Why not Hannibal??

[Mango Elephant]

Didn't Hatty dress like a man?

Anyways, I think Dido is fine for a civ like Carthage, however for a civ like China, I'd rather someone other than Wu, although she does have her merits.

 

[Zhahz]

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

Meh, Civ isn't an RPG and this is hardly something I could call an important issue or feature. Might be nice, but hardly something they need to be spending a lot of time or resources on.

Furthermore, Civ isn't a historic simulation, it's a game with historic influences. Variety in civs and leaders is more fun and flavorful. The civs and leaders in the game are ultimately containers for stats. I have no idea why people get so worked up over which civs/leaders are in/out. Dunno. Maybe it's because I'm a programmer. When I look at leaders and civs I see traits, bonuses, UUs, UBs, etc - data. The wrapper for the data (civ/leader) is a nice touch but ultimately means nothing. I pick civs based on the data they bring to the table, not because "I want to rule the world as Isabella, she's smokin'" I just don't see much RP value in Civ, it's not that kind of game, even though you can sort of play it that way and some do (whatever floats your battleship).

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?

Having the leaderheads change with time was always kind of wierd in Civ 3 and often very comical. I kind of prefer the consistency you see in IV and V. The real reason they don't do it though is keeping things within reasonable limits - the art assets in the more recent versions of the game are much more intensive and doing up multiples for each leaderhead would be an enormous amount of work for such a fluffy feathure that has nothing to do with gameplay. In 3 I'm pretty sure they just slapped a suit on top of the leader's graphic, for ex, and I doubt you can do that with 3D animated graphics with leaders in all kinds of different poses and positions.

 

[vcutag]

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

I would have said Kangxi or Qianlong as my choice, but all of the above work. But I think they'd be better for a separate Manchu civ.

 

[nokmirt]

Meh, Civ isn't an RPG and this is hardly something I could call an important issue or feature. Might be nice, but hardly something they need to be spending a lot of time or resources on.

No one as far as I know thinks civ is an rpg. I think it would take much more for it to become and rpg than just picking from more leader choices.

I suppose you could write a letter to Firaxis and let them know what they should or shouln't waste time on.

Furthermore, Civ isn't a historic simulation, it's a game with historic influences. Variety in civs and leaders is more fun and flavorful.

Civ is a game with historic influences. Many of us on here dicuss history in relation to civ to develop our points of view. This also drives our imagination and therefore gets us more interested in the game. None of us as far as I know want to make a game into a historical simulation. However, there are some aspects of the game that can be influenced more historically than others. I suppose that is one big reason we discuss the game at civfanatics. Of course everyone has an opinion and no two opinions are the same. Seeing several points of view is a good thing, but none of us should try to say someone else's ideas are not worthy, just because they differ from our own.

Maybe it's because I'm a programmer. When I look at leaders and civs I see traits, bonuses, UUs, UBs, etc - data. The wrapper for the data (civ/leader) is a nice touch but ultimately means nothing. I pick civs based on the data they bring to the table, not because "I want to rule the world as Isabella, she's smokin'" I just don't see much RP value in Civ, it's not that kind of game, even though you can sort of play it that way and some do (whatever floats your battleship).

This is why you could try to think outside the box. Develop the data so it has a meaning, a purpose. Study history and learn about the leaders the data represents. Perhaps then the data could be molded into something meaningful that you can relate too. Even if it just joggles your mind into saying, "Wow, now I know why they chose this UA for Genghis Khan!" You see you have to think in more than one dimension, from more than one angle. Programming begins with imagination. Buiding something new with your mind. Right?

 

[PhilBowles]

No one as far as I know thinks civ is an rpg. I think it would take much more for it to become and rpg than just picking from more leader choices.

Wasn't the addition of Great People and unit experience justified as adding RPG elements to Civ? I've certainly seen them described as such.

Civ is a game with historic influences. Many of us on here dicuss history in relation to civ to develop our points of view. This also drives our imagination and therefore gets us more interested in the game. None of us as far as I know want to make a game into a historical simulation. However, there are some aspects of the game that can be influenced more historically than others. I suppose that is one big reason we discuss the game at civfanatics. Of course everyone has an opinion and no two opinions are the same. Seeing several points of view is a good thing, but none of us should try to say someone else's ideas are not worthy, just because they differ from our own.

http://www.playthepast.org/?p=593

I think this sums it up very well (in short: as a game, Civ has always been addictive but not that hot. It's mainly the flavour that keeps people coming back for more). I agree with it that to a large extent Civ rises and falls on its flavour. I can certainly accept lack of 'realism' in favour of improved mechanics and gameplay experience (e.g. the way city-states work, some of the diplomatic modifiers, food-generating granaries), but while priority has to be given to making civ choices work interestingly mechanically, I think it is important to choose civ names etc. for maximum flavour and, where possible, to minimise the more bizarre game elements. For example, as there's no compelling mechanical reason for the nuclear sub to be where it is in the Civ V tech tree (other than the earlier Submarine being on the same path), I'd rather see it moved to the fission path, or the links in the tech tree changed, to avoid the unnecessary oddity of being able to produce nuclear subs without having developed atomic theory. Likewise, I'd much prefer all CSes to be named after real city-states, and to remove/rename 'civs' that aren't like the Celts and Huns. And for goodness sake ditch El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth.

 

[Nyanko]

I would have said Kangxi or Qianlong as my choice, but all of the above work. But I think they'd be better for a separate Manchu civ.

Indeed, add two more to the list. I just stated some of the dynasty founders, any of them would make a respectable Chinese Civ Leader over Wu (Mao being the founder of the Communist Dynasty).

 

[Camikaze]

The rest are just included to be nice and PC.

You know I really don't think the inclusion of arguably objectifying 3D models is meant to be 'PC'. It's meant to appeal to male fans.

 

[nokmirt]

Wasn't the addition of Great People and unit experience justified as adding RPG elements to Civ? I've certainly seen them described as such.

Well I was thinking about this. What do you do in a role playing game? You develop and mold a character as him/her/it experiences adventures in a virtual or imaginary world, based on the choices we as players make. In CiV, we do the same thing with our civilization, which similarly takes on a unique life of its own based on our choices. I never thought of CiV as a role playing game, but we do develop, advance, and improve our civilization as the game progresses. In that aspect role playing does become apparent. With Gods and Kings added, this will make role playing our civ even more in depth. Simply, because, there will be more choices which will lead to even more unseen outcomes. When I play RPGs, I love unseen outcomes, that makes gameplay more exciting. You never know what is going to happen next. By adding unseen outcomes to CiV, essentially will take the game to a whole new level of fun.

Also,

"One of the aspects of Civilization that makes it so loved among history nerds is its ability to immerse us in history." That is why I have been and always will be interested in civilization. My interest in history, drives my obsession to play civilization. Therefore, the game drives my obsession for learning more about history.

 

[Oohforf]

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.

Yeah, she put down rebellions, and ended up elevating Buddhism over Taoism and Confucianism. Where is Buddhism now? Focused in Japan/Indochina.

Other than that? o.o...well, she did start up her own 2nd Zhou Dynasty in the middle of the Tang Dynasty.

Many people who live in China or know a bit of Chinese history know that Taizong would have been a better choice. Heck, even Empress Dowager would have been a better leader choice, and I'm not even sure if she was a legit ruler.

And I hate her voice in game :S She sounds like a Chinese version of Paris Hilton.

 

[Civciv5]

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.

How many times do I have to tell people who know barely something about Chinese history,let alone Empress Wu Zetian!?

She was a great person an totally worthy to be in this game.
She was the first great empress of China.
She reconquered some territories that Taizong conquered and were lost.
She provided better equality.
She was great at administration,she appointed people by looking at their talents and not by social status.
She built many temples and pagodas.
She was fair to the lower classes and lowered taxes.
She reduced the size of the army,which saved lots of money.
She did a lot of great things,but she was cruel,yes,but those who want to achieve greatness must sometimes do cruel things.
She was incorrupt,intelligent,ambitious and prescient
She improved agriculture and placed a lot of importance it.
The empire prospered and there was peace.
She managed to hold the empire unified and stop rebellions(if there were any),while much emperors destroyed themselves and China
She helped spreading Buddhism

I watched a movie about her and she said:

For those who want to achieve greatness,everything is expendable

Which states (at least in the film) that she provided a quote for history,while almost none of the Chinese emperors have one.
And if you think she is cruel,there a lot (Chinese) leaders that are more cruel then her(Qin Shi Huang)

The point is that she was a great person and deserves it to be in the game
Well,she's is probably not the greatest leader in Chinese history,but she is one the greatest and remarkable.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Heck, even Empress Dowager would have been a better leader choice, and I'm not even sure if she was a legit ruler.

She was pretty legit. She advised the Xianfeng Emperor while she was still a concubine, and she heard all the issues given to the emperor because she was in the hall behind a screen, and later would tell him what to do. Later, when he died and her son was emperor (who was a baby), she ruled in his name for a great many years until he came of age. When he died and her nephew was the new emperor, she usurped his throne by imprisoning him in an pavilion on a lake, and then ruled in his name with the grand seal. So yeah, she ruled.

 

[Civciv5]

Cixi "ruled" de facto.
Wu Zetian first reigned de facto and then official and she is a much better choice then that old,ugly hag Cixi.

 

[Mango Elephant]

She ruled de facto, but she's still a ruler. A ruler doesn't have to be official. Gandhi was effectively a ruler, even if he wasn't in the official sense.

I do agree, though. A Qing ruler shouldn't be in Civ. The Chinese ruler should be from a high point in Chinese history, so an earlier Tang ruler is fine (assuming Wu is earlier Tang. I actually have no idea.)

 

[Nyanko]

Ruler or not, it was Cixi's misadventures that lead to near 40 years of anarchy in China. She is amongst the worse canditates for civ rulers of china

 

[Buccaneer]

Just because a leader (or any other flavor elements) was in past games does not mean it's worthy to include them in the current game. A lot of those leaders and flavor elements were bad to begin with but some apparently take on a mythical or irrational nostalgic factor. Changing leaderheads, throne room and advisors come to mind immediately.

 

[Oohforf]

How many times do I have to tell people who know barely something about Chinese history,let alone Empress Wu Zetian!?

She was a great person an totally worthy to be in this game.
She was the first great empress of China.
She reconquered some territories that Taizong conquered and were lost.
She provided better equality.
She was great at administration,she appointed people by looking at their talents and not by social status.
She built many temples and pagodas.
She was fair to the lower classes and lowered taxes.
She reduced the size of the army,which saved lots of money.
She did a lot of great things,but she was cruel,yes,but those who want to achieve greatness must sometimes do cruel things.
She was incorrupt,intelligent,ambitious and prescient
She improved agriculture and placed a lot of importance it.
The empire prospered and there was peace.
She managed to hold the empire unified and stop rebellions(if there were any),while much emperors destroyed themselves and China
She helped spreading Buddhism

I watched a movie about her and she said:

Which states (at least in the film) that she provided a quote for history,while almost none of the Chinese emperors have one.
And if you think she is cruel,there a lot (Chinese) leaders that are more cruel then her(Qin Shi Huang)

The point is that she was a great person and deserves it to be in the game
Well,she's is probably not the greatest leader in Chinese history,but she is one the greatest and remarkable.

The list that point wrote sounds like a lot of things that many different emperors did during their own reign. I don't really see what makes Wu stand out? Yeah, it's really cool that she indeed a female and was able to rule, but...

I just don't think she was as revolutionary as some people are pointing out.

Anyway, this thread is about Hannibal and Carthage, not Wu.

 

[Krzowwh]

Anyway, where's all the love for Hanno II Magonid or Hamilcar Barca?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Was Hamilcar ever a Suffette? He's an important general and generals often had significant autonomy, but it's better to pick someone who ruled. Either way, his son has all the positives of Hamilcar and more (and eventually ruled Carthage).

Hanno the Explorer was important for his sailing adventures rather than his time as a ruler. By the time he became King, the throne was becoming less and less important.

Probably the most successful Carthaginian King of the Magonid dynasty was Hamilco and even he eventually met disaster at Syracuse.

 

[Buccaneer]

Anyway, where's all the love for Hanno II Magonid or Hamilcar Barca?

Because they were not rulers? Why even bring them up?

 

[Nyanko]

ahh. But you see, in Carthage if you go through the surviving record, almost every leader was called Hanno, or Hamilcar or Hannibal (or a succcession of about 12 names). They were very unimaginative with their names. So its very likely there was a Suffette by the name of Hamilcar, and there was definately one by the name of Hanno. Just not Barca and "the great"