Not many women...

[Lensman74]

Geez this isn't about being PC, it's about fun. I play this game to have fun. And women play games to have fun. And as stated by upjoa above, most of the women I talk to who play Civ and other games like to play the games as women.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then MOD them in! Don't make my game needlessly ahistorical because you want to play as a woman.

Sure you can play as one of the civs that have women, but all the civs don't start off with the same conditions. Again, it's about making the game fun for as many people as possible.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The question is do you think any of the Chinese rulers are more deserving than who they have there now?
...
For instance, is Catherine more deserving than Lenin? Is Hashsepsut more deserving than Menes, Amenemhat III, or Ramses II? Is Isabella more deserving than Carlos I (Carlos V of the Holy Roman Empire).

Which leaders are more "deserving" than others? Who cares? This is a game!! These leaders are simply worthy representatives of each civilization. And some Indians I work with don't consider Mahatma Ghandi a worthy representative of India. And I work with individuals of Chinese descent who don't think Mao Zedong a "great" leader.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I didn't realize being leader of a movement made you a ruler of a country! Hell, lets put Martin Luther King, Jr. in then!! And Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the movement for a US Bank (which ultimately did come to fruition, even with Jefferson and Jackson's plans against).

So you think leading a movement for a bank has the same kind of importance as leading a movement to give women the ability to vote? Or the same importance as giving equal rights to all people? Hmm... Anyways, based on the original quote about including Anthony, it looks like she was mentioned because she could be a female representative of the American civ, not because she led the country.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is a difference between making it historically inaccurate for gameplay's sake and making it historical inaccurate for political correctness sake.

Hell, I don't see many people campaigning to remove the female leaders in place of male ons (though some have said Churchill is more deserving than Victoria), even though there are some arguments to be made.

Again, it's not PC, just simply a way to make the game more fun. And developers make adjustments all the time to make games more appealling. And since Civ is not about being historically accurate (otherwise the US would win almost every battle against the Germans and the Aztecs and Incans would lose almost every battle against any European civ-and what gamer would want that?) and is about having fun "rewriting history", why not include more female leaders to make the game fun for the females who like Civ?

[Pyrodrew]

And as stated by upjoa above, most of the women I talk to who play Civ and other games like to play the games as women.

And yet that's not true for the women I know or the women some other people in this thread mentioned.

Again, it's about making the game fun for as many people as possible.

Then why limit it to only women? If we use your theory that women prefer to play as women then wouldn't Jews prefer to play as Jews? How many black Civ4 leaders are there for black players compared to female Civ4 leaders? Where's their fun? So should we remove 1 historical ruler (Washington) for a racial AND gender minority "representative" (Rosa Parks) for every Civilization (too bad Susan B. Anthony) so the game is as fun as possible for the most people... all under your speculation this would make the game more fun for most people? Where's the black female Jew for the Persians since we're "rewriting history" anyways?

So you think leading a movement for a bank has the same kind of importance as leading a movement to give women the ability to vote? Or the same importance as giving equal rights to all people?

Who cares? That's what you say later on regarding the kind of importance for a leader.

Which leaders are more "deserving" than others? Who cares?

Earlier you said it's about making the game fun for as many people as possible. I only see your speculation that this would do that. If you count the posts, objections and rolling eyes in earlier posts I don't see such a change would make the game more fun for the majority of Civ players, but perhaps the opposite. But perhaps you have a more accurate study of all (potential) Civ4 players you're not telling us other than "I know female gamers"?

[LordShiva]

Well, as someone who's 6'4", I must say I'm disappointed that there aren't any leaders who I really identify with on that level. I demand that Firaxis mod in one person of that height for every single civ. It's not about political correctness, I just don't have fun playing as a shorty like Napoleon!!!

[notyoueither]

Also, I'd like to clarify that my reasoning for wanting more women is not to be "PC", it's to because, as a woman I want to play a woman.

I see your point of view, but I fear you will not find joy on this issue in civ games.

While sensibilities and broader appeal should of course be attended to by the developers, there are also the vast clanging hordes who want some degree of accuracy or 'legitimacy' for the game regarding the human past.

That said, I am sure there will be leaderhead mods, and then you may play the game any which way you prefer. In the mean time, keep on civ'in.

[Lensman74]

Thank you notyoueither for that bit of claity regarding the vast clanging hordes. I see that your analysis is not far off the mark.

[Grumbold]

One thing we can be sure of is that there will be an xpack or two in due course. There's bound to be more nations on their way. Who knows, if they thought it would be of interest to enough people they might even add official support for allowing any leader pickable for any nation.

[Lensman74]

I will attempt to address a member of the clanging hordes.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
And yet that's not true for the women I know or the women some other people in this thread mentioned.

You caught me. I was lying. I don't know any women at all. And I guess the only people that know women who play games are you and the one other poster on this thread. I should have known better. This is known as sarcasm.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Then why limit it to only women? If we use your theory that women prefer to play as women then wouldn't Jews prefer to play as Jews? How many black Civ4 leaders are there for black players compared to female Civ4 leaders? Where's their fun? So should we remove 1 historical ruler (Washington) for a racial AND gender minority "representative" (Rosa Parks) for every Civilization (too bad Susan B. Anthony) so the game is as fun as possible for the most people... all under your speculation this would make the game more fun for most people? Where's the black female Jew for the Persians since we're "rewriting history" anyways?

1. It's not a theory. The women I work with (and the one I'm married to) like to play video games as women. Notice I never said ALL women like to play as women.
2. The entire world is divided into two genders-male and female. Every civilization in every civ game historically was made up of men and women. It's true. But following your argument, a German might want to play the Incan nation but as a German leader. That is ridiculous. Not only does it not have ANY historical basis whatsoever but it is a poor rebuttal. The women leaders listed in a previous post ACTUALLY ruled their respective nations, so putting them in the game is not an inaccuracy, nor is it being PC.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Who cares? That's what you say later on regarding the kind of importance for a leader.

Again a rebuttal on about a 3rd grade level.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Earlier you said it's about making the game fun for as many people as possible. I only see your speculation that this would do that. If you count the posts, objections and rolling eyes in earlier posts I don't see such a change would make the game more fun for the majority of Civ players, but perhaps the opposite. But perhaps you have a more accurate study of all (potential) Civ4 players you're not telling us other than "I know female gamers"?

Ah. I forgot that the only people play Civ are those that have responded in this thread. Wait, that's not entirely accurate. The only people who play Civ are the ones who post on this forum only. But to satisfy you, I will begin to take a poll of every single person in the entire world who has played a Civilization game and ask them if it would be more fun if we added more female leaders, and also if they'd mind if some of the female leaders we added were leaders in a figurative sense and did not actually rule the country. When I finish the poll, I'll let you know. It could be any day, so check back often.

[Arnelos]

My personal estimation is that this thread is ready to be closed...

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Lensman74
I will attempt to address a member of the clanging hordes.

Hello clanging minority.

You caught me. I was lying. I don't know any women at all. And I guess the only people that know women who play games are you and the one other poster on this thread. I should have known better. This is known as sarcasm.

That is known as irrelevant. See below.

1. It's not a theory. The women I work with (and the one I'm married to) like to play video games as women. Notice I never said ALL women like to play as women.

And since you don't know ALL women it's as irrelevant as if anyone else in this thread said we shouldn't do this because the female gamers they know don't want it. Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

2. The entire world is divided into two genders-male and female.

The entire world is divided into races. The entire world is divided into religious and non-religious groups. The entire world is divided into species.

But following your argument, a German might want to play the Incan nation but as a German leader. That is ridiculous. Not only does it not have ANY historical basis whatsoever but it is a poor rebuttal.

There's no historical basis for a woman ruler of the American civilization, but you have no problem with that.
You were the one who said "Which leaders are more "deserving" than others? Who cares?" Now all of the sudden you care which "more deserving" races lead certain countries. Why don't you put together your list of which phenotypes and racial characteristics are acceptable for certain nations so we can accomodate those races, not just gender, under your narrow vision. Or do you insist we completely ignore, say blacks due to historical basis and at the same time ignore the historical basis for gender (Susan B. Anthony)? You have no problem "rewriting history" for gender, but if this is done for phenotypes, religions or LordShiva's height then it puzzles you to no end. Thanks for showing us your double-standard. It says more than I could ever say.

The women leaders listed in a previous post ACTUALLY ruled their respective nations, so putting them in the game is not an inaccuracy, nor is it being PC.

And I might even download them once someone makes the mod for them. I also would be surprised if Firaxis came out with patches/expansions without any other female leaders, but it seems some of the clanging minority here want instant satisfaction without putting forth any effort themself to obtain their wish via a mod.

Again a rebuttal on about a 3rd grade level.

I simply fed your own medicine back to you, which you don't like. "Who cares?" was your own cop-out slogan. At least you know your grade level.

Ah. I forgot that the only people play Civ are those that have responded in this thread.But to satisfy you, I will begin to take a poll of every single person in the entire world who has played a Civilization game and ask them if it would be more fun if we added more female leaders, and also if they'd mind if some of the female leaders we added were leaders in a figurative sense and did not actually rule the country. When I finish the poll, I'll let you know. It could be any day, so check back often.

Exactly! You cannot know every single Civ player and your "I know such and such female gamer" is irrelevant as evidence to prove what the majority of female Civ gamers want. Your entire theory is based only on the few women you know and the 1 person in the OP. That is ridiculous. From what I've seen Firaxis hasn't ignored the female gamers and gave them adequate (or more than adequate some said earlier) representation while "still keeping some degree of accuracy or 'legitimacy' for the game regarding the human past." Which after notyoueither's post it seemed you finally grapsed, but alas quickly forgot.
And guess what, those female gamers who only want to play females in Civ4... well they can. You're ASSuming they won't be satisfied with 5 different female leaders, ASSuming they won't be satisfied with mods, and ASSuming they won't be patient for future Firaxis female leaders. That's some heavy ASSuming.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arnelos
My personal estimation is that this thread is ready to be closed...

Indeed ...

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Agreed... I am very disappointed that Churchill is not an option for the English.

As soon as I figure out how to do it, I'll do a leader mod with more appropriate national leaders. Stalin/Peter the Great, Churchill/Richard Lionheart, etc.

[RGBVideo]

Some people have way too much debating time...

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by VJ
Some people have way too much debating time...

Hence Off Topic Forums.

Some people have too much tv time or sleeping time or playing Civ time or drinking time... well maybe not drinking time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though not as many as men, the point is that there were/are woman rulers.

Surely you aren't asserting that there were as many female rulers are male rulers? History has been dominated mostly by men, so, of course, most of the historically powerful leaders have been men. Firaxis has done its best to give women who were powerful rulers a spot in the game.

I didn't say that Susan B. Anthony was a ruler.

And that's my point. If you aren't a ruler/leader of a nation and/or state, you don't belong as ruler of a civ. End of Discussion.

Ok, you really are missing my point. I would have rather seen Churchill in place of either Elizabeth or Victoria. Then there would have been a male and female option. I'm sure that if there were twenty five or so woman rulers listed and five or so men rulers, you would have men that were upset, too.

Also, I'd like to clarify that my reasoning for wanting more women is not to be "PC", it's to because, as a woman I want to play a woman.

No, I entirely understand your point, it's just the fact that it IS political correctness. I want my leaders to be more historical. Yeah, I'd be pissed if there were 25 women, because history has been dominated by men. Like it or not, history has been patriarchal. Putting more women in would deny more qualified men.

Susan B. Anthony over FDR? WHY?! So someone can say, oh, I want to play as a woman leader? Sorry, I don't find that reason compelling enough.

Perhaps you should stop looking at gender and start looking at merit.

Which leaders are more "deserving" than others? Who cares? This is a game!!

It's a game based on human history. And Hell, 'Who cares' can be directed right back at you. People find it more FUN to have the most historically significant leaders for civ. More people are going to have fun being Napoleon rather than Joan of Arc.

So you think leading a movement for a bank has the same kind of importance as leading a movement to give women the ability to vote? Or the same importance as giving equal rights to all people?

Do you have absolutely ANY knowledge about Alexander Hamilton? And the battles surrounding the Bank of the US? It was perhaps the biggest issue of the early US nation. It encompased the great questions of federalism. What kind of government did the US want? A stronger central federal government or a confederation of states? That's what the bank dispute was about.

Again, it's not PC, just simply a way to make the game more fun.

No, it's entirely political correctness. Like I said, people would have more fun playing characters that were historically significant rather than those who LOOKED LIKE THEM (which is basically what you are saying). In that case, lets have a black and Asian leader for every civ, so those ethnicities will have more fun because they'll have a ruler who looks like them in every civ.

A black person may not have as much fun if the US didn't have a black leader, so Martin Luther King, Jr. gets added in. Oh wait, lets think about Latinos... Cesar Chavez, welcome to the game. Asians also need some representation in the America civ to make the game more 'fun' for them. Maybe we can give them Norman Mineta ().

What? Why not? It'd make it more fun for those ethnic groups!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Pyrodrew]Then why limit it to only women? If we use your theory that women prefer to play as women then wouldn't Jews prefer to play as Jews? How many black Civ4 leaders are there for black players compared to female Civ4 leaders? Where's their fun? So should we remove 1 historical ruler (Washington) for a racial AND gender minority "representative" (Rosa Parks) for every Civilization (too bad Susan B. Anthony) so the game is as fun as possible for the most people... all under your speculation this would make the game more fun for most people? Where's the black female Jew for the Persians since we're "rewriting history" anyways?[/q]

... what he said .

Rosa Parks would be satisfying to blacks as well... maybe making it more 'fun' for a small number of people of that ethnic group.

As Pyrodrew has said, I think Firaxis has bent over backwards in adding female leaders. I mean England two leaders are both women! Even though Victoria could probably have been replaced (very justifiably) by Winston Churchill or Henry VIII.