Worst Leader choice

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Arrian
Greece - Well, think about it... Alex was a Macedonian, not a Greek. I might go with Solon. The problem is that the actual Greeks were fond of city-states, not empires, so finding one leader for them is hard. Hence, Alexander.

Well, it's strange to choose a non-Greek because Greece was divided in city states. I think Pericles would be a better choice.

[Herr David]

Since the AI always plays like a moron anyways, there should be leaders who really messed up things when they were in power. For Germany, Paul Hindenburg would be a good choice (a 80-year old reelected as president...) and for England, I'd suggest some dumbo king from the middle ages, or Mr. "Peace in our time!" Chamberlain. The Americans could be ruled by Andrew Johnson or Warren G. Harding.

or how about different leader names for different difficulty levels?

US @ really easy = Warren G. Harding
US @ still easy = James Buchanan (the lame duck before Lincoln)
US @ mediocre = James Polk
US @ tough = F.D.Roosevelt
US @ unbeatable = whoever you prefer (Personally I'd opt for a military/political guy like Dwight Eisenhower)

[Caesar the Glutton]

I say Joan of Arc is probably the worst leader. I'm just disappointed in the whole game so far...to me Civ 2 still rules the roost!

What's with all the Politically Correct BS? Seems to me like Firaxis is just sticking a bunch of chick leaders in to be PC. Ok, Elizabeth as leader of the Brits is fine, but in my opinion Egypt should have Ramesses and Russia should have Stalin or Lenin. Napoleon would be better for France.

[Herr David]

Stalin and Lenin didn't really do anything that would put them up as Russian all-time leaders. Lenin ruled Russia only for eight years, and his policies were mostly disastrous for Russia. Stalin was powerful and brutally industrialized Russia, but didn't exactly lead Russia to greatness or anything. IMHO you shouldn't have that kind of a maniac lead a country over the course of 6,000 years. Peter the Great would make a great Russian leader. I think Katherine isn't that bad... (if you overlook the fact hat she wasn't a Russian or even a legitimate Russian monarch...)

[Dry]

Originally posted by Caesar the Glutton
... and Russia should have Stalin or Lenin.

No.
They lead a country called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
No 'Russia' in there, right?
And Stalin was not even russian, but georgian.
And don't talk about 'country' and/or 'nation' to a commie.

[Quasar1011]

As a criteria, I daresay certain nations may not have become great civs without certain men. It is those men who should be the leaders. This would include:

George Washington of the Americans
Cyrus of the Persians

And though Germany and Italy were nations before they were unified, the men who unified them could be given proper credit as leaders too. This list could be expanded if we get into extra civs...

-Daryl

[Fresno]

Another good leader for France would be Charlemagne. Or for Germany. Or for the Netherlands .

The Franks... Isn't is a wonderful paradox that France has been founded by a Germanic people?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Fresno
... Isn't is a wonderful paradox that France has been founded by a Germanic people?

and Spain - Visigoths
and Italy - Ostrogoths
and Algeria/Tunisia - Vandales

[Fresno]

Aren't those countries a bit different? I mean, Spain was united late 15th century and Italy in the 1800's. France, however, really is founded by the Franks.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Fresno
Aren't those countries a bit different? I mean, Spain was united late 15th century and Italy in the 1800's. France, however, really is founded by the Franks.

Well, I think in facts you are right. I was just teasing a little bit, because I had the feeling you also were teasing.
The franks (Clovis) founded the kingdom of france.
But it was also not as big as France today. I am not sure of what was french kingdom at the beginning, but unification of what is france today took time. They add regions as Artois, Picardie,...Burgubdy,..., Navarre, Alsace,... and Corsica later on.

For Spain and Visigoths, there was a visigothic empire untill 700 (conquered by the maures).
I don't know the spannish history from then on, but I know that spannish people talk about the 'REconquer' of cities (and not just 'conquer' of cities), so I supposed they see themselves as heir of the visigohtic empire.

For the ostrogoths in Italy, it was Theodoric who took Rome (western Roman empire) and received recognition from eastern roman empire (Byzance), because he was an admirer of Roman culture and he said he would be defender of roman culture.
But indeed, between this time and 1800, you must add a little pinch of Vikings, some arabs and others, keep the former romans and their slaves from everywhere and shake the whole think a little.

All those tribes (Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) were indeed germans - or more exactly goths, but they admired Roman culture and they latinize their languages.
I have have been told that original 'frank' language was much more close to dutch than today french.

[teasing]
French, Spannish, Italians are civilised Goths, Dutch and North German are non-civilized Goths.
[/teasing]

It's teasing, because to say that, you must consider that roman culture=civilisation, all other cultures=barbarians.

[Fresno]

[just teasing]
So the Belgians, who once were, according to Caesar, "the strongest of the Celts," are now instead of speaking Celtic, speaking three different languages (Dutch, French and German) they all adopted from the Goths!
[/just teasing]

[Dry]

Originally posted by Fresno
[just teasing]
So the Belgians, who once were, according to Caesar, "the strongest of the Celts," are now instead of speaking Celtic, speaking three different languages (Dutch, French and German) they all adopted from the Goths!
[/just teasing]

Yeah, right.

Now, seriously, in fact Caesar said that from the eburons, after he completly genocide them.
The eburons were living in a region that was around the city of Tongeren (their capital).
Their story is more or less the one in 'Asterix by the Belgians'.
In the winter 53-52 (not sure), they destroyed 16 roman cohortes that were in winter camps in Belgium.
Caesar himself was called back from Rome. He came with 2 more legions and the only strategy he found to quell the rebellion was to destroy all villages, women and children, house and cattle. A little bit like the Indians in America: if you can't catch them, starve them. One more genocide on earth.
The leader of the eburons was called Ambiorix, and the Eburons' revolt inspired the one of Vercingetorix 1 or 2 years later. Vercingetorix, just tried to unite the tribes instead of fighting alone against Rome.

[Fresno]

Thank you for the information. I knew about Ambiorix and Vercingetorix, but I was forgotten about the details.

Probably because I now only have to read Ovidius for my Latin exam. So most things I learned about the Gaul Wars I've already forgotton by now.

In civ2 I hated it you couldn't have both Romans and Celts in one game. And now they let the Celts completely out!

[Polarkraken]

As for Egypt, Hatshepsut would be the best choice. Ramses wasn't really a great leader - he just erected a million statues of himself. He went on only one campaign, I believe, and almost got killed at one point, when his vanguard got cut off from the main army and was surrounded. He was just history's greatest egoist.

Yeah, Infogames just put in the women leaders to be PC and cover their a**es from minority group lawsuits. I mean, how else can you explain Joanie and Cathy? Still, I think they picked a pretty funny group of characters. I still like watching their expressions, especially when you win (or lose) .

[Pius Popprasch]

Regarding PC: It's strange that Ivory is among the luxury resources. Is it pc to kill these cute animals just for Ivory? And elephants don't deplete, either.

Worst leader choice? Maybe Cleo.
I'm missing a personality like Genghis Khan, with a wild and worn face.