Wu Zetian

[Lemon Merchant]

Of course the Celts have Boudica who is best known for losing her minor kingdom and then a war, so they certainly aren't consistent.

Let's see. A rag-tag group of warriors against the Roman Legions... Hmmm.. I wonder why she lost?

Considering that if any of her various biographies are true, and from what I learned in primary school, she did a pretty good job of it. First of all, what she suffered at the hands of the Romans was pretty nasty. Most people would have folded up and quit, but she actually challenged the Roman army.

If you think that Boudica wasn't a strong leader or warrior, I would ask if you'd like to meet her in a dark alley? I know I wouldn't.

 

[revengeofmakno]

If you think that Boudica wasn't a strong leader or warrior, I would ask if you'd like to meet her in a dark alley? I know I wouldn't.

There are lots of people that one wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.

If they were desperately looking for warrior queens, Zenobia would have been a much stronger choice. They gave in to ethno-centrism and some kind of political populism/correctness when including her and the Celts for that matter. It probably sells to a certain market and no doubt there were some requests. It wasn't the first time they did that and it likely will not be the last.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

There are lots of people that one wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.

If they were desperately looking for warrior queens, Zenobia would have been a much stronger choice. They gave in to ethno-centrism and some kind of political populism/correctness when including her and the Celts for that matter. It probably sells to a certain market and no doubt there were some requests. It wasn't the first time they did that and it likely will not be the last.

And she was also good for promoting to a mature audience.

 

[awesome]

In a word, No

Most people outside that region don't know much of anything of Chinese history. You could tell them almost anything and they might believe it.

There are a few people who have heard the names of some specific dynasties and some VERY general sketchy patterns, such as;

China is an old civilization and was centred on the two large river valleys and there were some terra cotta soldiers buried in tombs.
The Tang were a strong dynasty,
The Song were weak and were taken down by the Mongols who were in control when Marco Polo came around,
The Ming got rid of the Mongols, sailed around and then burned their fleet and lost the chance to be a world super-power.
Later the Qing came along and pushed the borders out but then declined to a very weak state and were pushed around by the Japanese and the Western Powers,
A "republic" of some kind was formed in 1911-1912 by Sun Yat-sen but he later died and Chiang was not as good as him and thus China continued in a weak state until the Japanese invaded in a big way. Chiang and Mao fought eachother as much as the Japanese.
Mao overthrew the Nationalists by 1949 and attacked the UN forces in Korea. He had trouble with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution tore things apart.
After Mao died, Deng took over and moved China into more conventional economic development.

Don't expect more than that in terms of history even from well educated people.
Anyone who knows remembers the names of specific emperors other than Kublai Khan (and Genghis obviously) is very rare.

three kingdoms period is pretty popular, thanks to dynasty warriors.

And she was also good for promoting to a mature audience.

boudica shouldn't have been a butterface.

 

[Farm Boy]

boudica shouldn't have been a butterface.

The Romans seemed to think she had some genetic attractiveness.

 

[swilhelm73]

Let's see. A rag-tag group of warriors against the Roman Legions... Hmmm.. I wonder why she lost?

Should the French get Édouard Daladier as a leader for the same reason? Or the Chinese Zhu Youjian? Or heck, why not give the Celts Vercingetorix?

The mark of leaders in Civ should something more then just lost completely but did better then expected.

If you want a Celtic leader in addition to Brennus. why not divide Brennus in two? Brennus of the Senones and Brennus of the Pannonians. I presume Civ 4 is using the latter now as the former is borderline for a leader. But at least he sacked Rome before losing the war.

 

[swilhelm73]

There are lots of people that one wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.

If they were desperately looking for warrior queens, Zenobia would have been a much stronger choice. They gave in to ethno-centrism and some kind of political populism/correctness when including her and the Celts for that matter. It probably sells to a certain market and no doubt there were some requests. It wasn't the first time they did that and it likely will not be the last.

Hmm, what Civilization would Zenobia have led? Carthage, Egypt, Arab, Greek, or Roman?

 

[revengeofmakno]

Hmm, what Civilization would Zenobia have led? Carthage, Egypt, Arab, Greek, or Roman?

Could make a case several ways but the best bet seems to be Arabic and the area she operated in definitely suits Arabia. She is at least as Arabic as Saladin who was actually Kurdish. Come to think of it, the Arabs were well supplied with warrior queens when you add Mavia into the picture as well.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Should the French get Édouard Daladier as a leader for the same reason? Or the Chinese Zhu Youjian? Or heck, why not give the Celts Vercingetorix?

The mark of leaders in Civ should something more then just lost completely but did better then expected.

If you want a Celtic leader in addition to Brennus. why not divide Brennus in two? Brennus of the Senones and Brennus of the Pannonians. I presume Civ 4 is using the latter now as the former is borderline for a leader. But at least he sacked Rome before losing the war.

Uh, Vercingetorix might have lasted longer than Boudica, but he had the same result. And he had more resources at his disposal.

If there's anything reasonable, the game designers will use female leaders for a number of reasons.

Actually using the standard of leaders who lost completely being barred would eliminate Hannibal, Montezuma, Huayna Capac, Bismark (dismissed by the new Kaiser) and probably a couple of others I haven't thought of. What about leaders who were assasinated?

 

[swilhelm73]

Uh, Vercingetorix might have lasted longer than Boudica, but he had the same result. And he had more resources at his disposal.

If there's anything reasonable, the game designers will use female leaders for a number of reasons.

Actually using the standard of leaders who lost completely being barred would eliminate Hannibal, Montezuma, Huayna Capac, Bismark (dismissed by the new Kaiser) and probably a couple of others I haven't thought of. What about leaders who were assasinated?

Bismark is the one exception to that list in that he was sacked, but his state continued to be a great power afterwords.

I think we have Monty and Huayna because of the lack of knowledge of their actual expansive leaders. Though more so for Monty, IIRC, they could, and should, have used Huayna's father.

I suggested a few other leaders for Carthage earlier in the thread.

 

[awesome]

zenobia is probably syria or egypt

 

[Lemon Merchant]

If they were desperately looking for warrior queens, Zenobia would have been a much stronger choice. They gave in to ethno-centrism and some kind of political populism/correctness when including her and the Celts for that matter. It probably sells to a certain market and no doubt there were some requests. It wasn't the first time they did that and it likely will not be the last.

You and I both know that the majority of the female leaders in the game are there because of an attempt at gender balance. Lizzie, Catherine, and perhaps Victoria might belong there for their contributions, but any others would be there to fill a gap. The problem with adding any sort of female leader, is that there are very few of them in history that actually did anything really significant in their own right, or if they did, there are very few of them to pick from.

Face it, it's been a man's world for most of our history. There have been some women that have stood out in our history, but most wouldn't qualify as they haven't ruled a country/empire, whatever, so the question is pretty much moot.

Firaxis gave us the women that they gave us, and there isn't much to do about it but mod in the ones we want to have in the game. There have been a number of nerd wars about this in the past in the threads, but it all boils down to the fact that the game designers were trying to balance out the testosterone a little, and maybe be partly PC in the process. They probably did get a little ethnocentric. There are more leaders per civ in the civs that represent where the game sells better. It's marketing, like everything else in today's culture of Advertising/Technology/Celebrity worship. Who cares?

Would I like more women in the game? Yes, I would, but I would like them to be qualified to be there. Beyond that, they are just pixels like the rest of the leaders in the game, and I'm more concerned with how my hair looks right now than I am with historical justifications on which leader gets to be in the game.

It's just a game.