Will there be 21 century leaders worthy of a future Civ game?

[Vets]

Not necessarily any one in power now but what would it take for a hypothetical future leader in the 21st century to be worthy of inclusion in a future game in the franchise?

I personally think something like dragging a 3rd world country up a notch on the world stage would be a worthy reason but that may not be possible for one person's time as leader. Plus the country would need a decent national history behind it I guess.

 

[crawf0rd]

We are only 12 years into the 21st century. There were no worthy leaders in the first 12 years of the 20th century. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[JetStream]

I actually think of North Korea's late Kim Jong Il. North Korea is already 4th or something around that rank by number of military and paramilitary personnel in the world.

He can have also have a UA that benefits its production when he is in negative happiness although growth is stunted. Traits can be deceptive, paranoid, needy, etc...

oh and also he can assume the role of Gandhi as the new Nuke Happy Civ leader with domination as a trait rather than peaceful as distinguished from India's Gandhi.

 

[PhilBowles]

Most existing Civ leaders are those who had a formative role in their country's development, or who are otherwise simply well-known historical personages. Both tend to argue against very modern leaders, since most historically important territories Civ represents are either established, stable nations in the modern era, or have a historical 'golden age' that presents them with better leader options (is Jaryavarman VII or Suryavarman II a better leader for the Khmer than Hun Sen, say?)

Of the two most recent leaders in the game, Gandhi represents perhaps the only country that has only become a unified major power in the 20th Century, and Haille Selassie was selected because of the religious theme of the Gods & Kings expansion rather than because he's an obviously better choice than one of the Aksum or medieval emperors; indeed it's somewhat unfortunate that as a result one of the major classical powers and the most important territory in medieval Africa is pigeonholed as a modern-era civ representing a period when it had undeniable diplomatic relevance, but was not in its 'golden age' (it's also rather ironic that it has a UA representing resistance to invasion while being led by the man on whose watch the country was successfully invaded by Italy).

Late 20th/early 21st Century leading figures who might make good civ leaders - such as the Dalai Lama for Tibet, or Aung San Suu Kyi for Burma - aren't very representative of the time period those civs would represent, since neither is an important modern territory (and the Dalai Lama has never in practice ruled Tibet in any event; the same is of course also true of Suu Kyi in Burma, however she has had a formative role in the recent moderation of its government, and may indeed be seen in future as a key player in bringing the country out of poverty and isolation. Thien Sien might well prove to be another, and is the country's current leader, but it's too early to gauge his long-term impact).

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I actually think of North Korea's late Kim Jong Il. North Korea is already 4th or something around that rank by number of military and paramilitary personnel in the world.

Kim Il-Sung is a much more important figure for North Korea than Kim-Jong Il. I think that if they ever put North Korean leaders in Civ, it will be the original Kim.

 

[Ribannah]

I expect revolutions and new countries emerging in Europe and North America later this century.

Also, Brazil and South Africa will rise in power and produce good leaders.

 

[Gucumatz]

I am not sure about the extent of South Africa. Brazil is another story altogether. I predict them to be China's version of China to the US. A trade competitor, regional hegemon, and an OPEC of Food as industrialized countries begin to lose trade advantages to Brazil.

After all Brazil is the only country in the world actively using the WTO against various other countries and holding in reserve the ability to disregard all patents, trademarks, and intellectual property produced by any other country (This is called cross retaliation - Brazil basically bullied the US to hundreds of millions in subsidies to avoid the first major trade war of the 21st century for at least 5 years [The amount of coverage this got in Guatemala when I was there was astounding - compared to the fact its barely known here in the US]. With the discussion of the Farm bill - we probably will have to increase our payments to Brazil)

The Brazilians have had several very strong leaders that have shaped the country to a new direction - would they be strong enough to "represent" Brazil. I sort of doubt it atm

Many of the largest conglomerates in the world are now somewhat controlled by Brazilians. And in the last 10 years 40% of all mergers happened in South-South deals with Brazil leading the way

 

[aceflamingo23]

what about the president george w bush man he was and epic beast man.

 

[crawf0rd]

what about the president george w bush man he was and epic beast man.

You forgot to put up your flame-shield. I have no opinion on Bush, but I'm sure there all a lot of people who would argue over him.

 

[Socratatus]

Any leader of a country is worthy of a Civ game. Even crap ones. I wish Civ 5 allowed multiple leaders choice like Civ 4 did (at least two each).

I think Obama`s a pretty good one for America and there isn`t really one for Britain yet (Tony blair?)

 

[buchengshi]

It's hard to even begin to predict who could be in the game in the future. Not only do we not know who will be a leader, we have no clue what may happen during this century. If you had been making a Civ gmae 80 years ago people would probably have laughed at you for mentioning FDR. Churchill had a poor record at the time, and DeGaulle was hardly anyone important. Yet they were all in Civ4. When the devs sit down to make Civ18 the world may be a totally different place. The big leaders could be the Chinese PM who conquered the US & Canada, or the second emporer of Europe. Maybe Greece will make a comeback and the next Alexander will be legendary. Who knows?

 

[PhilBowles]

Any leader of a country is worthy of a Civ game. Even crap ones. I wish Civ 5 allowed multiple leaders choice like Civ 4 did (at least two each).

Civ IV vanilla had only one leader per civ, and even by BTS several civs had only one leader option (e.g. Khmer, Mali, I think Ethiopia, Aztecs, Inca and others). It would be a lot more effort to add relevant animations for extra leaders in Civ V and would, ultimately, be just as pointless mechanically as it was in Civ IV - there's no reason in that game that the trait combinations couldn't have been given to new civs instead of doubling up.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I expect revolutions and new countries emerging in Europe and North America later this century.

Also, Brazil and South Africa will rise in power and produce good leaders.

Knowing a bit about Brazilian history (hey, gotta know the history of a country you move to, eh?) let me just say that there IS one leader that MIGHT go down as one that could be used in a civ game. The last president, Lula, was extraordinarily popular and likely will be seen as important in the history of the nation. Unfortunately for his Civ hope, he, like most other 21st century leaders to date, is totally overshadowed by other leaders in the grand scheme of things. Dom Pedro II was a nearly flawless leader, huge patron of sciences (Brazil had the 2nd telephone and postal service because of this guy, after the US and England respectively), and was a historical anomaly (being one of the only royal family to ever rule a country in the Americas). President Vargas was one of the most popular leaders ever in the history of mankind (seriously, along the likes of Julius and Augustus...come on, the dude was pushed out of power as a dictator and reelected later as president...again). Finally Kubitschek was to Brazil what Napoleon was to France, an effective, if sometimes questionable, leader who really set up the country for the future.

Now, after all that, it seems that any leaders we might see in the 21st century to date are in the same situation (I'll make one exception, Elizabeth II could make it some day). They may be overwhelmingly popular, they may go in history books, but they have too much competition historically for the same spit of land.

Leaders from this century you'd see in future civ games would be, currently, for civs not yet added, maybe that don't even yet exist. Remember, Germany is hardly more than 100 years old! The one places to look for potential are there.

What leader can thrust Taiwan onto the world stage and force the world community at large to recognize them as an independent political entity?

What country might rise to power in Europe though the economic crisis there, and become a major world power? That country's leader would certainly be recognized.

What countries might rise out of the current conflict in the middle east and Africa, and what kinds of leaders might they produce?

The world is always changing. There will be leaders of the 21st century worthy of being in a civ game one day, but...it's just too early to tell when, where, and how. After all, who, at the time, thought Elizabeth I would have been such an effective and influential leader? The next great leader may be rising to power now, and we just don't know it...yet.

 

[Vets]

Most existing Civ leaders are those who had a formative role in their country's development, or who are otherwise simply well-known historical personages. Both tend to argue against very modern leaders, since most historically important territories Civ represents are either established, stable nations in the modern era, or have a historical 'golden age' that presents them with better leader options (is Jaryavarman VII or Suryavarman II a better leader for the Khmer than Hun Sen, say?)

That's what makes me think it'll probably be doubtful if we'll see recent leaders. There impacts in this era will inevitably be smaller in comparison to their forerunners. Would have to be a leader from an up and coming country like India was in the 20th. Like you said, Gandhi was a good 20th century choice since his country had significant formative years recently and he led them through it. Selassie was a good leader but Ethiopia's distant history was there strongest point.

I am not sure about the extent of South Africa. Brazil is another story altogether. I predict them to be China's version of China to the US. A trade competitor, regional hegemon, and an OPEC of Food as industrialized countries begin to lose trade advantages to Brazil.

Brazil definitely sounds like great candidates for the type of country I'm talking about. I'm just guessing here but they may be the next country to "surpass" their parent country like the US did. Will take a while but like the US, purely because of its size and the fact that its heading in the right direction, it will inevitably get there.

 

[Tavenier]

Maybe the future first president of Europe?

 

[aceflamingo23]

It's hard to even begin to predict who could be in the game in the future. Not only do we not know who will be a leader, we have no clue what may happen during this century. If you had been making a Civ gmae 80 years ago people would probably have laughed at you for mentioning FDR. Churchill had a poor record at the time, and DeGaulle was hardly anyone important. Yet they were all in Civ4. When the devs sit down to make Civ18 the world may be a totally different place. The big leaders could be the Chinese PM who conquered the US & Canada, or the second emporer of Europe. Maybe Greece will make a comeback and the next Alexander will be legendary. Who knows?

man china aint never gonna conquer the USA man if they come down in are hood man they all going get blown away i mean there aint no way they ever going take texas and missippi and tennsee and alabama because we got guns to resist their communsism with
Moderator Action: Please do not post such utter nonsense.

 

[3335d]

man china aint never gonna conquer the USA man if they come down in are hood man they all going get blown away i mean there aint no way they ever going take texas and missippi and tennsee and alabama because we got guns to resist their communsism with
Moderator Action: Please do not post such utter nonsense.

Your huntin' guns will be irrelevant because both sides in such a war would have fighter jets, mechanized infantry, stealth bombers, spy satellites, and ICBMs.

Anyway, the 21st century is too new to choose worthy leaders from. We are approaching a turning point in geopolitics, after which the world will never be the same again.

 

[Darkfeather]

Kim Il-Sung or Fidel Castro. Cuba is tiny but during his later leadership it punched far above it's weight class.

 

[PhilBowles]

Kim Il-Sung or Fidel Castro. Cuba is tiny but during his later leadership it punched far above it's weight class.

Neither qualifies as a 21st Century leader... Granted, Castro was still nominally in charge early in the century, but he was most relevant earlier. In terms of the country's future development Raoul Castro will likely prove to be the more important figure; from what I understand it was largely his behind-the-scenes encouragement of a local, cottage-industry-based market economy that helped pull Cuba out of economic hardship in the '90s. We don't have Stalin or Mao in Civ any more because their eras, while very significant in world politics at the time, didn't ultimately shape their countries' future; moreover it's increasingly politically ill-advised to market a game in China in which Mao is portrayed as a civilisation-defining leader.

As far as Russia's concerned, on that subject, Vladimir Putin is certainly a very prominent candidate among existing world leaders...

 

[Darkfeather]

Neither qualifies as a 21st Century leader...

Oh... right.. *facepalm*