Worst Leader choice

[DarkCloud]

I think they chose Xerxes because Xerxes conquered more territory than Cyrus... I would have prefered Cyrus, however!

[Fresno]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I think they chose Xerxes because Xerxes conquered more territory than Cyrus... I would have prefered Cyrus, however!

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Xerxes was the one who was defeated by Alexander. Or is that another one?

[HolyWarrior]

Nah, Joan and Napoleon were military leaders, so they shouldn't be considered as ruler.
The best bet for France would've been Louis XIV.

And for the Greeks, wouldn't Alexander be better suited as a military hero? Pericles would make a great Greek leader.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Actually, Alexander defeated Darius III.

Xerxes was the one who got wiped by the Greeks, though Darius I started Persia's invasion of Greece.

[Fresno]

Thanks, Vlad.

[JamesJKirk]

Hey, what about....

Nobody's commented that Ghandi is India's leader while he never technically led the country, and I think he's the best choice.
I'm okay with Joan of Arc because she's a heroine to the French people, and correct me if I'm wrong, but most French people wouldn't have a problem either, although they, like me would probably have to prefer Napoleon, since he was a far more infamous choice. Although then France's trait would have to be switched to Militarist/Something to make more sense.

What bugs me though is that she's called "Joan d'Arc"! Stick to one language people! I wouldn't call her Jeanne of Arc, and you wouldn't call Frederick the Great Frederick the Grosse or whatever

[Fresno]

Gandhi technically never led India, but he did led the country in a moral way. You don't have to be a politician or a general to be a leader. So I agree with you: he is the best choice (so he is better as Indira Gandhi or Nehru).

[Sava]

Joan of Arc is the worst leader choice in the game. Napoleon should have been France's leader.

I also think the American leader should have been FDR. He is hands down the best president the US ever had. He also was in power longer than anyone else. Although, I don't think Abe is a bad choice. George Washington would be a bad choice. He was only made the first president for two reasons 1. His reputation after the Revolution... 2. All the other so called founding fathers were too much involved in party politics. Another reason GW shouldn't be the American leader is that he didn't have a lasting impression on anything. In his farewell address, he advised against party politics (yeah that worked), he advised against class division (yeah that worked), and he advised against messing with other peoples business (cough Israel cough).

I think Civ 3 should have had a random leader system. With each revolution, the leader should change. For instance, Russia should be led by Stalin or Lenin when they become Commies. Also, their could be an entire list of leaders that could change certain Civ's traits. Hitler should be in the game. Yes, he was a very bad man, but come on, I'd like to kill him. Germany could be hostile to democracies as a fascist state ruled by Hitler, and then friendly to democracies as ruled by Schroeder.

This leads me to another alternative in war. Instead of just conquering a civ, maybe installing a government could be an option. That way, people under democratic govt's wouldn't get all pissed off when you go to war with a bunch of fascists. Then when the war ends, you grant them indepedence and install a certain form of govt. Maybe for Civ 4.

The Egypt situation is also bad. Ramses ][ should have been the leader.

[Dinner]

The worst choice for a General/war leader was definitely making William Wallace an ENGLISH(!?!) leader. Jesus, I can't even see the apologists making excuses for that one.

[King of Rasslin]

King Tut for Eygpt, all the way. And Charlemagne for France, Napoleon would be like making Hitler for Germany.

[Rosacrux]

But... why?

Alright, Jean D'arc is not only a poor choice for France, but also a completely ridiculous one (a half-crazed peasant girl used by the upcoming French aristocracy and the church to gather support and then delivered to the English... well, whatever, very poor choice).

But, why bickering about Cleo? I mean, she is the most recognisible Egyptian (more on that later) figure, she was a quite succesful ruler if you take into account that her country was not really strong at time and facing the almighty Roman Empire, and she played politics game (mixed with sex in good proportions) to the point that she almost got away with it.

Agreed, she was Greek. But... check out todays Kings-Queens. How many of them are actually not native to the nation they rule. Sure, probably the Spanish royal family are considered Spaniards now, but they derive from Austrian/Danish ancestry. So do most "houses" of Europe.

And mind you, Cleo was the first of the Greek rulers of Egypt that took the time to learn Egyptian (yes, the first in 300 years of Ptolemaic rule that bothered to learn Egyptian!!!) and the first that adopted their subjects faith.

I think you are being harsh with Cleo. On one thing you have right though: She was a uuuuugly *****

[johncmcleod]

The reason they have to do Joan d'Arc, Cleo, and Katharine is because girls would complain if they didn't have leaders in they game. Katharine for the Russians? Give me a break! Stalin was a terrible person and a tyrrant, but he should have been the Russian leader. Hitler probably should be the German leader, though Bismarck was a pretty good selection. Joan d'Arc was a great military leader and a great saint, but she never lead France. Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders of all time, but he also didn't lead France. I definitely think Charles de Gaulle! (though I didn't agree with him pulling France out of NATO) Cleo shouldn't be one. How about Ramses II? And Ghandi never lead his country for very long, though he was a great man. And, it is kind of dumb the way some of the leaders act. I have been backstabbed by Ghandi a ton. Like Ghandi would gang up on someone. Come on. Well, that's my two cents. And if anyone disagrees, post your feelings. I love
debate.
John

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders of all time, but he also didn't lead France.

I've noticed a couple folks say that Napoleon didn't rule France and it just isn't true. Napoleon was definitely the leader of France for many years. That's what being an Emperor usually entails.

[Fresno]

johncmcleod: I'm affraid you're focussing too much on the last century. Instead of Charles de Gaulle, I would want Louis XIV back. Instead of Hitler (Hitler a good leader? ) I think Frederick is fine.

It would be very boring to have only 20th century leaders.

[Arrian]

My thoughts on the Civ leaders:

I agree about Joan - she should one of France's "great leaders." The overall leader should be either Louis or Napoleon.

China - well, tons of choices here, but I'd go with Chin Chir Yuan Di (I've seen that spelled many different ways, so I apologize if my version is wrong).

Russia - Peter the Great

Egypt - Ramses II

United States - I find it amusing that no one really considers Washington, our first president (myself included). Lincoln is fine, but you could argue for FDR.

Persian - I agree - Cyrus.

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.

-Arrian