 |
| |
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
No, no madness is the disqualifier. Influence is (and should be). However there is such a problem with several leaders that they did almost about the same influence. This could be said about Bismarck and Hitler (Hitler done much more influence to the world, but Bismarck (arguably) did more good for his country), Catherine and Stalin (both expanded their empires about the same, Catherine by settling far east Siberia and Stalin by annexing nations), Washington and Lincoln, etc. Such situation comes that you can't statisfy everyone by choosing leaders. So they then decides to choose the more pollitical correct one.
However, with some nations you just can't choose other leader. For example, what other leader would you imagine for Mongols if not Genghis Khan? I am not saying Mao was such leader, but actually most of early Chinese emperors, ussually offered as alternatives did much smaller actual influence for China and world. Remember, Mao rebuilt country from anarchy, also, unlike Third Reich and Soviet Union, People's Republic of China is still standing today.
Anyway, I'll choose the following leaders for nations (those I would change in bold):
Queen Victoria and England
Pharaoh Ramses and Egypt
King Hammurabi and Babylon
Emperor Xerxes and Persia
Emperor Ceasar and Roman Empire
Alexander the Great and Greece
Chief Shaka and Zululand
Chief Hiawata and Iroquis
King Montezuma and Aztec Empire
Mahatma Ghandi and India
President Washington and USA
Emperor Napoleon and France
Shogun Tokugawa and Japan
Fuhrer Hitler and Germany
Czarine Catherine and Russia
Chairman Mao and China
For new civs:
Messiah Mahomet and Arab Caliphate
Don't know any Celtic leaders
Don't know any Vikings leaders
President Kim Il Sung and Korea
Khan Genghis and Mongol Empire
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire
Francisco Franco and Spain
Don't know any Carthaginian leaders
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FlakJacket
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sonic
I am not saying Mao was such leader, but actually most of early Chinese emperors, ussually offered as alternatives did much smaller actual influence for China and world. Remember, Mao rebuilt country from anarchy, also, unlike Third Reich and Soviet Union, People's Republic of China is still standing today. |
He also made a complete bloody mess out of the whole affair. The 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Hundred Flowers' programs lead to idiotic economic centralisation and collectivisation. Indsutry nearly collapsed and tens of millions, if not a lot more, starved to death. Any ham-fisted dictator could have done as well, if not better.
quote:
Anyway, I'll choose the following leaders for nations (those I would change in bold):
Queen Victoria and England
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire
Francisco Franco and Spain |
Why Victoria? Yes she was the queen at the height of the British Empire but she had little to nothing to do with it. By that time British Kings and Queens weren't absolute monarchs, but constitutional monarchs. They had no serious say in running the the country, power rested with the elected government in Parliament. She was simply a figure head for the most part.
Ata Turk? Yes he founded the modern Turkish Republic but by that point they'd lost most of the old Ottoman territories and were reduced to modern day Turkey. If you use him, you'd be better off just changing the civilization to the Turks. Introducing the republic was nice but they weren't a great civilization by that point, they'd declined completely. Since the whole point of the game is building your empire the Ottomans seem like the best choice to me personally. That and I like Osman.
Likewise with Franco. He was just another military dictator. Honestly didn't really do much apart from repress the population and stay out of the Second World War. Compared to the days of Spain's conquering and colonisation of the New World he's inconsequential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did. Some for example came to power only because of their parents and did nothing good, although empire was biggest at their time. It is always easier to get a huge empire when to actually build/reform it. Ata Turk was political genius in my opinion, just because he born at bad time we can write him off. Franco's staying out of WW2 was also very important in my opinion. SUrely, we could just add some imperial times Spanish leader who did nothing. In my opinion, every leader should be worked hard. Thus I propose Napoleon (who became emperor from almost nothing), Hitler (the same), etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FlakJacket
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sonic
FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did. |
Ah, gotcha. Still not sure about Vicky though then since she basically just sat there and looked nicely Queen-ish and being morally uptight for her reign. *Shrug*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sabrewolf
|
 |
turicum, helvetistan
Jun 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
I would say this:
Consul Ceasar or Emperor Traianus and Roman Empire. |
caesar is definetly the better choice. after all, out of caesar came caisar and like that the german word "kaiser", which means emperor. noone else in history had a such a title named after him 
quote:
Mahatma Ghandi and India. |
there must be a better candidate...
quote:
President Washington or President Wilson or President Roosevelt and USA. |
wilson happened to be around at the right moment and helped founding the UN. but that doesn't make him a worthy leader.
roosevelt reacted way to slow before helping in the world war. if the US had come a few years earlier, the war would have been a lot shorter and not as severe... imho fdr doesn't deserve to be the leader.
washington of jefferson as a founder is probably the best choice...
quote:
Emperor Napoleon and France |
no question, jeanne d'arc just got in to have the female contingent
quote:
Führer Hitler or Cancelor Bismarck and Germany |
i'd take bismark. germany had it's peak with bismark. hitler might be more famous, but except being a brilliant but sickminded leader and very convincing populist, he didn't achieve anything to be proud of.
quote:
Czarine Catherine or Czar Peter the Great and Russia. |
again female contingent
quote:
Chairman Mao or Emperor Tsj'in Hwang Ti and China |
i don't know enough about chinese history, but i do know that there have been dozens of leaders more worthy the mao.
quote:
For new civs:
Messiah Mahomet and Arab Caliphate |
i don't agree. religious leaders don't belong in... or would you want to see buddha as leader of the chinese?
quote:
Kemal Ata Turk and Ottoman Empire. |
as someone said before, atatürk should be leader of the TURKS, and a ottoman leader of the ottomans. (immagine benito mussolini leader of the romans  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sabrewolf
roosevelt reacted way to slow before helping in the world war. if the US had come a few years earlier, the war would have been a lot shorter and not as severe... imho fdr doesn't deserve to be the leader.
washington of jefferson as a founder is probably the best choice...
|
Are you completly forgetting the economic situation the US was in when he too office? also the US needed time to build up troops and if the US had gone to war right away with much fewer ships and planes (especially air craft carriers) the US might have been fighting the Japanese until the creation of the A bomb anyway, though could have maybe saved a few french and english civilians, and maybe some people in Africa, but there's no way the US would have had any troops in France in enough time to make any difference there anyway. Also there's no way you were going to see US troops in Russia.
That being said I still think the US leader should be Washington, and probably Lincoln and Jefferson before FDR.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
Caliban, Adenauer was creator of modern Germany? Definitely not true. Adenauer was just man put by allies. He even didn't wanted to remilitarize Germany, which just says he was happy enough having undefendable country dependent on allies. Adenauer was a very poor politician in my opinion. Germany was already very modern under third reich. Maybe one of the most modern countries in fact. So saying Adenauer modernised it is very incorrect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caliban
|
 |
somewhere deep in the forgotten woods of germany
Jul 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sonic
Caliban, Adenauer was creator of modern Germany? Definitely not true. Adenauer was just man put by allies. He even didn't wanted to remilitarize Germany, which just says he was happy enough having undefendable country dependent on allies. Adenauer was a very poor politician in my opinion. Germany was already very modern under third reich. Maybe one of the most modern countries in fact. So saying Adenauer modernised it is very incorrect. |
No, you misunderstood that. When I talk about modern Germany, I do not mean industry or technical progress, but our DEMOCRACY, our government! Adenauer was one of the fathers of the "Grundgesetz", our constitution, which helped to overcome years of oppression and dictatorship... (Before this, we already had a democratic constitution, yes, but it was thrown over by Hitler - the new one is better...)
And, talking about allies: After WWII, not only Adenauer, but many Germans were against remilitarizing our country. Given our past, this is an opinion I can understand...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sonic
FlakJacket, I am suggesting leaders in different way than you do. For me it is almost unimportant at what size empire was at leader's time, more important is what these leaders actually did. Some for example came to power only because of their parents and did nothing good, although empire was biggest at their time. It is always easier to get a huge empire when to actually build/reform it. Ata Turk was political genius in my opinion, just because he born at bad time we can write him off. Franco's staying out of WW2 was also very important in my opinion. SUrely, we could just add some imperial times Spanish leader who did nothing. In my opinion, every leader should be worked hard. Thus I propose Napoleon (who became emperor from almost nothing), Hitler (the same), etc. |
I like this idea, and in my perfect civ game this would probably be how it would work. But in reality, I can understand why they have leaders like Joan d' Arc and Cleopatra, and Bismarck instead of Hitler, because of politics. They had to represent females in the game so as not to exclude a female buying market for the game, adn it is very easy to see why Hitler may offend some potential buyers from purchasing the game or smething. How Firaxis has handled it is satisfactory to me, but like most of the rest of yall, I do wish for a perfect game made up of my favorite civs/leaders. I guess ill be spending a few hours in the editor after PtW comes out, heh...
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
Napoleon does suit France better IMO, France domination of europe was the first since the days of Roman empire that Europe had been under control of one empire. Un fourtunately, the reign didnt last after his rule, in fact it ended while he was ruling, which kinda makes it controversial for me when calling it civilization (I visualize like an Incan civ, flourishing for hundreds of years kinda thing)
Same goes for third reich, it was too short and from marketing point of view you want to avoid any controversy when taking a controversial issue doesnt see much reward for game anyway.
(which is a shame, I still can't believe taking out things related to WTC from games and pic can make some kinda difference... People get fussy for no logical reason... We should live in a world where we can freely express ourself, sigh after all thats wat democracy is about... Ever wondered why you never get a WWII SP game where you are playing a german hero instead of same ol' allie heros? That game will be shot down so fast by public outrage...)
Last edited by Zero on 02-10-2002 at 21:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
Saberwolf how about trying Through out the war instead of 3/4 of the war. IMO, third reich was far ahead of anyone up until their demise. Sure US beat them in Nuclear race and later reports indicated that Germany probably wouldnt have goten a nuke before we did, but let's not forget we sacked alot of their techs, like jet engines after the war. In fact, its almost scary to see US modern infantries because they resemble German wermacht infantries, down to the clothing to the funky shaped helmets that stick out to cover your necks...
about expansion part, I agree, Hitler prolly expanded as far as he did west to sue for peace, and end the western front. But I disagree about East. According to my memory, Hitler hated the slavs and Germanic and slavic relationship wasn't too good back then. So History would have been interesting if Stalin sued for peace during when moscow was near grasp of Hitler.
Last edited by Zero on 03-10-2002 at 02:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
Which era of germany do you think Firaxis had in mind? Don't you get the feeling they really wanted to portray early twentieth century germany but didn't wanna add nazism feeling into the game, so they opted for Bismarck? Because having a nazi leader would attract unnecessary controversy that could hurt sales. The sci/mil traits and the uber unit panzer, all indicate toward the third reich to me.
Last edited by Zero on 03-10-2002 at 02:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
No, they meant WHOLE Germany. XIX age, XX age and XXI age. The same as USA means whole USA, not just civil war USA. Every civ represents whole development of that nation. I am pretty sure Russia also represents Soviet Union for example.
And by Panzers they surely meant WW2 Panzers. Because WW2 Panzers were named so, and other if translated from German would be just "tanks". Also, Panzers were really infront of avarage development by time (one Panzer could win against about 11 Shermans). Also, Panzers in civ3 looks like ones from WW2, in WW1 tanks were much different...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2002 03:24
|