Which civs/leaders should be in the expansion?

[Meef]

Originally posted by teutonic_knight
Germany- Fredrick Barbarossa

Austria- Francis Ferdinand , or Albrecht III

you can´t seperate austria from germany in history really! if you did, you had to divide germany into at least 5 other countries such as saxony, prussia, bavaria, hanover and so on.

what about hungary instead?

[Lumpkin]

I think the best option for the European tribal civs is the two civ combo idea I've been bandying around.

You could have Scandinavians: Vikings (Cnut or Ragnar) + Swedish (Gustavus Adolphus)

I don't really see how this would be different from having a single tribal civ. You still get the problem of distinct nations being treated as a single civ which historically was never a united political entity. Presumably they would have the same city names and be known as the "Scaninavians".

Denmark only controls Grenland because a swedish diplomat FORGOT to include it into the peacetreaty at Kiel in 1814 (after the danes lost us after the Napoleonic wars). Same goes for most the Island nations in N.-Atlantic.

Ooh, didnt know that. How ridiculous is that!?

The people Stalin killed had to die for one reason or another. Some of them to protect the security of the state and to maintain his power (absolutely necessary in a time like that), others had to be worked to death in order to modernize Russia. It doesn't matter who killed how many people, life is cheap- it's who brings the greatest improvement to their country that matters. Before Stalin, Russia was a 3rd-rate nothing country. He transformed Russia into a first-class industrial and military power, the equal of any in the world. He fought and defeated the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen. Too often, westerners forget his great accomplishments and his great services to his nation and to humanity, and focus on purges that were necessary for him to maintain his power.

I don't want to get into a long debate because I doubt it is possible to reason with someone with such a twisted way of thinking. If only we could ask what the millions upon millions of people who Stalin murdered felt about being killed in order to to turn their country into a gigantic military machine.

Also, I would strongly question whether most of the deaths did actually help Russia's military advancement. He murdered like a fifth (maybe more I can't remember) of the armed forces and his brutal agricultural policy led to the death of around 30 million (about the population ofthe whole of Scandinavia and the Baltic states today). Have you actually studied the history of Stalnist Russia? These were disasters for Russia's infrastructure!

If life is cheap then what the hell does "service to humanity" mean? Why is a military machine a great country? Because the miserable peasants who survive the dictator's slaughter can occasionally find the time to think "woohoo, I live in a powerful country" before getting back to their soul-destroying endless labour?!

[vomitus]

Hebrews: Led by David or Joshua
Germans: Led by Adolf Hitler
North Korea: Led by Kim Jong Il
Japanese: Led by Hirohito
Macedonians: Led by Alexander the Great
Greeks: Led by Pericles
Sudanese: Led by Idi Amin

I haven't played the game nor have I seen outside of this forum. I know Alexander is there but he's leading the wrong nation.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Meef

you can´t seperate austria from germany in history really! if you did, you had to divide germany into at least 5 other countries such as saxony, prussia, bavaria, hanover and so on.

what about hungary instead?

The truth is that Hungary was bigger and more powerful than Austria between the 10th and the 16th century, until the ottomans occupied the country and basically destroyed it. Hungary's population was halved during the turkish occupation.

The ottoman rule was ended in Hungary by the austrians, who by that time became a great power, and basically another 200 years Hungary stayed more or less under austrian occupation. The hungarian national revolution in 1848 was so close to be successful (Austria defeated it only with the help of the russians) that Austria accepted Hungary (in 1856 I believe) as an equal partner in the empire. Therefore for the last 50 years of its existence, the empire was called "The Austro-Hungarian" Monarchy. This relatively stable and prosperous period was Hungary's modern "golden age".

After losing the 1st word war the country lost 2/3 of its territorry and became almost irrelevant on the global stage (well, as much as any other country with 10 million inhabitants).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by vomitus
Hebrews: Led by David or Joshua
Germans: Led by Adolf Hitler
North Korea: Led by Kim Jong Il
Japanese: Led by Hirohito
Macedonians: Led by Alexander the Great
Greeks: Led by Pericles
Sudanese: Led by Idi Amin

I haven't played the game nor have I seen outside of this forum. I know Alexander is there but he's leading the wrong nation.

Idi Amin was Ugandan.

Germans don't need another leader, they have two already. For everyone else, same goes for Russia and America. North Korea shouldn't be a civ; Korea, maybe, but not led by Kim.

[Meef]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Idi Amin was Ugandan.

Germans don't need another leader.

and they don´t need that one again!! did you know that in the german version of civ4 they don´t quote "adolf hitler" but "a german dictator". (civipedia: fascism).
and be serious! hitler led germany for only 12 years and made the world suffer, including his own people. Adolf hitler is NOT characteristic for german mentality in spite of the fact that germans have a stronger desire to be led, than other peoples.

[XGustaX]

Originally posted by Venger
Well, nice to see the same thing happened here as over at Apolyton - uesr recommends Argentina, someone says "Huh?", sensitive Argentinian gets into a ranting lather without actually addressing why Argentina deserves a Civ...

As to leaderheads - Rome needs Octavian (Augustus), America REALLY needs Abraham Lincoln. Nothing against FDR, a fine wartime President, but after Washington and Lincoln, there is a notable drop...

Venger

I am not even from Argentina dumb ass. You can stop with assumptions about someone you dont know! And its not Argentinian its Argentine lol geez i even know that and English is not my native language comon now

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by tcost

Ronald Reagan: Creative and Financial.

Mmm... perhaps an 'ironic' leaders thread could be started...

[Bolobob]

argh Immaturity is annoying to deal with. Anyways, Reagan would not be concidered a great president in fact hes not even that good. That whole Iran contra issue yeah.... I would say Lincoln or JFK even though JFK was more of a "he could have done this" type of president.

[Hobelhouse]

Originally posted by Bolobob
argh Immaturity is annoying to deal with.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[LordShiva]

[Azuarc]

I have to ask...does a culture have to be "civilized" to be a civilization? What distinguishes a barbarian tribe like the Huns or Goths from the Mongolian horde?


When creating additional leaders/factions/whatevers, I think the key thing to think about is, "Where would this fit in on the Earth map?" Let's face it, we don't need any more European civs to go along with the Greeks, Romans, French, Germans, Spanish, and arguably English. I could see adding a Nordic culture, but nothing further south.

However, there is a gaping whole in Australia & Oceania that ought to be filled. Australia might not be a mighty force to be reckoned with in the annals of time, but they do have their own culture, even if it is clearly Western. They have 6 major cities in different areas, and a few noticeable landmarks, etc. It would make sense to use them. Alternatively, or maybe in addition to, a Malay culture or even a Thai or Filipino nation could be used. (Would be fitting to have a nation to represent Angkor Wat, anyhow.)

Also missing is a nation somewhere in southern Africa or really anywhere below the Nile. Mali to the west, Egypt to the northeast, but nothing else. Zulus would be the traditional choice, but I'm guessing other selections *could* be made.

The other three noticeable holes are eastern South America (Brazil), the western plains of U.S. and further north (Sioux), and Siberia (erm...Russians...) While the Sioux were a past Civ, making cases for these three is a bit more difficult. Brazil is extremely populous, but overall even less impactful than Australia. Picking one cohesive "nation" for the plains indians, (Native Americans, I know,) is difficult due to their tribal nature.

Sure we could also fudge more in around the Mediterranean, but unless we chose a people from North Africa, (Carthage?) we would simply be crowding and arguably overrepresenting.


And I wrote out a big long list of leader stuff until I realized it was a bit TOO long. So here's the Cliff's Notes version:
England should have a PM ruler. (Churchhill or Disraeli)
Rome should have SOME other ruler. Plenty to choose from.
Greece should have a Greek ruler. Any renowned Athenian leader would do, Draco, Solon, etc.
Russia needs a Soviet. Stalin's the obvious answer.
Egypt DESPERATELY needs another ruler. Any of the great pharaohs would do. (How many of you honestly had ever even heard of Hapshetsut?)
Americans could have Jefferson.



However, I'm going to add my own turn to this thread. What about other things that need to be added to the game, short of changing mechanics? Like, say, missing Wonders? (Sphinx, Arc d'Triumph, maybe something kooky like Biosphere 2) Or additional units? (Transport chopper, Trebuchet/Ballista, some sort of chemical warfare unit?)

Anyway, this post is long enough. I'll leave it at that.

[Squie]

What about the Hebrews/judeans?

I for one would like to see the Hebrews, one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. they started as pagans, but then adopted monotheism, and eventually the religeous beleifs of jewdaism.
They also spawned the two most influential world religeons, Islam, and Christianity. The three Abrahamic religeons, which most countries laws are based on.

They have many unique historical units to consider:
The macabies, maybe a swordsman replacement.
(Macabies 7, 1 - city raider 2 - replaces swordsman)
Not to mention the current Isralie army has one of the best trained air forces in the modern world, which could lead to an advanced helicopter unit.
(Hebrew Gunship, 22, 5 - Invisible)
Not to mention the multitudes of paratroopers used to restore order in jerusalem during the seven days war. It would be nice to see the paratroopers in a civ game again!

And as for leaders, David and/or Solomon the wise are obvious biblical choices, as well as the first female biblical hero - Ruth. Or even that christian villan herod.
As for more modern leaders, how about Yitzhak Rabin, or Golda Meir?

David - Spiritual and Creative, Favours free speach
Solomon - Philosophical, Industrial, Favours theocracy
Ruth - Expansive, creative, Favours Nationhood
Herod - Industreous, Financial, Favours monarchy
Yitzhak Rabin - philisophical, spiritual, favours univeral sufferage
Golda Meir - Agressive, organised, favours beurocracy

What'd'ya think?

[Lumpkin]

I'd love to see the Israelites included in as a civ too. I think Solomon and David would be the best leaders as they are the iconic ones who everyone knows. For a female leader, Deborah would be a better choice than Ruth because Ruth wasn't actually a ruler. Deborah on the other hand was a Judge, someone who did actually govern Israel in its pre-monarchy period (according to the Bible at any rate).

[ElmBei]

Hello everyone! Here're my suggestions....feel free to chew on them. I understand many have already been made, but I guess I'll try and get this topic back on track. Considerit me agreeing....

New Civs and Leaders
Carthaginians/Phonecians- Definitely ole' Hannibal. The Agressive/Financial trait set sounds good for him. He could favor representation, as Carthage had a Senate. I feel they gotta break the "land-only UU" rule for these guys, they were largely a maritime power.

Scandinavians- Yeah, they comprise four different countries, but it's more inclusive than "Vikings." I have no idea as to Viking leaders....but Gustav Adolphus II was simply brilliant and deserves to be in. I would make him something like Spiritual/Expansive...

Khmer-Whoever mentioned them, I agree. They already have a wonder, so why not the culture that built it?

Koreans- Sure, they could work. It's pretty impressive to maintain your autonomy and a unique culture with the Chinese behemoth as your neighbor and with Japan periodically deciding you ought to be part of Japan...

Celts/Gauls/whatever- They weren't uncivilized barbarians, they were just painted as such by the snobbish Greeks and Romans. They didn't build with stone because they didn't have stone, but they were excellent blacksmiths and were very powerful. Caesar stumbled upon them in civil war and still had a hell of a time taking them down.

Dutch- Sure, why not? They were powerful for a time, and William Orange was certainly kickass.

Italians- I'm surprised they've never been mentioned. You could perhaps roll them up with the Romans....but, I don't think they fit together at all. They could have Count Camillo Cavour, and a Pope or Mussolini...

Leaders for pre-existing Civs

Romans- Though one could argue they are more worthy candidates, if they include Hannibal, perhaps Rome ought to get one Publius Scipio Africanus. He could be something like Creative/Expansive(creative because he was a lax disciplinarian and allegedly well-learned and wise.)

Egypt- Ramses or Menes would make great additions. Either them could be Aggressive/Spiritual.

Spain- Isabella the only one? Some one mentioned a good alternative...