Second Leader in a Civ

[Alexander I]

Which Civ 4 civ should have a second leader? Rather, which one has the best chance?

Keep in mind that we already know of 6 that do:

China (Qin Shi Huang-di, Mao Tse-tung)
America (George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Mongolia (Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan)
France (Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte)
India (Ashoka, Mohandas Gandhi)
England (Elizabeth I, Victoria)

And that two civs have already been announced as only having one leader:

Germany (Otto von Bismarck)
Arabia (Saladin)

(You know, it may even be safe to say that Mali will only have one leader. After all, the country barely has a peronality on the world scene as it is, let alone considering the difficulty of finding two. My bet is on Mansa Musa there).

[Alexander I]

Personally, my vote goes to Russia. Since they have so many options for leaders, I think they have a lot of chances for two leaders. The other civ I think will have two leaders is Egypt, with Ramses as the second leader.

Then Firaxis will go and prove me wrong by making Mali have four leaders or something!

[Guynemer]

I hope that eventually all will have two leaders, perhaps as downloadable content. Not holding my breath, though.

[Aro]

Two people voted so far (including me... ).

Alexander and Pericles. Greece, of course.

[ZabrakMaul]

i voteud for Babilon but my 2dn vote woud go to da Incas cuz their so cool and they both must be in this game or i'l just die!!!!!!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by ZabrakMaul
i voteud for Babilon but my 2dn vote woud go to da Incas cuz their so cool and they both must be in this game or i'l just die!!!!!!

Um, yeah.

Personally, I think that Babylon will be in and that the Incas are going to be dropped because having the Aztecs makes them more redundant.

It's Mesopotamia vs. Mesoamerica.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I hope that eventually all will have two leaders, perhaps as downloadable content. Not holding my breath, though.

I hope so too, but kind of doubt it. Maybe in the fifth expansion pack or something.

[ZabrakMaul]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Um, yeah.

Personally, I think that Babylon will be in and that the Incas are going to be dropped because having the Aztecs makes them more redundant.

It's Mesopotamia vs. Mesoamerica.

YER A JERK I THINK THEL BOTH BE AND THOSE STUPID GREEKS I MEEN geeks U LIKE SO MUCH THEYL BE DROPED INSTED!

[Aro]

Originally posted by ZabrakMaul


YER A JERK I THINK THEL BOTH BE AND THOSE STUPID GREEKS I MEEN geeks U LIKE SO MUCH THEYL BE DROPED INSTED!

DL?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Aro




DL?

No kidding.

[GeoModder]

Guess the banning rod was used.

But on-topic, I choose the Egyptians. They have the longest known history, and it always irked me that a female pharaoh was choosen for the civ. A male one for a change would be nice.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Guess the banning rod was used.

But on-topic, I choose the Egyptians. They have the longest known history, and it always irked me that a female pharaoh was choosen for the civ. A male one for a change would be nice.

Given the lengths that lesser male pharaohs went to to obliterate the memory of Hatshepsut, I'd say the use of a female pharaoh was welcome. Cleopatra also gets a bad press- she managed to survive Ptolemaic infighting, was the first of her dynasty to learn the language of the Egyptians, spoke six or seven languages, and managed to win the alliance or friendship of both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony.

I don't think she did that just by being the equivalent of an Hellenic Pamela Anderson.

[GeoModder]

My only point is that a male pharoh as second leader next to a female one would be welcome. Do I dare say Toetankamon? (sorry for the spelling)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GeoModder
My only point is that a male pharoh as second leader next to a female one would be welcome. Do I dare say Toetankamon? (sorry for the spelling)

Um.

Not as good a choice as Rameses II or Thutmose III.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

...and managed to win the alliance or friendship of both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony.

I'd say

Remarkable woman no less. It is rather interesting to speculate what would have happened had she and Antony won at Actium, or had Octavian possessed less of a spine. For a few years there it looked like Antony wanted to split the empire and install his own sons by Cleopatra as a new dynasty.

I digress. My vote was for Russia, whose two leaders should be Ivan IV Grozny and Peter I. There is variance between the two's style of leadership and emphasis, plus none of the sticky PC issues Firaxis likes to avoid that choosing Stalin or Lenin would entail.