07-07-2005 01:05									#91
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kaak Why don't they just have two leaders for all the civs? The ones people don't know might inspire them to google them and learn something...

It would be a good idea. I just get the sense that something's being rushed a little bit. Well, I guess they're trying to cut anything that would take too long, likt leaderheads, so we're lucky they're giving us eight extra.

	07-07-2005 01:30									#92
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kaak Why don't they just have two leaders for all the civs? The ones people don't know might inspire them to google them and learn something...

Maybe it's hard to find civs with two leaders that are sufficiently different that people would recognize.

Also, there's a limit to how many you can have without being redundant. As I recall, in civ3, there were no civs that had overlapping traits. With the expansion packs, both the Ottomans and the Persians were Industrious and Scientific. In civ4, there are 6 ruler characteristics. If each ruler has 2, there are 30 possible combinations. That means that you could only have two rulers for 12 of the civs, not all 18. I don't know why they stopped at 26, but that explains why there aren't 36 different leaders.

	07-07-2005 03:02									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

oh, i see...

	07-07-2005 04:32									#94
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by sophist ... In civ4, there are 6 ruler characteristics. If each ruler has 2, there are 30 possible combinations. ...

Unless the traits are ranked for each leader (i.e. one being a primary trait, the other being a secondary trait) that should only make 15 combos. That's how many trait combos (with 6 traits) they had in Civ 3 originally. After Conquests they added 2 more for a total of 8 traits which made 28 combos.

To me, having reused trait pairings is no big deal. Unique units still make the civs different from each other.

	07-07-2005 05:21									#95
	Put an end to popups!

Doh, you're right.

	07-07-2005 05:27									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, in addition to adding new civs in the inevitable expansions, I'll bet they'll add new traits for more combinations.

In Civ2, every Civ had two leaders. Of course, there wasn't any noticeable difference between them. (And you couldn't play against Civs of the same color, so France could never play at the same time as Germany or the Vikings).

	07-07-2005 05:35									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 In Civ2, every Civ had two leaders. Of course, there wasn't any noticeable difference between them.

I can't remember for sure: did each civ have one male and one female choice? If that's the case, I can't think of who the Mongols female leader would have been...

quote: (And you couldn't play against Civs of the same color, so France could never play at the same time as Germany or the Vikings).

Yes. That's one annoying 'feature' of the first two Civs that I am glad was dropped in Civ 3.

	07-07-2005 07:32									#98
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by xen001 Germany. -------Hitler. Okay he was a bad leader, but he was a big part of the German Evolution. He did great things, very evil things, but still great things. Besides most of us wanna have the chance to kick his butt.

You know, perhaps each civ should have a good leader and an evil leader. Who doesn't want to have a go at Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, Franco, Tojo/Hirohito, Jefferson Davis, Ronald Reagan, and Cromwell?

I mean, Firaxis is still using Mao for goddess sake!

	07-07-2005 11:09									#99
	Support Apolyton

I think you mistated the US 'evil' leader. You undoubtably wanted to put in Woodrow Wilson .

	07-07-2005 12:36									#100
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Here's the ol' Civ2 leaders:

Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt
Aztecs: Montezuma, Nazca
Babylon: Hammurabi, Ishtari
Carthage: Hannibal, Dido
Celts: Cunobelin, Boudicca
China: Mao Tse-tung, Cixi
England: Henry VIII, Elizabeth
Egypt: Ramses, Cleopatra
France: Louis XIV, Joan of Arc
Germany: Frederick, Maria Theresa
Greece: Alexander, Hippolyta
India: Mohandas Gandhi, Indira Gandhi
Japan: Tokugama Ieyasu, Amaterasu
Mongolia: Genghis Khan, Bortei
Persia: Xerxes, Scheherazade
Rome: Julius Caesar, Livia
Russia: Vladimir Lenin, Catherine II
Spain: Philip II, Isabella
Sioux: Sitting Bull, Sacagawea
Vikings: Knut, Gunnhild
Zulu: Shaka Zulu, Shakala

Keep in mind that it was an attempt to have a male and female leader available for each civ. Many of the female leaders are mythological figures, like Ishtar, Amaterasu, and Hippolyta, or inappropriately assigned, like Sacagawea, or silly , like Eleanor Roosevelt, or simply made up, like Shakala.

	07-07-2005 16:30									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 Hitler restored Germany's economy after the dreadful depression caused by the outrageous Treaty of Versailles. Most Germans viewed him as a hero, that's why so many people couldn't believe the Holocaust. He was a very successful demagogue, one of the most nefarious too, not to mention completely out of his mind.

The depression wasn't 'caused' by the Treaty of Versailles- and as for 'most' Germans viewing Hitler as a hero, that too is inaccurate, since it completely ignores the opposition Social Democrats and Communists, and conservative non-Nazi parties. Hitler's Nazi Party achieved by democratic means the status of only the largest party in the Reichstag -not an absolute electoral majority. Only with the suspension of civil liberties following the Reichstag fire were the Nazis able to get over 43 % of votes cast.

The economic terms of the Treaty of Versailles were revised twice, by the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan- the Wall Street Crash of 1929 did more to harm Germany's economic recovery than did the Treaty of Versailles- four years after, world trade was at a third of its previous level.

The impact of Versailles in any case was also ameliorated by later treaties- Rapallo and Locarno for instance.

Hitler's economic success is also partly down to successful Nazi propaganda, and the policy of Kinder, Kuche, Kirche imposed so that women's place in the economy was taken by unemployed men, and also by increasing armaments production.

The Nazi regime also cannibalized industrial materials -in some cases dismantling and reerecting whole, foreign based factories on German soil. Sequestration of German Jewish bank accounts and German Jewish companies, stocks, shares and property also took place- not so much of an economic miracle, as the monetary policies of the highwayman.

	07-07-2005 17:18									#102
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A sobering view. Mostly only the economic 'boom' is mentioned in history books during Hitlers early reign, and that's it. Not how it was achieved.

	07-07-2005 17:30									#103
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder A sobering view. Mostly only the economic 'boom' is mentioned in history books during Hitlers early reign, and that's it. Not how it was achieved.

It's unfortunate that even now the simpler, if not indeed, 'simplistic' Nazi explanation of the Versailles stab in the back and the Nazi economic miracle are believed so readily- the same with Goebbels' distorted figures for the deaths in Dresden bombing raids, and the incredibly successful propaganda campaign that turned what had been one of Saxony's most productive industrial cities into this supposed fragile Baroque extravaganza that only ever churned out Meissen figurines and tea services.

The real economic turndown for Weimar Germany began in 1930- just one year after the Wall Street Crash, which was having a significant effect on other world economies.

Mass unemployment in the British Empire, the United States, France- I don't see anyone blaming the Treaty of Versailles for those.

	07-07-2005 20:00									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom It's unfortunate that even now the simpler, if not indeed, 'simplistic' Nazi explanation of the Versailles stab in the back and the Nazi economic miracle are believed so readily- the same with Goebbels' distorted figures for the deaths in Dresden bombing raids, and the incredibly successful propaganda campaign that turned what had been one of Saxony's most productive industrial cities into this supposed fragile Baroque extravaganza that only ever churned out Meissen figurines and tea services. The real economic turndown for Weimar Germany began in 1930- just one year after the Wall Street Crash, which was having a significant effect on other world economies. Mass unemployment in the British Empire, the United States, France- I don't see anyone blaming the Treaty of Versailles for those.

I already know all of these things. I'm sorry if my abbreviated explanation was lacking and irritated people enough to repeat the whole story. No one dislikes Hitler more than me.

Nevertheless, I would not discount the Treaty of Versailles completely. If Germany had paid all of the reparations that were placed upon them in 1918, they would have finished in 1985. People were resentful, and that, coupled with the later depression and the failure of the Weimar Republik opened the way for demagogues like Hitler.

	08-07-2005 05:41									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I think you mistated the US 'evil' leader. You undoubtably wanted to put in Woodrow Wilson .

What could be more evil than making catsup a vegetable?

In all seriousness though, an evil leader feature would be pretty cool.

	08-07-2005 06:05									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by The Templar What could be more evil than making catsup a vegetable?

And what could be more evil than calling ketchup "catsup"?

Seriously though, it might be a bit difficult to get a good/evil pair for each civilization.

	08-07-2005 06:06									#107
	Put an end to popups!

Would you have to behave in an evil manner? If you didn't stab your allies in the back, would they be angry at you?

	08-07-2005 06:18									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by sophist Would you have to behave in an evil manner? If you didn't stab your allies in the back, would they be angry at you?

Yes. If you choose an evil leader, you have to do everything the opposite of what you'd normally do.* It worked for George Costanza.



*Unless what you normally do is already evil.

	08-07-2005 07:13									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, lets see about this... It might be a bit over-generalized...

America: George Washington (good), FDR (evil)
Arabia: Saladin (good), Khalifah Yusuf (evil)
Aztecs: Montezuma (good or evil?)
Babylon: Hammurabi (good), Nebuchadnezzar (evil)
China: Qin Shi Huangdi (good... not really), Mao Tse-Tung (evil)
England: Elizabeth I (good), Victoria (good), Henry VIII (evil)
Egypt: Hatshepsut (good... um, not exactly), Ramses (evil)
France: Louis XIV (iffy), Napoleon (evil)
Germany: Otto von Bismarck (good), Adolf Hitler (very evil, not PC at all)
Greece: Alexander (good), Drakon (evil)
India: Mohandas Gandhi (good), Ashoka (evil, not really)
Japan: Tokugawa Ieyasu (evil... not exactly), Meiji (good)
Mali: Mansa Musa (uh...), Sundiata Keita (um...)
Mongolia: Genghis Khan (evil), Kublai Khan (good)
Persia: Cyrus (good), Shapur II (evil)
Rome: Julius Caesar (good), Nero (evil, definitely)
Russia: Peter the Great (good), Ivan the Terrible (evil)
Spain: Isabella (good), Philip II (evil)

See how overgeneralized everything is? Most leaders have done both good and evil actions in the name of pragmatism, so it is very difficult to praise them for one action or condemn them for another on the whole. Only people like Ivan the Terrible are easy to classify.

	08-07-2005 15:47									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Marilyn Monroe as USA leader.

	08-07-2005 20:54									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 See how overgeneralized everything is? Most leaders have done both good and evil actions in the name of pragmatism, so it is very difficult to praise them for one action or condemn them for another on the whole.

Well, we are already talking about a game that overgeneralizes a hell of a lot in the service of representing the whole of civilzed human history!

I'm talking about broad strokes.

	08-07-2005 21:11									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Templar Well, we are already talking about a game that overgeneralizes a hell of a lot in the service of representing the whole of civilzed human history! I'm talking about broad strokes.

Yes, but it would be remarakably difficult to classify some people as evil. Too many people would take offense.

	09-07-2005 01:21									#113
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Only people like Ivan the Terrible are easy to classify.

Well, remember Ivan IV's other moniker is "Ivan the Great". So, yeah, hard to classify indeed. Most leaders have good and evil bits. For example, I consider Julius Caesar evil, who wanted to form the dictatorship that Octavius finally formed.

	09-07-2005 04:17									#114
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Only people like Ivan the Terrible are easy to classify. Well, remember Ivan IV's other moniker is "Ivan the Great". So, yeah, hard to classify indeed. Most leaders have good and evil bits. For example, I consider Julius Caesar evil, who wanted to form the dictatorship that Octavius finally formed.

I regret to inform you that you are incorrect. Ivan (III) the Great (r. 1462-1505) was Ivan (IV) the Terrible's (1533-1584) grandfather. The two never even met.

	10-07-2005 01:11									#115
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Russia should have two leaders: one for the monarchy, one for the communist era.

Civ has constantly touted the Communist characteristics of Russia, and it won't be dropped. But the Romanov history is so vast, it won't be dropped either.

Catherine II and Stalin will be the leaders -- I'm sure of it. No other Soviet leader really commands the name recognition that Stalin does, and Lenin's leadership style is very different from what evolved into Soviet Communism.

And stop nagging Catherine II all over the place. She accomplished quite a bit for Russia, and refined its nouveau western sensibilities. She, along with Elizabeth I, are perhaps the only two truly "great" female leaders that could rival the men in the Civ 4 civs.

-B

	10-07-2005 01:48									#116
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Novaya Havoc Russia should have two leaders: one for the monarchy, one for the communist era. Civ has constantly touted the Communist characteristics of Russia, and it won't be dropped. But the Romanov history is so vast, it won't be dropped either. Catherine II and Stalin will be the leaders -- I'm sure of it. No other Soviet leader really commands the name recognition that Stalin does, and Lenin's leadership style is very different from what evolved into Soviet Communism. And stop nagging Catherine II all over the place. She accomplished quite a bit for Russia, and refined its nouveau western sensibilities. She, along with Elizabeth I, are perhaps the only two truly "great" female leaders that could rival the men in the Civ 4 civs. -B

I really don't think they'll include Stalin, if only for the same reasons that they won't include Hitler.

	10-07-2005 02:18									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Novaya Havoc Catherine II and Stalin will be the leaders -- I'm sure of it. No other Soviet leader really commands the name recognition that Stalin does, and Lenin's leadership style is very different from what evolved into Soviet Communism.

I'll bet you anything that Stalin isn't going to be in Civ4 or expansions, and same for Hitler. Simply will not happen.

	10-07-2005 02:36									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Solver I'll bet you anything that Stalin isn't going to be in Civ4 or expansions, and same for Hitler. Simply will not happen.

I concur.

	11-07-2005 07:12									#119
	Got spare money?

What about Lenin? He isn't offensive like Stalin, is he? Plus he was the first of the Soviet communist leaders.

	11-07-2005 07:58									#120
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon What about Lenin? He isn't offensive like Stalin, is he? Plus he was the first of the Soviet communist leaders.

I agree. Lenin is much more likely than Stalin, though general concensus seems to favor Peter the Great.