Worst Leader choice

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Beren


Talking about hats: Lincoln loocks just like a devil in the Middle Ages.

Hmmm... I don't think Lincoln looks anything like a 'devil' in the middle ages. But that's just my belief.

Another note about hats. Check out Bismarck in the middle-ages when he is annoyed/furious. Damn funny. The floppy red hat adds a sort of exaggeration to his negative emotions...

[Spiffor]

Personally, I don't know anything about Aztec rulers, and I think I'm not the only one. I know Montezuma only because he's the Aztec leader since Civ1. If they put someone else (more successful historically), it would probable be better.
Another not so great leader : Tokugawa. Tokugawa is the name of the family, not the individual. Tokugawa Ieyasu ended the civil war in 1600 and united Japan under its rule, but then Japan closed itself on foreign influence (both Chinese and European) and remained feudal until 1868. IMO, Emperor Meiji is much better, as he restored imperial power, was enlightened enough to modernize its country quickly, and changed it from a backwards exotic country to a major economic and miltary power when in 40 years... Well, he was a dictator and sacrificed a part of his population in the process, but many leaders in this game did.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Another not so great leader : Tokugawa. Tokugawa is the name of the family, not the individual. Tokugawa Ieyasu ended the civil war in 1600 and united Japan under its rule, but then Japan closed itself on foreign influence (both Chinese and European) and remained feudal until 1868. IMO, Emperor Meiji is much better, as he restored imperial power, was enlightened enough to modernize its country quickly, and changed it from a backwards exotic country to a major economic and miltary power when in 40 years... Well, he was a dictator and sacrificed a part of his population in the process, but many leaders in this game did.

Meiji certainly achieved economic successes, but choosing him is maybe too western. Like choosing Karzai as leader of the Afghans. My gues is they wanted a leader that said "Japan" and which showed the enormous cultural differences between us and Japan. Tokugawa is probably not the best choice, but what about Jimmy Tennu, the said to be first emperor of Japan around 1 AD? Of course maybe he's just a myth, but we could always go for the leader of the Yamato clan.

[Odin]

A good replacement for Montezuma would be his nephew, Comtamuc, he bravely tried to fight off the invading Spanish.

American: FDR

French: Charelmagne

[Beren]

Did some research about Aztec history and turns out the Montezuma were thinking of was actually Montezuma II. Maybe the first was better...
Acamapichtli could have been a better choice. According to this link he was chosen as leader because of his political skills.

http://www.crystalinks.com/aztechistory.html

[Iron Chancellor]

Here's an idea:

American Leader: Teddy Roosevelt
Why: TR was the first President to actively pursue an aggressive foreign policy. The US fought its first modern war, built an overseas empire and gained independence for the largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba. He was the driving force behind the Panama Canal. Because of his foreign policy, the US has since played a major role in the affairs of her Central and South American neighbors. Domestically, he was for the common people, enacting anti-Trust and monopoly laws, drafting clean food, water, air and land legislation and setting up the first national parks. PLUS: he would be another Industrial Age leader, filling Abe Lincoln's slot perfectly.

[Beren]

It is hard to choose an American leader, simply because no one ruled 50 years in times of prosperity. There are tons of other options, but I think Lincoln doesnot make a bad leader at all.

[monkspider]

When rating these rulers we must take into consideration that they must be fairly well known amongst the masses and be leaders that did great things for the country. I don't think either one of these characteristics is more important than the other in this case.

Germany - Bismarck is perfect. One of the Fredricks could have been feasibly considered though.
Greece - Alexander is perfect. Pericles could have been an outside choice, but no one could be a better choice for Greece than Alex.
Russia - Catherine can't be complained of too loudly. Lenin or Peter would have made good choices too.
England - Liz is perfect.
France - Ugh, Joan was a horrible choice. I think Napoleon, or possibly Louis XIV would have been much better. For anyone looking for a wonderful 3-D rendering of Napoleon to add to their game, click here. http://ccm01.sphosting.com/. Many props to the author for such a professionally-created rendering.
Rome - Julius Caesar is perfect. Augustus/Octavion could be considered too.
Persia - Xerxes is acceptable, though Cyrus may have been the better choice. I have no problem with Xerxes though.
Iroquois- Hiawatha is perfect
Aztecs- Montechzuma II is really the only feasibly choice for the Aztecs.
Zulus- Ditto for Shaka
China- Mao Tse Tung is perfect, Shi Huang Ti could be also a candidate.
Japan- Tokugawa is perfect. Meji could have been considered, but no one else sums up the essence of Japan better than Tokugawa.
India- Gandhi is perfect.
Babylon- Hammurabi is perfect. Perhaps Nebuchadezzer could have been considered as well.
Egypt- Cleopatra is a fairly bad choice, but not on the scale of Joan. I would gladly take Ramses II any day thouhgh.
America- Lincoln is fine, FDR, Teddy, and Washington would have made fine choices as well.

[Jethro83]

These are the only truly bad choices:

France - Joan didn't rule anything. Nor can anyone imagine her ruling anything. Napoleon, Louis XIV or De Gaulle would've been better choices.

Egypt - Cleo is another terrible choice. Ramses II is the only one that comes to mind.

Aztecs - Montezuma II was one of the worst Aztec rulers on record. Even before Cortéz arrived, people were questioning his ability to rule. He was slow-witted, took too long to make decisions and always turned to the priests for advice, who responded with "The gods want more sacrifices!!!". His nephew (sorry, but I don't remember how to spell his name) would be OK. It hardly matters as I prefer to imagine the Montezuma in the game to be Montezuma I (possibly a much better ruler than the successor bearing his name).

The worst of these would have to be Joan of Arc, purely because the other two were actual rulers, and Joan was simply Great Leader material.

[Beren]

Originally posted by monkspider
Aztecs- Montechzuma II is really the only feasibly choice for the Aztecs.

Like I said before, there is an alternative. Acamapichtli was the first emperor of the Aztecs.
Though I found out Montezuma was not a bad choice indeed. He turned Tenochichlan into a cultural metropolis.
Other Aztec emperors, click here

BTW: I found out a major mistake in AoK:TCE. Cuauhtémoc did not rule until after a few months after Montezuma's death.

[loleod]

This seems to be a HUGE cleo bashing event. Cleo wasnt the best choice , but she wasnt half bad. Arc on the other hand , give me a break. The same thing with Ghandi , in my opinion you should of had to rule the nation to be considered the leader for the game.

Any well known modern US president should be better then Lincoln. I would go with FDR though, the american special unit is an aircraft, I doubt lincoln ever saw a plane fly.

China could have done much better , China is a very old country Im sure they could have found a better leader that represents China for more then a puny half century of their history.

I also wish we saw Napolean and we are completely missing Atilla the Hun ! The so called barbarian tribes of the past get no respect.

The leaders , I read some complaints , but I dont remember seeing one big one. Robert E Lee is a leader in America?!?!? I understand he was a leader in america and I understand at one time he was with the union, but I find it laughable that he would be a leader for america at the same time Lincoln is president, what couldnt they find Benidict Arnold( Spelling?) .
considering this is an american made game I would assume the people of Fixaris would at least get that conflict straight. Also I agree with an earlier post good job on picking Wallace as an English leader .

[Beren]

Now if somebody would just make a pharao leaderhead and we didn't have Cleoproblems. I mean: if you have a pharao any Egyptian leader is possible (would anyone know the difference between the physical appearance of different pharaos?)

About Atilla the Hun: Of course I'd happy if there was a new leaderhead for him, but he is exactly the prototype of a barbarian. He himself is special but he doesn't really have a civ that supports him. Razing cities and that stuff, that doesn't sound civilized.
BTW: Any one that makes leaderheads, make sure they are downloadable. I've tried all and only one was downloadable (Trudeau)