Leaders through the Ages III: Back with a vengeance!

ixnay · May 16, 2003, 01:23

Yes, in what seems to be an annual thing now, this thread will contain a compilation of all the leader graphics for the 8 new civs in Conquests. Not much at first here, but as new info is released, I'll add it.

ixnay · May 16, 2003, 01:27

Second batch of 3 civs.

statusperfect · May 16, 2003, 09:04

Great to see it back and kicking ixnay. It is very appreciated.

How about adding UU pics too?

cheers

monkspider · May 16, 2003, 09:10

w00t! Just in case you didn't notice Ixy, there is a chance that they got the two leaders mixed up, so be prepared to switch them if the need presents itself. Checkout the the "heads up" thread for more details.

History Guy · May 16, 2003, 10:06

I could be wrong, but I think that the picture marked Gilgamesh, if it is Gilgamesh, is actually Medieval and not Ancient. Ancient Sumerians dressed nothing like that. Medieval Baghdad was full of such clothing styles.

And is it just me, or does Gilgamesh have Hannibal's sea bit behind him? If so, it might be someone else entirely!

Spiffor · May 16, 2003, 10:37

Glad to see the leaderheads through the ages back and kicking !

So, Firaxis wants to inlude the Hittites ? Along with the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the possible Hebrews, it sure has potential to make an excellent 'Cradle of Civ' scenario !

Louis XXIV · May 16, 2003, 10:47

They mentioned that the game will come with a "Battle for Mesopotamia" Scenario

History Guy · May 16, 2003, 12:21

Spiffor, yeah, they should include the Israelites if they want to sell their expansion pack to this History Guy...

ixnay · May 16, 2003, 14:17

Ok, after looking at it some more, the pic of "Gilgamesh" does indeed look like it would fit in the middle-ages more than the ancient, so I have moved it there.

History Guy · May 16, 2003, 17:19

Thanks.

Elden · May 21, 2003, 03:28

Gilgamesh should be in Ancient (his background is the same as Hannibal's ancient background).

Also Mursilis is the spelling not Mursalis.

History Guy · May 21, 2003, 14:13

Elden,

You're right about Mursilis, but I don't think so where Gilgamesh is concerned. How many ancient Sumerians ran around dressed like that? It's too medieval. Besides, that isn't the same background.

kring · May 21, 2003, 21:41

Thank you, I was wondering when it would show up.

Boris Godunov · May 21, 2003, 22:35

Are Hittites confirmed?

I know Incas and Sumerians are...Although I don't like having the Sumerians in, as it seems redundant with the Babylonians. They could have at least picked an actual Sumerian leader, like Sargon.

Louis XXIV · May 21, 2003, 22:54

The Hittite leader Mersilis is in that picture
So that means the Hittites are in

History Guy · May 21, 2003, 22:57

Boris,

I think the Hittites are as good as. No one else had a great leader named Mursilis as far as I know.

As for the Sumerians, actually, Gilgamesh was a real Sumerian leader, King of Uruk in 2700 BC. He wasn't a particularly good king, actually, if the records left by the Babylonians are correct, but he was still a genuine king all the same. So, he's rather more Sumerian that Sargon of Akkad, who was a bit too northern.

Boris Godunov · May 21, 2003, 23:05

Gilgamesh actually made king, did he? I knew he was from the Age of Heroes, but didn't know he'd actually been a king.

Sargon kicked arse, however, and was perhaps history's first known empire-builder. And his name is cool.

Sure, he was Akkadian, but close enough! He certainly was a more important ruler than Gilgamesh was!

Hmmm, maybe they just should have gone with Zaggesi!

Elden · May 21, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Elden,

You're right about Mursilis, but I don't think so where Gilgamesh is concerned. How many ancient Sumerians ran around dressed like that? It's too medieval. Besides, that isn't the same background.

Look at the picture of Hannibal at http://www.civ3.com/ptw_prof_carth.cfm then look at Gilgamesh again or better yet at his larger preview in the Conquests screenshots section at civ3.com, after doing that tell me they are not the same.

Nakar Gabab · May 22, 2003, 00:36

Alright, everybody with me here:

Sargon can't be the Sumerian leader because Sargon was an Akkadian.

And the Akkadian Empire is entirely different from the Sumerian Empire, blah blah blah. You get the picture.

Still, it's going to be odd having the Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, AND Arabs in effectively the same place.

statusperfect · May 22, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Elden

Look at the picture of Hannibal at http://www.civ3.com/ptw_prof_carth.cfm then look at Gilgamesh again or better yet at his larger preview in the Conquests screenshots section at civ3.com, after doing that tell me they are not the same.

they are not the same

(OK, they are...

)

cheers

Boris Godunov · May 22, 2003, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab
Alright, everybody with me here:

Sargon can't be the Sumerian leader because Sargon was an Akkadian.

And the Akkadian Empire is entirely different from the Sumerian Empire, blah blah blah. You get the picture.

This is quibbling. It is like saying James I can't be considered an English king because he was from Scotland.

Sargon was from Akkad, but he ruled over Sumeria for 54 years, which was quite a hefty timespan. And I doubt Akkad was that much culturally different from Sumeria, although they were Semitic peoples.

Considering the liberties they take with other rulers (Joan of Arc, Hannibal), having Sargon as their ruler wouldn't be inappropriate, and it would be recognizing history's first great conqueror. It would seem to me more appropriate than Gilgamesh, who never ruled over all of Sumeria, but was just the king of one city-state.

Spiffor · May 22, 2003, 10:02

Yes, but Gilgamesh has a way cooler name

Boris Godunov · May 22, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, but Gilgamesh has a way cooler name

I don't think so. Compared to Sargon? Sargon sounds powerful--it sounds like a great leader, someone Tolkien would have invented.

Gilgamesh sounds like a topping for falafel.

History Guy · May 22, 2003, 12:15

Elden, it isn't the same. Look closer, there is clearly an ocean behind Hannibal. Behind Gilgamesh, there is clearly...a wall! They are not the same.

Boris, you are right, but only based on other leader choices from the game. Otherwise, I'd have to disagree.

ixnay · May 22, 2003, 14:25

Good to see this thread is alive and kicking. Anyways, I'm not going to be able to update this until i am reunited with my computer (it'll be a few weeks).

Elden · May 23, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Elden, it isn't the same. Look closer, there is clearly an ocean behind Hannibal. Behind Gilgamesh, there is clearly...a wall! They are not the same.

The wall is also there for Hannibal.

Gramphos · May 23, 2003, 08:11

You have improved your layout alot since the first thread. It's interesting to see how all these speculation threads return...

And the background is the same.

statusperfect · May 23, 2003, 08:28

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Elden, it isn't the same. Look closer, there is clearly an ocean behind Hannibal. Behind Gilgamesh, there is clearly...a wall! They are not the same.

Elden is right.

cheers

Elden · May 23, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Elden is right.

I'm glad I didn't make a mistake but I hope they haven't recycled any other leaderheads.

statusperfect · May 23, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Elden

I'm glad I didn't make a mistake but I hope they haven't recycled any other leaderheads.

i think this is a temporary background until they make up something unique

cheers