modern era leaders

[LordShiva]

Besides, there is no such thing as "the Islamic nation in its most historic form."

[One_more_turn]

Nobody cares for sorry-*** losers such as Saddam or Milosevic.

You rarely get great leaders during long period of peace.

Look at Civ 4 leaders, they were all great warmongers except Ghandi.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
You rarely get great leaders during long period of peace.

Augustus gave us Pax Romana

Originally posted by Two_more_turns
Look at Civ 4 leaders, they were all great warmongers except Gandhi.

Ashoka only made a name for himself after renouncing war and then ruling over a long, stable peace.

Victoria wasn't a warmonger, either. Nor Mao (SoB? Yes... Warmonger? No...). Nor Hatshepsut. Nor Frederick. In fact, the reason for the Warmongers patch is probably the lack of warmongers in vanilla Civ4.

[One_more_turn]

Augustus got the Pax Romana after fighting a decade long civil war. Even after defeating Mark Antony, he proceeded to conquer most of Illyrium, Thracia, and gave up Germania only after Teutoburg Forest. If that was not warmongering, I don't know what it is!

Mao was a classic warmonger, beating the **** out of Chiang Kai-Chek's KMT. He wrote his famous little red book with full of guerilla war strategies. In fact, general Westmoreland had one at his night desk, but failed to read it apparently as he got his *** whomped by the NVA. (if you don't believe me, I'll send you a copy in Chinese.) Later, he invaded/reclaimed Tibet and pissed off Richard Gere until today; subdued Uighurs in today's Xinjiang; beat up MacArthur in Korea; fought a nifty little war with India; and skirmished with Russians.

Frederick, or Friedrich der Grosse, got his great title not from wimpy suck ups to Voltaire, but from handing Maria Theresia of Austria her worst defeat. As soon Friedrich (not the stupid English version Frederick) became king of Prussia, he immediately invaded the rich Austrian province of Silesia, perhaps taking advantage of the fact that Maria Theresia was a woman. But she struck back fiercely by bringing the French and the Russians onboard. Friedrich was almost defeated when the Russian Czar suddenly died and the French was beaten by the Brits in colonial wars. (This was one reason why Hitler got ecstatic after FDR suddenly died) Since Austria couldn't defeat Prussia alone, Friedrich survived and became a "great" instead. Later he was involved in the partition of Poland.

Victoria was actually a powerless sissie unworthy of a Civilization's leader. Her prime ministers had far more power than her and those guys got embroiled in who-knows-how-many wars.

I admit I don't know much about Asoka or Hatshepsut.

But again, most Civ 4 leaders are warmongers.

[phbreng]

Kennedy were a very sucessful leader, and i think would represent very well the united states, specially the part of united states that arent so affictioned about having wars against anyone that hold oil on its territory (not supporting terrorism, but i think the US actions are one type of terrosism too)

Hitler was intelligent, a great general, and a great ruler, but should never be born. period.

Millosevic: Same as hitler

Stalin. This one was a great leader that changed his country with a very big revolution, and until today have a big popular approval. He would fit well on civ.

About ghandi:

He was more like a mascot, and advisor to the real leaders

This was the stupidest thing i ever heard about ghandi. (no ofense)

Ghandi might not have be a head of state, but he was the one who lead the people free from the hands of the British Empire.

And yes, he fought a war against the British. But a war that never lifted one weapon. Check about ghandi here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi

and yes... he was one of the greatest leaders of history. and never made war for something like ... oil...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by phbreng
About ghandi:

This was the stupidest thing i ever heard about ghandi. (no ofense)

Ghandi might not have be a head of state, but he was the one who lead the people free from the hands of the British Empire.

And yes, he fought a war against the British. But a war that never lifted one weapon. Check about ghandi here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi

Thanks for the history lesson and the link, Brazilian person...

Silly me for thinking that I would know anything about "Ghandi"

[One_more_turn]

Stalin was a pop-rush expert.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Metaliturtle
Woodrow Wilson was a horrible president!!

Agreed. One of the worst we've ever had.

As for a great leader in recent times...hrmm, that's a tough one. Most "great leaders" get that way by winning big wars, and WWII was the most recent all-out Great Powers war we've had. In Civ terms, hrmm...Kruschev? Anything out of the cold war period would have to be either a Soviet leader or an American leader.

[allybhoy]

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.

In the same vein, neither Victoria or Churchill were leaders of England, just UK or Great Britain

But if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Yosho

Originally posted by Metaliturtle

Woodrow Wilson was a horrible president!!

Agreed. One of the worst we've ever had.

What do you mean he almost prevented WWII.

[Metaliturtle]

Originally posted by Will9


Agreed. One of the worst we've ever had.

What do you mean he almost prevented WWII. [/QUOTE]

And now you're a good president if you ALMOST do something? Nixon ALMOST won the war in vietnam, Bush is ALMOST winning the war in IRAQ, Clinton ALMOST kept his snake in his trousers.

Actually a crappiest leaders MOD might be funny...

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Will9

What do you mean he almost prevented WWII.

He was one of the most racist presidents we've ever had, changing several parts of the federal government so they would only hire white people.

He ran on the platform of peace for re-election, but then when we did go to war, he crushed decent, arrested anyone who disagreed with the war, completly stifled free speach. People were arrested and jailed for just saying that they didn't believe some of the stories in the newspapers about german atrocities (all of which later turned out to be untrue.)

Then, when the war was over, he was completly outmaneuvered at the negotiating table. When it came to diplomacy, he was perhaps the most ill-prepared and ill-equipped leader of a major power in recent history. He wanted national self-determination, and yet the size of the British and French world empires actually increased after the war. He wanted to avoid punishing the loser of the war in order to avoid bad feelings that might lead to another war, but Germany was crushed under the treaty. Every single goal he had, every one of the 14 points we were supposedly fighting the war for, he completly failed to achieve, except for one; the Leage of Nations. The only thing he got out of the treaty at all was the Leage of Nations, but because he refused to talk to the Senate about it beforehand, and refused to make any kind of compromise with them after the treaty, the United States didn't even end up joining the leage, and the Leage was a joke.

I could go on; suffice to say that Wilson was a terrible, terrible president, probably one of the worst we've ever had.

[padillah]

Re: modern era leaders

Originally posted by Grenouille
Bush?

Only in an "Always War" scenario.

Regan?

Yeah, that'd be fun. Every turn all the settings would be forgotten. But at least he'd start off with Mysticism.

Tom P.

[LordShiva]

[padillah]

Originally posted by LordShiva

The Mystycism reference wasn't too far out?

I was wondering.

I almost didn't put it in.

Tom P.