han, Zhu Yuanzhang of Ming, Zhao Kuangyin of Song... All worthy rulers

Exactly; she is a despised figure. It would be like choosing James Buchanan or Warren Harding to be the leader for the USA (if they happened to be women ).

Most of the women in Civ V/G&K deserve to be there; Wu does not, nor does Dido, who is like Gilgamesh in Civ IV, more mythical than historical.

Why not Hannibal? It's not like Gandhi ever ruled India.

 

[Grubnessul]

'Cause its nice to have variety, and not the same leaders every game.

Greek and Roman leaders have hardly changed since Civ1. I'd rather see some change there (like Vespinian or Marcus Aurelius for Rome) than replacing the most well known enemy of Rome with a mystical figure.

 

[PhilBowles]

Still, despite all of her achievements; there are better choices out there for Ruler of China. Mao, Qin Shi Huang of Qin, Liu Bang of Han, Zhu Yuanzhang of Ming, Zhao Kuangyin of Song... All worthy rulers

Mao's uninteresting as everyone knows him and he's been in past incarnations of the game. And given current Chinese official feeling on the Cultural Revolution and their extreme distrust of charismatic socialists as exemplified in the Bo Xilai affair, I suspect that rather ironically Mao might be a harder sell in the Chinese market than once he was.

Greek and Roman leaders have hardly changed since Civ1. I'd rather see some change there (like Vespinian or Marcus Aurelius for Rome) than replacing the most well known enemy of Rome with a mystical figure.

To be fair, having a 'Greek' civilization does rather pigeonhole them into using Alexander, or possibly Philip, since this was the only period when the Hellenic League was more or less unified; I liked Pericles from a gameplay perspective, but he makes no sense as a leader of 'Greece'. For Rome, Civ games have previously used Julius. Maybe they can use Hadrian next time for a change.

 

[Louis XXIV]

First, I think Hannibal was amazing. Not only was he an amazing general and is well-known, but he essentially revitalized Carthage twice. First, while in Spain where he essentially acted as an autonomous governor and then as a Suffette after the second Punic War where he helped restore wealth to the city to the point where they could repay their tribute to Rome early (something Rome refused to accept).

There are two reasons for Dido, though. First, she is known and they probably wanted a female leader. It's also possible, but unlikely, that they found a female speaker of Punic but not a male one, which would necessitate a female leader.

There are two cons, though. First, she's mostly known because of a Roman propaganda piece. Also, the earliest stories said she was a goddess, which raises some doubt as to whether she ever existed in the first place.

 

[nokmirt]

Yeah that. Hannibal has been Suffete of Carthage since the original Civ; its nice to have change every once and a while



He was actually Suffete (chief magistrate; similar position as Consul) for a year; and did much to restore Carthage's finances by reducing the corruption that was rife in the bureaucracy.

That's right he was a judge, but consul is a better word for describing his position. Hannibal I gives an excuse to use the name for civ. The change is ok with me too. Something new and different is a good thing in this case.

 

[bcaiko]

Plus, she only ruled for 14 years.

She ruled in her own name for 14-15 years, but was ruling as regent for many years before that. And she was an effective advisor to her husband before taking over as his regent when he fell ill. She led a strong, effective (if arguably corrupt) government and played machiavellian politics well.

I think Wu is a fine choice of remarkable leaders in China. Especially when overall the game wants to feature women as leaders.

 

[Draskar]

It's probably too much to ask these days but it would be great if they brought back the male/female leader choice from Civ II.

Was easy for Civ II have this, developers only needs 2 portrait..
If you want this now, they need (for every leader) a new full 3D animation, a dubber and to think a bilancied special ability.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It was especially easy because if they had any difficulty thinking of a female leader, they simply made one up (Zulu) or used a goddess instead (Babylon).

 

[Glassmage]

Wu is a good choice for China's leader. I still remember watching a Chinese drama about her when I was younger and boy was I scared of her ruthlessness.

 

[Ashbery76]

Cleopatra and Elizebeth are the only ones of any note.The rest are just included to be nice and PC.

 

[albie_123]

Okay, for a start, Cleopatra would be an awful, awful choice for a leader, and I don't think I need to explain why - it's fairly well documented pretty much everywhere.

Secondly, there are other female leaders who are just as influential and important as Elizabeth: Maria of Austria, Dido of Carthage, Catherine of Russia (Although I personally would have preferred Peter or Stalin), etc.

Thirdly, it's never been a matter of 'PC'. It's been a matter of sales. Perhaps it's not much better, but, there is a difference: The inclusion of females wasn't decided upon to let Firaxis say, 'Look at us! We're equal opportunity employers when it comes to leaderheads!'. The inclusion of females was twofold: To allow female Civ players to have a choice to play as their own gender, and more importantly, to provide eyecandy for the male Civ players. They're looking for what will generate the most interest and push the most profit, not to be 'nice'. If they were so dreadfully concerned about being overly-PC we'd see much more relatively insignificant African, Asian and Native peoples as Major Civs. The only exception to the rule of 'Interest = Sales = Good' is the inclusion of a certain Austrian, and that's simply because including him would make sale of the game illegal in several European nations.

tl;dr: It's not about being nice, it's about:

I'm glad they chose Dido. She looks hot.

 

[PhilBowles]

Okay, for a start, Cleopatra would be an awful, awful choice for a leader, and I don't think I need to explain why - it's fairly well documented pretty much everywhere.

Not to mention that there's an obvious choice of female leader for Egypt in Hatshepsut if they'd wanted to go that route.

 

[Louis XXIV]

No love for Nefertiti?

 

[apocalypse105]

Which was quite an accomplishment in itself, given that Chinese succession law complete forbade it at the time, and that she defeated such rebellions within her domain.
Furthermore, she was the first ruler who officially supported Buddhism in China, which has caused it to become the largest religious influence in China. She was also rather paranoid and ruthless, as well as one of the most corrupt leaders of China.

And in only those 14 years, she did all this. Seems like a fairly good choice, and one of the better ones in Civilization V.

Beeing a paranoid ruthless leader and corrupt suites her well for civ 5 where every single AI is a bit crazy