Which leaders you'd change

[Jon Shafer]

I suppose since I'm working on a Civil War scenario, I can't really complain about Firaxis' choice of leaders... saves me some time.

[steamthunk]

I think Queen Victoria would have been a good choice for England as well. Under her reign Britain became the greatest power on Earth. She is still the longest reigning monarch in British history.

Bismarck was recognized as one of the greatest European statesmen in the late 19th century. In addition to unifying the German state he led the Prussian army to a victorious war against Denmark and France (encircling Paris until the French sued for peace), but also had the common sense to know when to stop (taking only the Alsac-Lorraine). He made Germany the most feared/respected power on the Continent and was a master at playing the other European powers against one another with mutual protection pacts. Read "Dreadnought" by Robert K. Massie and you'll understand why Bismarck is a much better choice as German leader than that OTHER Leader.

I like using FDR in my games as Americans. Or JFK.

Ramsses over Cleopatra.

Napolean over Joan.

Breshnov/Kruschov for the Russians for that cold war empire feel.

Godzilla for Japan!

[Jac de Molay]

Substitute washington or jefferson for lincoln

Dave

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by steamthunk
I think Queen Victoria would have been a good choice for England as well. Under her reign Britain became the greatest power on Earth. She is still the longest reigning monarch in British history.

Victoria was a bit of a nutball with Albert as almost a 'power-behind-the-thrown' before his death. Parlaiment pretty much ran things by that point. Victoria, it seems, wasn't even the right person at the right time; more like the figurehead at the time when everything just happened to go right around them. It's like calling Calvin Coolidge the greatest US president simply because he was in the Whitehouse during the roaring 20's, or Eisenhower in the 50's.

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar
I'd go with Lenin over Cathrine, and Napoleon over Joan of Arc.

While Hitler would be fun to play against, I suppose Hitler IS, after all, as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans. Then again, a WWII scenario featuring Hitler and a cold war scenario featuring Reagan would both be fun.

Reagan doesn't offend me, and I'm not sure how you can compare the two...

I don't think we should automatically reject Hitler because it wouldn't be "PC" and people won't like him, etc. I don't like Mao, but he's in.

Jeanne d'arc needs to be changed to a GL. Napoleon would make a good choice, along with several kings, but I'd go with Napoleon.

I'm not sure about Lincoln for America. Mostly because of his ridiculous animation. I can't stand it.

Washington was a great general and President. On the other hand, he didn't preside during a world war, or have much of a foreign policy: England and France were really the ones closest to America.

Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, wrote the Declaration of Independence, donated his own library to start the Library of Congress, etc.

FDR might be acceptable. He is a Democrat, though

Someone said JFK. I'm going to assume he was joking.

I want to see Nixon animated He should take lessons from Reagon about how to deal with communist countries.

Jimmy Carter? What a joke. What a joke...

Ronald Reagon was a good president. Reagonomics, fighting the evil empire, but are these the requirements for Civ3? Maybe a few leaders that aren't purely military would help balance the diplomacy/total conquest gameplay.

Bush Sr.? Gulf War, not much else.

Clinton? I'll leave it at that, lest this become OT.

I'm not overly familiar with Russian history, but would Peter the Great be a good choice?

Remember in Civ 2 how each civ had 2 leaders - a male and a female? Bring it back, because the idea that someone should be in simply because she's female, and there are so many men, is ridiculous, and it would put an end to it.

[MaxisDugan85]

Gandi is a goofy choice Gandi the Barbarian! LOL!
Joan of Arc??? Napoleon , please!!!
Cleopatra? NOT!!! Rameses , YES!!!
Peter the Great or Stalin for Russia.
Hitler should be an option. Bismark is good choice tho.

I really wish we had a choice of genders. Would it really have been that hard to give us two or more choices for leaders? Adding our own leaderheads would be cool. Am I the only one who hates those freaky UGLYheads?

While Hitler would be fun to play against, I suppose Hitler IS, after all, as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans. Then again, a WWII scenario featuring Hitler and a cold war scenario featuring Reagan would both be fun.

How can anyone compare Reagan to Hitler in any shape form or stretch of the imagination? Please , disagree with Ronnie's politics if you must but he wasn't an insane dictator with dreams of genocide and world domination.

[Pyrodrew]

Hitler would have been a bad choice for Firaxis.
If someone wants to download a Hitler to play against that's their choice, but Hitler does not deserve to be in the original game. If you were a German, would you want Hitler to be the default to represent you??? You would have to take time to alter the original game, just so your picture would not be Hitler.

Of course, Firaxis chose Ghandi, as well as all the others, based on their Recognizability Quotient (TM,) not on any sense of historical accuracy.

True, but I wouldn't say that Recognizability Quotient is the only factor.
Joan may have also been added to fill a Female Quota... if Cleo, Catherine, & Joan were all replaced with the others suggested here than the only female leader would be Elisabeth.

I can accept most of the leaders. The only one I voted to change was Joan.

I really wish we had a choice of genders. Would it really have been that hard to give us two or more choices for leaders?

I agree, this way you could be up against either one. Civ2 had this, but I suppose they didn't have the time to do this in Civ3.

[Tomji]

what would be cool is to be able to choose a leader. Or maybe even switch him sometimes.

[Tiberius]

I voted Joan and Chaterina, even though I wouldn't want them removed. Instead, I'd like to see one male and one female leader for each civ (Joan/Napoleon, Catherina/Peter), maybe even with different behaviour in diplomatic relations.

Anyone else thinking that Cardinal Richelieu or Louis XIV (the Sun King, apogee of French royal power) would be also good choices for France?

As for Germany, Bismarck is a very good choice. He created the modern German state (united the different german states). IMHO, a fine choice would be Konrad Adenauer, too (but he's too recent, not as important as Bismarck and too "peaceful" for Civ3).

How about having a different leader for each era or each government type?

[Lucarse]

My 2p (cents)

Joan - Napoleon
Ghandi - any other leader (the guy who went to war with alexander)
Catherine - Peter the Great!
Liz - Henry VIII

[Blaukrieger]

I think Bismarck was a great German leader. But I think the the Austrians, the other German speaking nation, cant identify themselves with him, because he made war against Austria. So I think it would be better to take a mediaval emperor. I d prefer Friedrich Barbarossa, because he was a great leader and after his death he was object of legends (Kyffhäuser).

[vmxa1]

Joan for me and maybe Russia's.

[The Pioneer]

The names never really bothered me so I haven't changed any of the names. But if I had to I would definitely change Lincoln to Washington. Lincoln was the one that kept the nation together during the greatest test but Washington was the one that holded the nation together at its conception. If it wasn't for him it would Virginians and New Englanders would've never kept together after the revolution

I would also change Joan, Catherine, the Virgin Queen and Cleopatra.

But at the end I come to a male dominated world!

So long....

[Chemical Ollie]

Suggestions for some modern world leaders that could change your opinion about some tribes:

Americans - Ronald Reagan (At least he is syncronized with the American golden age and unique unit)

English - Margareth Thatcher (for those of you who think Liz is ugly )

Babylonians - Saddam Hussein (stealth bombers, anyone?)

Persians - Ayatolla Khomeini

Zulu - Nelson Mandela (Or for those of you who like the Zulus as they are - Robert Mugabe).

[Chemical Ollie]

By the way - You could change the name of your own leader and tribe by clicking under the leader portrait in the game setup screen. I recently learned how to do it and use it quite often. You almost never see the face of your own leader during the game anyway, so just changing the name should do the job. It will also be displayed in your hall of fame if you get a high score.

[Mad Bomber]

France- Charlemagne or one of the Louis
England- Cromwell or Henry VIII
Egypt- Ramses II
Zulu- Shouldn't be in the game
Rome- Octavius Caesar
Russia- Ivan IV or Peter the Great
America- Washington or Jefferson
Persia- Cyrus the great
Greece- Pericles
Iroquis- Hiawatha- (only if you limit it to Iroqouis, but I would like the native americans represented by Pontiac)
Germany- Fredrick the great or Kaiser Whilhelm II

Aztecs- Is Montezuma the best you can do? He was the ruler when the aztecs were conquered. There has to be a better leader than him!

Byzantines need to be included somewhere. Sure they regarded themselves as romans (or decendents of the Roman empire) but they were a distinct culture to themselves, and deserve some recognition.

France should definitely be charlemagne

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

America- Washington or Jefferson

Greece- Pericles

Byzantines need to be included somewhere. Sure they regarded themselves as romans (or decendents of the Roman empire) but they were a distinct culture to themselves, and deserve some recognition.

Well Jefferson surely does not deserve to be up there Lincoln is a much better choice than him or even maybe Adams Sr.!

As for Greece Alexander is a much better choice. Percicles was only a leader of the Athenians and although a good leader of its time and place never achieved the greatness for Greece that Alexander did.

Byzantines felt like Romans?!

So long...

[Mad Bomber]

Pioneer:


Lincoln is better than Jefferson? Was it not Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence which is the basis of our Government, our liberty, our sense of National Unity? Was Jefferson not the thrid president of our nation? Did he not establish the long and widly held view of America as a country that would not interfere in world politics, and that America should set its views on the expansion of the lands to the west? I am not saying that Lincoln was not an important President, he most certainly was, but to dismiss Jefferson without so much as an afterthought is the height of arrogance, and ignorance.

Alexander was not really Greek, he was Macadonian, Pericles fits Greece much better, although I would accept a Spartan king also.

Byzantines...read a few books on them and perhaps you could learn some history.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Byzantines need to be included somewhere. Sure they regarded themselves as romans (or decendents of the Roman empire) but they were a distinct culture to themselves, and deserve some recognition.

Damn straight they need to be included. But they never thought of themselves as Romans, really. The inhabitants of the Eastern Empire were largely of Greek descent. After the Western Empire fell, the Roman influence gradually disappeared in the East. The emperors felt they were descendants of the line of Augustus, but by the seventh century, Greek had replaced Latin as the language of the empire. Their architecture and art was more hellenistic than Roman. The people themselves had welcomed the benefits of being in the Roman empire, but they had never considered themselves Roman, even while the empire was unified under Western control, and always retained their own Greek identity.

[congobeast]

All in all, I think most of the choices are decent; though some of them could be debated, ad naseum. Most such debates are truly a matter of taste.

IMHO, a national leader should be one who led a nation into it's 'Golden Age'; as it were. For that reason, I think the following changes are in order:

France: Charles Magnus. Though one could argue that historically, his kingdom was every bit as Germanic as it was Frankish. Unlike Napoleon, the Empire suffered for his death; whereas Bonaparte led France to both greatness... and disaster. "After me, the deluge."

Egypt: Snefru. While he doesn't carry the same 'name recognition' as either Ramses or Cleopatra; can anyone question that his pioneering of masonry, leading to the constuction of the Pyramids sparked and marked the golden age of Egypt?

America: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. While it is certainly easy to argue that Lincoln led the United States through their roughest trial, I think FDR was the one that took to possibilities sparked by Lincoln, his cousin Teddy, and Woodrow Wilson, and truly turned America into the first class world power that it is today. It was under Roosevelt that the US emerged not as one national power among many, but as one of two bipolar superpowers. His projects also led the US out of the Great Depression; and the industrial growth that came with his administration- and the flush of victory from the second World War- led to what many have called the US' golden age- the 1950s.

China- Qin Shi Huangdi. As the first Qin Emperor, Qin was the driving force behind the building of the Great Wall; and was responsible for standarizing Chinese writing, bureaucracy, scholarship, law, currency, weights and measures. He expanded the Chinese empire, built a capital in Xian, a system of roads, and massive fortifications and palaces. No small group of feats, while the jury is still out on Mao; who's Communist regime is showing more and more signs of conversion to capitalism.

That's my 2 cents, anyway; and worth every penny you paid for 'e,.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Aztecs- Is Montezuma the best you can do? He was the ruler when the aztecs were conquered. There has to be a better leader than him!

There were 2 Aztec emperors named Montezuma.
The first one, the great-grandfather (ruled 1440-1469) of the second one, established the Aztecs' victorious military program and greatly expanded the Aztec empire.

[Panag]

hi ,

they should have a different leader for each era

have a nice day

[Mad Bomber]

Ribannah:

Thanx for the clarification on Monezuma, I am the first to state that my info on the Aztecs is limited. The choice seems a bit better with that info.

[Jac de Molay]

they should have a different leader for each era

Hmmm...not a bad idea.

I would go with Charlegmagne with france, although you could make the argument that he was German because he was headquartered in Aachen.

A leader of many facets; absolutely ruthless and legendary in battle, yet devout in his religion and a patron of the arts. And any leader who can tell the pope to go screw himself is allright in my book.

[MC Hawking]

I'd change Catherine to Peter the Great because he began the westernization of Russia.

Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or another prominant revolutionary leader.

Elizabeth to Charles I or Oliver Cromwell.... or maybe not.

[Odin]

Cathrine => Peter the Great
Lincoln => FDR
Mao => Shi Huangdi (first Chin emperor, ended warring states period.)
Joan => Napoleon or Charlemagne
Xerxes => Cyrus
Cleo => Ramesses I

[Sharule]

I for one, would say that I would not buy the game if it featured Hitler as a world leader, that would be too offensive to me. Also, Hitler served Germany her most humiliating defeat ever. If you check sources, Hitlers Ego lost the war. His generals could have won it, but he got in the way, its the same with stalin, but he actualy steped aside and let his generals plan the battles, effectively winning the war for the Soviets.

As for me

Elizebeth - Churchill(he was a great leader.)
Cathrene - Lenin(For uniting Russia under one idealology and begining a new, industrial era for Russia, and delivering it from generations of Beauracracy.)
Joan o' Arc - Napolean(cause he kicked butt, twice!)

[AroSch]

Originally posted by Sonic
Which leaders do you think aren't worthy to be in game? (please check)

I don't think, they aren't worty actually, but I would select between some additions and the originals:

France - Napoleon or one of these Louis
England - Cromwell
Egypt - Cheops
Germany- Otto I, Fredrick II, Frederik the Great
Greece - Pericles
Russia - Peter the Great
America - Washington

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by panag

they should have a different leader for each era

Yeah:

Americans - ????

Vikings
Ancient - Harald Blåtand (=Harald Bluetooth-Yes, that's where Ericson got that name! He was a great diplomat, who could get completely different tribes to co-operate. Thats why his name today represents a radio interface that enables a mobile phone to co-operate with a refrigerator)

Medeival - Queen Margarete - The only ruler over a united Sweden, Norway and Denmark ever - The Kalmar Union. (Also called the King with no pants) It's true!

Industrial - Karl XIV Johan - The French nobleman who became the ruler of a united Sweden and Norway. He betrayed France, became King of Sweden and was one of the victors in the Napoleonic wars. He conquered Norway by beating Napoleon's allies Denmark. His dynasty are still the royal family of Sweden.

Modern - Olof Palme. The social democrat who was working for peace in various third world wars, like Vietnam and Iran-Iraq. (But as a right-wing voter I would rater choose Carl Bildt, the Swedish conservative party chairman who became the Peace administrator of Bosnia - always called a war hawk by Swedish socialists but proved to be even more peaceful than Palme when it came to action)

OK, there are at least 20 more tribes to be given leaders of all ages - you help me!