Leader personalities

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I'm not sure they did FDR very well in the game. The character doesn't really look like him, and even if it did he looks too hale and healthy. And where is his cigarette?

As for traits, I think it's ironic that he's depicted as a peaceful builder when in reality he is remembered best as a wartime president.

Well, remember he also developed Works Projects Administration, Social Security and Hoover Dam (now unfortunately supplanted by Three Rivers) and substantially added to the national park system. Say what you believe politically about such "liberal" domestic intervention, the guy was definitely a builder, with a domestic focus.

As far as his health, check out Kenneth Branagh's depiction on the Home Box Office original film, "Warm Springs." He wasn't always a broken-down old man like he was at Yalta. Branagh's Roosevelt, pre-presidential, has polio but definitely is a hearty cat and I have no doubt the depiction is accurate. It takes some vigor to run for president during the Depression.

[Generaldoktor]

I have found difficulty level has a lot to do with the effective manifestation of leader personalities. I am currently running a group of nine on Settler, which I am playing because, in this blue holiday season, I just need the ego lift of crushing everybody. (Well, we all have our little indulgences.)

Yeah, Tokugawa is obnoxious. But is he coming for me on an archipelago game when I've got destroyers and gunpowder and he's still playing with axemen and caravels? I don't think so.

The rudest thing Louis XIV did to me is demand three critical metals for his stupid bananas and dyes. I managed to get two gold per turn also out of the stingy. I'd have to mount the equivalent of Barbarossa, Overlord and Desert Storm to get my own bananas, so he wins that one. However, if he cancels the deal, lock and load! This is my first game with him. My marines are on the way to pillage a barbarian city in the middle of his empire, which he can't seem to handle himself. Maybe that will sweeten his mood.

Ditto for Isabella on the so-what-if-she's-sour approach. I've got theocracy, I've got fighter planes, scr-w you! I realized playing on this low level when my skill level is probably beyond that now is rather cheesy, but I'm learning a lot about wonders, by building them all before anyone; and Great Persons, by getting them regularly for a change.

I've played all the way up to Noble and been roundly trounced by these guys. I won't play with Montezuma yet because I heard early on he always attacks and his UU is a real early game killer. Tokugawa isn't too effective even in higher level games as other empires contain him and he is flacid on culture; odd for a Japanese, (especially if you saw him in "Shogun.") Alexander tricked me into an unwanted war with Saladin on Noble, pulled out while my guys fought desparately for turns after. He bullied me the rest of the game, without bothering to invade; like mean big brother. I abandoned this game, couldn't beat him.

Asoka I fear the most. He's like the Zen master you see in some of these oriental martial arts flicks. Moves mountains with his finger; Yoda on mango chutney. He doesn't get mad, just gets even; and usually has a huge technologically advanced civ by then. Hatsheput similar, but somewhat more understated. I wonder what it would be like to play as them?

[CarnalCanaan]

Alexander's been a thorn in my side lately, as well. Currently, we're both stuck on an antarctic continent and I'm decidedly more powerful than him. Plus, we share a religion, though that doesn't seem like such a big deal to him. But in the past few games I've had to focus on eliminating him early.

Do unto others before they do unto you.

[JackRudd]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Asoka I fear the most. He's like the Zen master you see in some of these oriental martial arts flicks. Moves mountains with his finger; Yoda on mango chutney. He doesn't get mad, just gets even; and usually has a huge technologically advanced civ by then. Hatsheput similar, but somewhat more understated. I wonder what it would be like to play as them?

I haven't played as Asoka for any length of time. Hatshepsut is quite good fun to play as; I like the Spiritual trait, and I also like the early farm-and-road spamming you can do with the Egyptians.

[madinkan]

This idea that the country's policy is based on the personality of its leader isn't a bad one. What troubles me is the fact that they rarely have guys like Hitler and Stalin as an available option. Maybe because some people might find that offensive, but still a nice idea being able to play as the Fuhrer or Commarade Stalin. Vladimir Lenin also would be a good inclusion.

One funny thing is that it is really hard to imagine FDR leading barbarians into war and Alexander with nukes in his inventory.

[JackRudd]

You have the tools, you can mod them in:

Adolf Hitler - Agg/Spi. FS: Caste System
Josef Stalin - Agg/Org. FS: State Property

Not sure about Lenin. Phi/Org, maybe?

[Nazaroth]

I think you switch the stats between Joseph and Hitler.

Though the spiritual ability would allow him to easily change the government systems.

[Cort Haus]

Hitler's FS would be Police State, surely.

Lenin as Phi/Org - agreed.

Stalin could be Ind/Org rather than Agg/Org. He spent more time industrialising the USSR (with plentiful use of pop-rushing) than attacking states. Had Germany not attacked, he wouldn't have annexed eastern europe.

[JackRudd]

Hitler's Germany was probably Police State + Nationhood + Caste System + {other civics that don't matter so much}. I think Caste System as favoured civic is what made his particular style of government most distinctive.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by JackRudd
Hitler's Germany was probably Police State + Nationhood + Caste System + {other civics that don't matter so much}. I think Caste System as favoured civic is what made his particular style of government most distinctive.

Well, Hitler did not have unlimited artists, that's one thing for sure. Most great artist fled to the United states and Great britain. So Caste System is not really the CORRECT choise although it probably would be the RIGHT choise. Hitlers regime used ALOT of slave labor so Slavery should maybe be the correct civic.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Hitler's FS would be Police State, surely.

Lenin as Phi/Org - agreed.

Stalin could be Ind/Org rather than Agg/Org. He spent more time industrialising the USSR (with plentiful use of pop-rushing) than attacking states. Had Germany not attacked, he wouldn't have annexed eastern europe.

I´d say AGG/IND for Stalin. This become pretty obvious when he finaly had the opportunity to fight, he took over half of Europe. And Stalin did also start several unprovoked wars (Like the wars agsinst Finland)

ORG does not reflect him correctly I think. The fact that Stalin managed to indurstrialize the country quickly is reflected by the IND trait. ORG is IMO more about how the country in general was organized...and on that front everything sucked. Civilizans everywhere died out of hunger due to poorly cordinated food ransoning and the military was, in fact, poorly organized, and due to this tens of thousands of soliders died compleatly unnessesary. They managed to pull it all off due to numbers mainly.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Had Germany not attacked, he wouldn't have annexed eastern europe.

Hitler attacked the USSR in 6/41. Stalin annexed the Baltic States in 1940, attempted to invade Finland and won some territorial concessions, in the winter of '39-40, took half of Poland in the fall of '39, coming in on the other side from Hitler; and took part of Romania, over Hitler's objections, also in 1940. He also fought a border dispute in Manchuria with Japan in 1938 or '39, somewhere in there, foreshadowing later border wars with Communist China. He would have taken more of Hungary and Romania if the Germans hadn't invaded, with these toadies as their allies. He also ended the "autonomy" of several Tartar and Cossack regions in southwest Russia during the period, deporting or killing thousands. The guy was a natural aggressor.

[thisvastnothing]

i love finding washington in a game, he's by far the most loyal ally. give him a helping hand in the beginning when he's weak, and you'll thank yourself in the late game when his fin/org starts paying off. plus i love the bow he gives you when you meet him.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by thisvastnothing
i love finding washington in a game, he's by far the most loyal ally. give him a helping hand in the beginning when he's weak, and you'll thank yourself in the late game when his fin/org starts paying off. plus i love the bow he gives you when you meet him.

Perhaps, but the game would have been more intresting if they had put in Bush instead of Washington

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Saurus


Perhaps, but the game would have been more intresting if they had put in Bush instead of Washington

Omigod; how about Mussolini too. Incompetent goosestepping partner in quagmire. (Ask Tony Blair, preferably after his next election struggle.) Should we invent new categories, "anti-financial," and "anti-industrial" for a leader who wallows perpetually in recession and deficit-spending. Police state would fit him nicely as his favorite civic, but so would theocracy, without the bonuses for military units. And merchantilism , nobody wants to trade with this guy, his high dollar and his protectionism. We need a category for "anti-environmentalism" too.