Second Leader in a Civ

[Alexander I]

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.

[sophist]

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.

[Kaak]

oh, i see...

[Xorbon]

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.

[sophist]

Doh, you're right.

[Alexander I]

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).

[Xorbon]

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...

(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.

[The Templar]

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!

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Alexander I]

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.

[molly bloom]

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.

[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.

[molly bloom]

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.

[Alexander I]

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.

[The Templar]

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.