modern era leaders

[alva]

Hmm, the problem with Gorbachev is probarly, that he, in a way, "weakened his nation".. by CIV standards.

He was just upfront about it and cut his losses.

The weakening was done by the people who came before him.

Reagan

[0d!n3oo3|Broad]

recently i was thinking of helmut kohl for germany, because of his function in the reunification.
but i think he is to recently but on the other hand it would be funny to see him in the game...

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Grenouille


In game terms, he weakened Russia: he lost some cities! hehe. Of course, In reality, what he did was great.

In game terms he realized that his civ had expanded too much, was paying too much upkeep to afford everything, and he realized his civic options weren't good, so allowed some of the cities to culture flip which in the long run (wait for it...) will make the civ stronger.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Solver
Who said a leader in Civ terms is a leader of a country, necessarily? Caesar was never an emperor, he was a military guy, and a dictator. I also find it interesting how Stalin is in Civ1/Civ4 as a Russian leader, never having been a leader of Russia.

Well, to be fair, Kublai Khan didn't rule "Mongolia" either. But I think history will bear the USSR out as an imperialist iteration of the Russian "nation."

I remember CtP which featured Jamaica's female leader: Elizabeth II.

As for more modern-y leaders, I think Lech Walesa should get the nod for a Polish civ. And tell me, why in Heaven's Name wasn't Fidel Castro featured in Warlords? A damn shame.

Cuba libre!

[Badtz Maru]

Bill Clinton is a fine example of a great modern leader, they should add him as a third choice for America.

[axisworks]

Aside from Lech Walesa, one person that comes to mind was Emperor Hirohito of Japan. He was emperor during Japan's most imperialist reign of history, and also during its most economically prosperous era after reconciling Japan's military legacy... not to mention the longest-running Japanese emperor in its history.

Kennedy was only president for two-and-a-half years, and he really didn't do much aside from create a few social programs, push for social reform (which didn't happen until Johnson was president), kick off the Vietnam war (a move some would say weakened the US considerably), and deal with a couple international crises that were handed his way. Krushchev was a bit short-sighted with many of his policies, Reagan destroyed the economic potential of the middle class for the sake of making the corporate class richer, as well as instigated an arms race that left the US owing Europe, Japan, and China trillions of dollars for weapons we never used, and Gorby was more or less responsible for the fall of his government... not good choices for leaders if you ask me

[Grenouille]

Kennedy handled the Cuba missle crisis pretty well, as far as I know, and he had alot of charisma.

oh, and he changed the production of Cap Canaveral to "Apollo Project", aiming for a space victory!

too bad that barbarian lee harvey oswald unit won the fight against him, using his first strike promotion.

To me, Kennedy seems like a pretty good choice for another prez for US civ, together with not so modern era leaders like Abe Lincoln or Wodrow Wilson.

Would Charles de Gaulle be an adequate leader of france for Civ? At least, Firaxis could use his leaderhead for an official WW2 scenario! Hehe..

How about John Paul II., as leader of the newly introduced Vatikan civ?! hrhr

[axisworks]

I agree and I do think Kennedy was a great leader, but compared to the accomplishments of Roosevelt, Washington, or Lincoln, he's pushed down the line a bit.

The same goes for DeGaulle... compared to Louis XIV and Napoleon, he doesn't really measure up when you consider all their achievements relative to the times they lived.

[Metaliturtle]

Woodrow Wilson was a horrible president!!

[Ijuin]

I would give Kennedy Charismatic and Industrious as his traits. ^_^

[Jaguar]

I think if we were to take a modern-era US president, it would have to be a two-term president who was popular in his time and instituted significant reforms, etc.

I would look to Eisenhower or Reagan. JFK might be OK too.

Of course, Lincoln and Jefferson have had more apparent transformative influence on the country, and I'd go with them first.

[CarnalCanaan]

For a modern US leader (besides Roosevelt, the most recent leader in vanilla) would have to be Empress Rodham-Clinton. Look at the facts:

- Defeated and annexed Canada in the War of 2022.
- Ushered in Golden Age of American culture by patronizing the hip hop greats and hentai masters of the early 21st Century.
- Despite criticism, advanced space technology by drafting French citizens into revolutionary "Neptune Human Lander Project."
- Though her tenure was rocky, she remains America's longest reigning Empress.

Really, a no brainer.

[Nubianmercenary]

:People, people plz. The only recent leader I believe that should be incorparated into Civ4 is Osama. Yes, I know what your thinking "man this guy's crazy". Maybe I am, but then maybe by putting someone like Osama into Civ4 players will get the chance to really be the Islamic nation in its most historic form.

:One which portrays ruthlessness, yet still remains a fanatical religious state. I have no idea why they put Saladin in Civ4 anyways, we all knew the crusaders would lose eventually.


NubianMercenary

[Son of David]

No disrespect, guys, but I think that already there are far too many U.S. Presidents in this game. (Great leaders? Freemasons more like it!)

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
:People, people plz. The only recent leader I believe that should be incorparated into Civ4 is Osama. Yes, I know what your thinking "man this guy's crazy". Maybe I am, but then maybe by putting someone like Osama into Civ4 players will get the chance to really be the Islamic nation in its most historic form.

:One which portrays ruthlessness, yet still remains a fanatical religious state. I have no idea why they put Saladin in Civ4 anyways, we all knew the crusaders would lose eventually.


NubianMercenary

You may have noticed that CIV does not tend to deal too much with leaders that will cause "offence" to the western world, ie Hitler - one this alone I don't think that Osama will be included. Also the game tends (and please not that I say tends - should deal with the Ghandi argument) with leaders of countries, not religous groups.

The game also tends to deal with leaders who have built a nation.