Worst Leader choice - Page 3

molly bloom · March 8, 2002, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I don't know why people seem to think the Aztecs are deserving to represent South American culture... The much older civilizations of the Olmecs, Chavin and Mayans were around much, much longer and produced many magnificent achievements. How exactly these civilizations disapeared and why is a mystery.

The Aztecs represent Meso-American culture, not South American. I suspect the reason is this: they are the best known, and they are the civilization that the Spanish conquistadores destroyed. Similarly with the Incas. What survives of Aztec civilization (and the civilizations/peoples they conquered) is still impressive in its own right- after all, Tenochtitlan was the largest and most impressive city the Spanish had ever seen, according to their own testimony. Equally, with the Incas, their absolutist monarchy with aspects of communism, the far flung nature of the empire, the extreme terrains encompassed, their quipu, metalworking and stoneworking skills, are all sufficient to make them remarkable in their own right.

I suspect the same approach was taken with the Zulu- the creation of an African Sparta, from the ground up in a relatively short timespan, makes them of interest. Gameplay may well dictate that a southern African civilization was chosen over an East African (Ethiopian/Somali) or West African (Songhai/Benin/Dahomey/Mali/Ghana) or North African civilization (Moors/Almohad/Almoravid/Berber), so as not to eliminate Egypt or Carthage too early, although putting the Celts and the English in the same game in Civ II did seem rather pointless, given the closeness of their starting positions in real world games.

Given that Turks (whether Ottoman, Seljuk or a pan-steppe representative Turkish civ) were left out, along with Arabs, and also any South East Asian civilization (no Srivijaya, Khmer) and the Spanish (!), it is difficult to see why more thought could not have been taken with the civilizations and the leaders that were included. The William Wallace hero generated for the 'English' civ being a real case in point.

I agree with you concerning the Joan of Arc choice for leader; better as a great hero. Due to France's Salic law, France managed to effectively not have any female rulers in their own right, although a good case could be made for say, Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Catherine de Medici, as a 'French' woman leader.
I usually opt out of playing the leaders assigned anyway; its much more interesting to have Trotsky conquering Western Europe, or Sun Yat Sen invading America, or Emma Goldman and her anarchist/communist hordes planting the American hammer and pitchfork (think Grant Wood and 'American Gothic') across the globe....

johncmcleod · March 9, 2002, 01:36

I don't know what I was thinking... of course Napoleon should be the leader. And yes, Hitler was a bad person but was a good leader. He united the Germans and turned them into a super power, though he was one of the worst men ever to live. I forgot to add something else though. Elizabeth was a great leader, but how about Winston Churchill? Yeah, I know I'm too 20th century... but still. And I agree with most people about Lincoln. I think it should've been Washington, or maybe, though he isn't our country's greatest pres, it would be interesting to have Bush because he's our president now. Also, though I do not know much about Iroqouis history, I don't think Chief Hiawatha was a good choice. I think Chief Sageyowatha (though most people call him Chief Red Jacket) would've been a better choice. I also think there should be a Cherokee civ. They developed the own alphabet, nation, government, constitution, and even a capital city before the Trail of Tears. Most Cherokee began to live kind of like Englishmen. They lived in cities and did business. And besides that, I think someone should make an Incan, a Mayan, a Dutch, or a Spanish civ. They'd be fun to play with.

Mr. President · March 9, 2002, 02:39

Joan of Arc for sure. She's not the person I think of when I think of France; for me French history is generates images of William the Conqueror, Napoleon, and Charles de Gaulle. Yet they seem to have avoided the modern era, with the exception of Gandhi.

dunk · March 12, 2002, 15:15

I dislike....

Joan of Arc
Montezuma
Cleopatra
Catherine the Great

I think some good replacements are....

Napolean, Louis XIV, or DeGualle
Can't think of one now, but Montezuma is not a good choice (just popular)
Ramses II
Ivan the Terrible

or Peter the Great

Herr David · March 12, 2002, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I don't know what I was thinking... of course Napoleon should be the leader. And yes, Hitler was a bad person but was a good leader. He united the Germans and turned them into a super power, though he was one of the worst men ever to live. [...]

AAAAAARGH

He did what exactly??? Unite the German people? Eh? You mean, he annexed Austria which made a lot of people happy for a very short time... before they changed their mind again and were very happy when the two nations were separated again after 1945. Of course it might have worked out under a different system and then there would be no Republic of Austria today. But in fact, if you ask an Austrian today he'll probably tell you (in his funny accent

) that he's quite happy about it.

And as a result of his attempt at grand unification, 12 million Germans were driven from their homes in Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia, never to return. Then add another three million ethnic German who were expelled from the rest of eastern Europe where they had been living as minorities more than two hundred years and you start to realize exactly why Germany is oh so united (ethnically!) today.

A leader is a person whose job, profession, talent, destiny or whatever is to lead people. Good leaders lead people towards good things, bad leaders lead people towards bad things, whether intentionally or not. And IMHO ol'Adolf qualifies for the latter one.

civman2000 · March 22, 2002, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by atfxkmk
Germany - Fine as it is..
Greece - Alexander is fine...although(not a ruler) Socratese would be funny...at least be an adviser LOL!
Russia - Lenin(hate Stalin), or Trotsky...i rather be Trotsky(again, not a real ruler) than Stalin

England - Dont care
France - Charlemagne
Rome - Romulus, Reemus, Ceaser, Mark Antony, That Augustus dude, hehe, or if Gladiator was actualy based on a real story(like i know it aint), Marcus Aeurilius.
Persia - Cyrus or Xerxes is fine...i actualy like Xerxes name better, but i kinda forgot which one did which for Persia...BUT i'd say Cyrus did a better job hehe..

Russia- i hate stalin too, but the best choice would definitely be peter or MAYBE stalin (big maybe)
France-He wasn't french...see hundreds of other posts...louis XIV or napoleon would be better
Rome-Gladiator IS based on a real story, FYI. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the "Good Emperors" and Commodus was unpouplar and ended the Pax Romanus...though he really got killed by a wrestler, then a general named maximus (like in the movie) took power for a couple years...BUt back to the subject, augustus would be best...
Persia-Xerxes may be the worst choice, maybe even worse than joan of arc...all he did was attack athens...an excellent example of dumb Grecocentrism...The ONLY choices for Persia at all should be Cyrus or maybe Darius

DarkCloud · March 23, 2002, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by dunk999
I dislike....

Joan of Arc
Montezuma
Cleopatra
Catherine the Great

I think some good replacements are....

Napolean, Louis XIV, or DeGualle
Can't think of one now, but Montezuma is not a good choice (just popular)
Ramses II
Ivan the Terrible

or Peter the Great

For a replacement for Montezuma- it would be a good idea, but I don't think that many people known many famous Aztec Leaders.

Catherine has some merit- but yes, Peter,Ivan, Stalin and Lenin are also good choices.

Cleopatra is horrid. Ramses or someone else would be better!

But remember- unless they have both a Queen AND a King, they have to include "Some" Women

Or the Sufregettes will riot

Alinestra Covelia · March 23, 2002, 06:19

Part of this entire "why aren't there/why are there that many female leaders in the game" question could have been avoided if Firaxis had just included a male and female leader for each civ.

Of course, this would have made the face animations more difficult, but as I see it, I'd be willing to live without a showy 3D animation and just have a functional picture, like in Civ2. What game mechanics do the 3d faces add that the 2d pics couldn't? None.

Also, from a modder's viewpoint, 2d pictures are easier to replace and mod for than 3d heads. Both have been done, but I'm no 3d animator

Beren · March 23, 2002, 08:05

Quote:

Persia-Xerxes may be the worst choice, maybe even worse than joan of arc...all he did was attack athens...an excellent example of dumb Grecocentrism...The ONLY choices for Persia at all should be Cyrus or maybe Darius

Agreed. Go Cyrus II

civman2000 · March 23, 2002, 10:29

cyrus II????? cyrus I did all the conquering!

Beren · March 23, 2002, 17:14

Most people don't know, but when we talk about Cyrus (the one that defeated the Elamites, Medians and Babylonians) we're talking about Cyrus II. I don't know who Cyrus I was, but I don't think he was important.

civman2000 · March 25, 2002, 10:31

oops

didnt know that

molly bloom · March 26, 2002, 21:56

This site has some good information on Achaemenid monarchs and battles:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/

dunk · March 28, 2002, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I also think the American leader should have been FDR. He is hands down the best president the US ever had.

Please, ick. Give me Lincoln over FDR. Thomas Jefferson would be a great choice for American ruler.

I don't think Montezuma was a good choice for the Aztecs. There were many more successful rulers, but Montezuma is the only one most people know about. I can't name a good replacement though, my memory is foggy at best.

Cleopatra is another choice I would like to see been made differently. I like Ramses II.

Joan of Arc is another bad choice. How about Charlemagne?

I don't like Mao as the Chinese leader. Although, I do like his hat.

I think you should be able to choose from a list of rulers. Although that would have been a lot of uneeded fluff to add to the game, it would have been cool.

Beren · March 29, 2002, 02:18

Quote:

I don't like Mao as the Chinese leader. Although, I do like his hat.

Talking about hats: Lincoln loocks just like a devil in the Middle Ages.

Jethro83 · March 29, 2002, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Beren

Talking about hats: Lincoln loocks just like a devil in the Middle Ages.

Hmmm... I don't think Lincoln looks anything like a 'devil' in the middle ages. But that's just my belief.

Another note about hats. Check out Bismarck in the middle-ages when he is annoyed/furious. Damn funny. The floppy red hat adds a sort of exaggeration to his negative emotions...

Spiffor · March 29, 2002, 09:17

Personally, I don't know anything about Aztec rulers, and I think I'm not the only one. I know Montezuma only because he's the Aztec leader since Civ1. If they put someone else (more successful historically), it would probable be better.
Another not so great leader : Tokugawa. Tokugawa is the name of the family, not the individual. Tokugawa Ieyasu ended the civil war in 1600 and united Japan under its rule, but then Japan closed itself on foreign influence (both Chinese and European) and remained feudal until 1868. IMO, Emperor Meiji is much better, as he restored imperial power, was enlightened enough to modernize its country quickly, and changed it from a backwards exotic country to a major economic and miltary power when in 40 years... Well, he was a dictator and sacrificed a part of his population in the process, but many leaders in this game did.

Beren · March 30, 2002, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Another not so great leader : Tokugawa. Tokugawa is the name of the family, not the individual. Tokugawa Ieyasu ended the civil war in 1600 and united Japan under its rule, but then Japan closed itself on foreign influence (both Chinese and European) and remained feudal until 1868. IMO, Emperor Meiji is much better, as he restored imperial power, was enlightened enough to modernize its country quickly, and changed it from a backwards exotic country to a major economic and miltary power when in 40 years... Well, he was a dictator and sacrificed a part of his population in the process, but many leaders in this game did.

Meiji certainly achieved economic successes, but choosing him is maybe too western. Like choosing Karzai as leader of the Afghans. My gues is they wanted a leader that said "Japan" and which showed the enormous cultural differences between us and Japan. Tokugawa is probably not the best choice, but what about Jimmy Tennu, the said to be first emperor of Japan around 1 AD? Of course maybe he's just a myth, but we could always go for the leader of the Yamato clan.

Odin · March 31, 2002, 01:00

A good replacement for Montezuma would be his nephew, Comtamuc, he bravely tried to fight off the invading Spanish.

American: FDR

French: Charelmagne

Beren · March 31, 2002, 04:04

Did some research about Aztec history and turns out the Montezuma were thinking of was actually Montezuma II. Maybe the first was better...
Acamapichtli could have been a better choice. According to this link he was chosen as leader because of his political skills.

http://www.crystalinks.com/aztechistory.html

Iron Chancellor · March 31, 2002, 13:58

Here's an idea:

American Leader: Teddy Roosevelt
Why: TR was the first President to actively pursue an aggressive foreign policy. The US fought its first modern war, built an overseas empire and gained independence for the largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba. He was the driving force behind the Panama Canal. Because of his foreign policy, the US has since played a major role in the affairs of her Central and South American neighbors. Domestically, he was for the common people, enacting anti-Trust and monopoly laws, drafting clean food, water, air and land legislation and setting up the first national parks. PLUS: he would be another Industrial Age leader, filling Abe Lincoln's slot perfectly.

Beren · March 31, 2002, 16:21

It is hard to choose an American leader, simply because no one ruled 50 years in times of prosperity. There are tons of other options, but I think Lincoln doesnot make a bad leader at all.

monkspider · April 1, 2002, 00:06

When rating these rulers we must take into consideration that they must be fairly well known amongst the masses and be leaders that did great things for the country. I don't think either one of these characteristics is more important than the other in this case.

Germany - Bismarck is perfect. One of the Fredricks could have been feasibly considered though.
Greece - Alexander is perfect. Pericles could have been an outside choice, but no one could be a better choice for Greece than Alex.
Russia - Catherine can't be complained of too loudly. Lenin or Peter would have made good choices too.
England - Liz is perfect.
France - Ugh, Joan was a horrible choice. I think Napoleon, or possibly Louis XIV would have been much better. For anyone looking for a wonderful 3-D rendering of Napoleon to add to their game, click here. http://ccm01.sphosting.com/. Many props to the author for such a professionally-created rendering.
Rome - Julius Caesar is perfect. Augustus/Octavion could be considered too.
Persia - Xerxes is acceptable, though Cyrus may have been the better choice. I have no problem with Xerxes though.
Iroquois- Hiawatha is perfect
Aztecs- Montechzuma II is really the only feasibly choice for the Aztecs.
Zulus- Ditto for Shaka
China- Mao Tse Tung is perfect, Shi Huang Ti could be also a candidate.
Japan- Tokugawa is perfect. Meji could have been considered, but no one else sums up the essence of Japan better than Tokugawa.
India- Gandhi is perfect.
Babylon- Hammurabi is perfect. Perhaps Nebuchadezzer could have been considered as well.
Egypt- Cleopatra is a fairly bad choice, but not on the scale of Joan. I would gladly take Ramses II any day thouhgh.
America- Lincoln is fine, FDR, Teddy, and Washington would have made fine choices as well.

Jethro83 · April 1, 2002, 08:11

These are the only truly bad choices:

France - Joan didn't rule anything. Nor can anyone imagine her ruling anything. Napoleon, Louis XIV or De Gaulle would've been better choices.

Egypt - Cleo is another terrible choice. Ramses II is the only one that comes to mind.

Aztecs - Montezuma II was one of the worst Aztec rulers on record. Even before Cortéz arrived, people were questioning his ability to rule. He was slow-witted, took too long to make decisions and always turned to the priests for advice, who responded with "The gods want more sacrifices!!!". His nephew (sorry, but I don't remember how to spell his name) would be OK. It hardly matters as I prefer to imagine the Montezuma in the game to be Montezuma I (possibly a much better ruler than the successor bearing his name).

The worst of these would have to be Joan of Arc, purely because the other two were actual rulers, and Joan was simply Great Leader material.

Beren · April 2, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Aztecs- Montechzuma II is really the only feasibly choice for the Aztecs.

Like I said before, there is an alternative. Acamapichtli was the first emperor of the Aztecs.
Though I found out Montezuma was not a bad choice indeed. He turned Tenochichlan into a cultural metropolis.
Other Aztec emperors, click here

BTW: I found out a major mistake in AoK:TCE. Cuauhtémoc did not rule until after a few months after Montezuma's death.

loleod · April 6, 2002, 23:51

This seems to be a HUGE cleo bashing event. Cleo wasnt the best choice , but she wasnt half bad. Arc on the other hand , give me a break. The same thing with Ghandi , in my opinion you should of had to rule the nation to be considered the leader for the game.

Any well known modern US president should be better then Lincoln. I would go with FDR though, the american special unit is an aircraft, I doubt lincoln ever saw a plane fly.

China could have done much better , China is a very old country Im sure they could have found a better leader that represents China for more then a puny half century of their history.

I also wish we saw Napolean and we are completely missing Atilla the Hun ! The so called barbarian tribes of the past get no respect.

The leaders , I read some complaints , but I dont remember seeing one big one. Robert E Lee is a leader in America?!?!? I understand he was a leader in america and I understand at one time he was with the union, but I find it laughable that he would be a leader for america at the same time Lincoln is president, what couldnt they find Benidict Arnold( Spelling?) .

considering this is an american made game I would assume the people of Fixaris would at least get that conflict straight. Also I agree with an earlier post good job on picking Wallace as an English leader

.

Beren · April 7, 2002, 04:33

Now if somebody would just make a pharao leaderhead and we didn't have Cleoproblems. I mean: if you have a pharao any Egyptian leader is possible (would anyone know the difference between the physical appearance of different pharaos?)

About Atilla the Hun: Of course I'd happy if there was a new leaderhead for him, but he is exactly the prototype of a barbarian. He himself is special but he doesn't really have a civ that supports him. Razing cities and that stuff, that doesn't sound civilized.
BTW: Any one that makes leaderheads, make sure they are downloadable. I've tried all and only one was downloadable (Trudeau)