The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

[monkspider]

I thank Trip and Locutus for their highly enlightening contributions to the thread (and of course Alexander for his always interesting stuff).

It is good to know that Japan's lack of second leader was not a result of neglect from the devs. Despite speaking Japanese at an intermidateish level, I never really learned of the legally challenging environment that concerns depicting even long-deceased emperors. This was really interesting stuff to know.

I'm sure you guys are at least vaguely familiar with the chap, but if there is even a third XP, I would personally recommend Oda Nobunaga if Meiji would be too dicey to include. His personality could be an interesting counterpoint to Tokugawa since he was the exact opposite of an isolationist. He encouraged western trade and the spread of Christianity, was a major proponent of firearms (developing musket tactics that were even superior to those of Europeans at the time), and abolished a lot of the barriers and restrictions to trade between various daimyo domains. Best of all, he is one of the few Japanese rulers that some percentage of westerners might be famillar with.

The only downside is that he was a contemporary of Tokugawa, so having two leaders from the exact same time period might disqualify him outright.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Locutus
They can't include Hitler or Hirohito for legal reasons. Might arguably suck for gameplay/accuracy/atmophere/whatever reasons, but it's a nice and clean out for Firaxis If I'm not mistaken every other major WWII leader *is* now in the game though (except Mussolini, but there's no Italian civ and Mussolini of the Romans would be rather silly).

I'm looking forward to the WWII scenarios, but don't think that the inclusion of De Gaulle in the epic game was a must because of it. Firaxis could have used country flags instead of leaderheads in the scenario diplomacy screens (as they did in the Chinese unification scenario, IIRC).

My wish list for BtS: Scrap the HRE, include Charlemagne as third leader of the French (and, if technically possible, the Germans), rename the Native Americans to Lakota/Sioux and include the Hebrews and/or Polynesians.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by lockstep
include Charlemagne as third leader of the French (and, if technically possible, the Germans)

Wasn't there a free choice of leader+country in BtS anyway?

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Wasn't there a free choice of leader+country in BtS anyway?

Problem solved
/thread

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Wasn't there a free choice of leader+country in BtS anyway?

I'd like to meet Charlemagne of the French without also meeting Boudica of the Romans.

[Robert]

Originally posted by lockstep


I'd like to meet Charlemagne of the French without also meeting Boudica of the Romans.

Then you setup all nations in the setup screen in the normal way, and put Charly up as the French dude 8)

[lockstep]

That doesn't work if I want the original leader-civ combinations (save for Charlemagne), but random opponents.

Anyhow, I'm sure there's a way to edit the xml-files so that the HRE disappears and Charlemagne is assigned to the Germans. (I'd slightly prefer the French, but 4 leaders for one civ is over the top IMO.)

[Locutus]

Originally posted by lockstep
I'm looking forward to the WWII scenarios, but don't think that the inclusion of De Gaulle in the epic game was a must because of it. Firaxis could have used country flags instead of leaderheads in the scenario diplomacy screens (as they did in the Chinese unification scenario, IIRC).

a) Using flags and the like is a bad cop-out that was only done because they had little choice, they didn't have the resources to develop 7 or 8 new Chinese leaderheads just for a scenario. I'm sure Firaxis would rather avoid that situation if they could.

b) De Gaulle probably wasn't included just for the WW2 scenario, but also to appeal to those players who like playing with modern leaders. I personally strongly prefer playing the ancient ages (pre-gunpowder), I basically don't like playing with anyone post Napoleon. But there are other fans out there that are just the other way around and stronlgy prefer the post-gunpowder age and dislike the likes of Gilgamesh and Brennus, prefering leaders like Churchill and Stalin. Firaxis probably wants to appeal to both groups (and everyone in between), so they added a mixture of ancient (Gilgamesh, Hammurabi), medieval (Charlemagne, Joao) and modern leaders (Lincoln, De Gaulle) in this XP -- so that there's something for everyone. As far as post-Napoleontic leaders go, De Gaulle and Lincoln *are* probably two of the best choices that were still available.

[Will9]

Also, Firaxis has already done work with pictures of De Gualle in Railroads. Those pictures looked alot like still versions of civ leaderheads.

http://www.2kgames.com/railroads/railroads.html

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Locutus


a) Using flags and the like is a bad cop-out that was only done because they had little choice, they didn't have the resources to develop 7 or 8 new Chinese leaderheads just for a scenario. I'm sure Firaxis would rather avoid that situation if they could.

b) De Gaulle probably wasn't included just for the WW2 scenario, but also to appeal to those players who like playing with modern leaders. I personally strongly prefer playing the ancient ages (pre-gunpowder), I basically don't like playing with anyone post Napoleon. But there are other fans out there that are just the other way around and stronlgy prefer the post-gunpowder age and dislike the likes of Gilgamesh and Brennus, prefering leaders like Churchill and Stalin. Firaxis probably wants to appeal to both groups (and everyone in between), so they added a mixture of ancient (Gilgamesh, Hammurabi), medieval (Charlemagne, Joao) and modern leaders (Lincoln, De Gaulle) in this XP -- so that there's something for everyone. As far as post-Napoleontic leaders go, De Gaulle and Lincoln *are* probably two of the best choices that were still available.

And what about John Major?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Locutus
Using flags and the like is a bad cop-out that was only done because they had little choice, they didn't have the resources to develop 7 or 8 new Chinese leaderheads just for a scenario. I'm sure Firaxis would rather avoid that situation if they could.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder what solution Firaxis has chosen for the German diplomacy screen in the WWII scenario. And any solution save including Hitler (which is out of the question, as I'm well aware of) will weaken the case for inluding De Gaulle in the epic game.

[Solver]

As far as post-Napoleontic leaders go, De Gaulle and Lincoln *are* probably two of the best choices that were still available.

Haile Selassie would still be an excellent choice. I'd probably prefer him as the Ethiopian leader, although Zara Yaqob is a fine choice, too.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by lockstep
The more I think about it, the more I wonder what solution Firaxis has chosen for the German diplomacy screen in the WWII scenario. And any solution save including Hitler (which is out of the question, as I'm well aware of) will weaken the case for inluding De Gaulle in the epic game.

Dale (who designed the WWII scenario) said on CFC that he used the vice-chancellor IIRC (though he didn't say which one). He could easily reuse existing leaderheads for relatively unimportant figures like that.

But again, it's probably not just the WWII scenario that made Firaxis choose De Gaulle, although I'm sure it was a major consideration. If it was up to you but you had to include 2-3 new modern leaders in BtS, who would you have picked if not De Gaulle? I guess there's a handful of choices but few as good as him, especially if you already know you need him for a WWII scenario anyway...

Originally posted by Solver
Haile Selassie would still be an excellent choice. I'd probably prefer him as the Ethiopian leader, although Zara Yaqob is a fine choice, too.

The guy who got his ass handed to him by the Italians? Yeah, truly Ethiopia's finest hour... As a modern leader for Ethiopia Menelik II would be a much better choice, but Ethiopia's golden ages were all pre-1500 so an ancient/medieval leader makes a lot more sense. Plus, they already have a modern(ish) UU.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Locutus
If it was up to you but you had to include 2-3 new modern leaders in BtS, who would you have picked if not De Gaulle?

If I had to include modern leaders, De Gaulle would be an acceptable choice, although I don't view him as important as, say, Churchill or Roosevelt. But I don't understand the need for modern leaders - I'd rather have the most important ones regardless of time period.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by lockstep
If I had to include modern leaders, De Gaulle would be an acceptable choice, although I don't view him as important as, say, Churchill or Roosevelt. But I don't understand the need for modern leaders - I'd rather have the most important ones regardless of time period.

Well, a lot of times the more modern leaders come as a 2nd or 3rd choice, as in the case of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, De Gaulle, and Mao. All of these civs also have older leader choices (by which I mean at least one pre-19th Century leader each) to choose from.

I really don't mind the modern leaders as long as their inclusion is not detrimental (e.g. if De Gaulle were the only French leader in the game).