One quick point about the Chinese Civ

[Taktaal]

I found Mao a little bit strange too. This comes pretty close to choosing Hitler to be the german leader.

I mean, they were both important for their people, but their "merits" shouldn't give them a place in a computer game...

[conquistadore]

Originally posted by Troll
One point to ponder, shouldn't the Chinese Civ have a small wonder, say the Chinese Food Buffet, for like twenty turns they fight like heck or even build railroads like mad before heading over to the Pagoda for a long rest?

lol...are you referring to the 200++ course Royal Buffet that was served in the Imperial/Forbidden Palace during the Manchu dynasty? Great idea!!

Improve worker efficiency by 200% and all combat units gain 100% defence bonus for 20 turns..

[ranskaldan]

It is totally disgusting to have Mao as the Chinese leader. However, he is the first person that springs to mind if you say 'Chinese Leader'. There were leaders who were equally important and much more benevolent (Like Tang Taizong for example) but they just aren't well known enough.

J10, I think you meant 'Huang Di', not 'Wang Di'. 'Huang Di' was the legendary first king of the Chinese in prehistory. However he was only a legendary figure. We might as well have Romulus as the leader of Rome if that's the case.

Out of the 13 emperors of the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty, I believe not a single one was known as 'Fu Manchu'.

As for the Imperial Buffet, well well, now that's an idea

[HolyWarrior]

Lessee--Mao as leader of China, Stalin as leader of Russia, but NOOOOOOO, can't have Hitler as leader of Germany.

Political correctness runs amok.

[Gromit]

Heh heh.

[Alinestra Covelia]

HolyWarrior - don't forget the fact that Stalin and Mao were never defeated, but Hitler was. So he couldn't count as a ruthless-but-strong ruler, since he was quite evidently not quite strong enough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by J10
For the Chinese leader, I would vote for Wang Di, THE king who started it all. Wang Di basically just mean "King". He's a king named king because he's the first king (well more like a leader) of the Chinese people, that's why he wasn't named "King - name -" but just King.

Huang Di doesn't mean "king" or "emperor, but "Yellow Emperor." You must have confused two Chinese characters that sound similar.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
J10, I think you meant 'Huang Di', not 'Wang Di'. 'Huang Di' was the legendary first king of the Chinese in prehistory. However he was only a legendary figure. We might as well have Romulus as the leader of Rome if that's the case.

Nope, he's real. As real as you can get with what's left of archeological evidence.

[Urban Ranger]

Apparently most of the posters in this thread don't have much of an understanding of China. Especially the person who suggested Chiang.

I recommend some John King Fairbank for starters.

[ranskaldan]

Nope, he's real. As real as you can get with what's left of archeological evidence.

Real? How real?
The first Chinese writing appeared during the Shang dynasty, which is about one thousand years later than the life of Huang-di. The only archeological evidence that's contemporary to Huang-di are neolithic remains, and there is no way anyone can prove from these ruins that 5000 years ago the Chinese were led by Huang-di, or whether there was a Huang-di, or whether there was a Chinese race 5000 years ago.

Huang-di is in the same league with Romulus, Rama, and Odysseus. A legendary figure.

Huang Di doesn't mean "king" or "emperor, but "Yellow Emperor." You must have confused two Chinese characters that sound similar.

they sound exactly the same. The Chinese word for emperor is Huang Di.

[alskdj80]

Yeah, the choices for the leaders of some civs are completely stupid. And the choices for civs are sometimes completely stupid too... so are the 'great leaders'... but I think I'll stop there, lol.

And what about those 'great leaders'? Kublai Khan being a great leader of China? He was Mongolian... I remember the first great leader I got in battle was him, and I checked to see if I was actually playing China.... I was. Great leader, yes... but of China? as far as my knowledge goes, he isn't.

If I were to choose leaders for China, I'd probably have to pick Qin Shi-Huang or Han Wudi, or Tang Tai-Zong. Even though it is said that Qin Shi-Huang was brutal, it was for a reason. After I-don't-know-how-many years, he (and others of course) finally unified China into one nation... needless to say, the other factions aren't thrilled. You need someone with an iron fist to rule during those times. Even though his lineage didn't continue (due to a complicated internal power struggle, which I won't mention), he did unify China. Han Wudi... he kicked the Huns' asses, so definitely a great leader, but he couldn't have done it if the treasury and food storages weren't stocked up by two emperors before him, although their names escape me at the moment. But, I guess war speaks louder than peace... oh well. And of course, Tang Tai-Zong... I mean, how can you vote against him?

The problem with choosing a leader for the ancient civs, or civs that are farther away from the Western culture is that less people know about it. Most people know about Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Ramses, etc. but very few know about the Eastern leaders. So, the problem is choosing a leader that everyone knows... it may not be fair to the people who do know, but I guess Firaxis isn't designing the game only for us anyways. And also, whenever they can, they always pop in a couple of women rulers, which is good, but some of those rulers are sub-par to others. I mean, seriously... Cleopatra?? Joan of Arc?? In the vast (well... sort of... Egypt, anyways) history of the two civs, I'm sure you could have done better (although in history, those two and Catherine were possibly the best choices). I'm just afraid that they will actually consult their Eastern history books and find that queen in the latter stages of the Chin dynasty ... *sigh*, but Mao is a terrible choice... but I guess thats the only leader that most people today know, so we don't have a choice. I still think that they should add two leaders, one male, one female (or another male, if there are no good female candidates)... and actually consult their history books this time...

My final rant... why in the world is China a 'militaristic civ'? I would have thought that 'scientific' would have suited it better... I mean, no doubt, recently it has been rather militaristic, but over the years, I don't think you would find a more peaceful civilization.

But I gotta admit, despite bashing Western ignorance on the Eastern world in my post (no offense meant at all, since it IS hard to know other civs' history), I'm pleasantly surprised that the people (that are clearly non-Chinese, since if you're Chinese, you should know this stuff anyways, so that's not surprising) posting in this thread actually know something about China and are posting intelligently too. That is something rarely seen.

[Caesar2760]

I have to agree with you about making China militaristic. It's not as bad as having Greece not be militaristic (Well my lord, we've defeated the Persians; you know what that means... Time to fight each other!), but it's bad.

[Reptilicus]

Kublai Khan was an important Chinese figure. He formed, I think the Tang dynasty, but I'm not sure if that is exactly correct.

EDIT: I do understand, though, as he basically made the Chinese a conquered peoples.

[ranskaldan]

Kublai Khan was a Mongol.

He founded the Yuan Dynasty, the first non-Chinese dynasty to conquer all of China.

So I strongly object to him being a Chinese leader.

[Dr. Nick]

Emperor Meiji Mutsuhito For Japan!