Does firaxis know what they're doing?

[King of Rasslin]

I do think that Joan of Arc isn't a very suitable leader for France. Also, I think the Eygyptian War Chariot was way before Cleopatra's time. I guess that is ok, since Abe would still be alive today with F-15s if he wasn't assassinated.

Elizabeth is actaully an excellent leader for England. Catherine the Great is a horrible leader for Russia. She did take a lot of territory for Russia, but she wasn't very nice to the peasants. I think they have to put her in because Mao needs some company as one of the worst leaders ever. It's too bad that I (and 200,000,000+ other people!) know so little about China that I wouldn't know about any other leader.

Ghandi for India is like Joan for France, but I don't know of any other person that could lead India. Bismark is perfect for Germany. Most of the leaders are good, but some of the lady leaders were pushed in to be fair.

Firaxis should just make more room for more civs and have an option for making alternate leaders. That would be enough.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Catherine the Great is a horrible leader for Russia. She did take a lot of territory for Russia, but she wasn't very nice to the peasants.

Can you think of any Russian leaders that have been nice to the peasants? Catherine was a great monarch. She liberalized Russia's arcane legal code, started schools and universities, promoted women's rights, starts the Hermitage art collection, and applied the Enlightenment ideals of Western Europe to Russia. She also greatly expanded her empire. This all as a German women in a hostile foreign country. I would say that was impressive.

[johncmcleod]

What fighter was saying was what I was trying to tell you at the beginning. Yes, he's one of the most horrible people ever. Hitler changed Germany from shambles to one of the most powerful empires ever on this earth in a few years. We go on and on about ancient leaders doing that for their nation when the rebuilding process took their whole life or even longer! Though I did do more research on Bismarck (remember, no one mentioned him in school) and I still agree with my statement saying he should be the leader of Germany. Hitler just isn't as bad as you all think at being a leader (though he still is a terrible man).

Random note: Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian because he thought eating meat was cruel to animals?

And does anyone agree with me about the Zulu?

[Panag]

hi ,

, what would be great , but almost not possible would be if they could get different leaders over the years with the same civ , .....

but the cost of implementing this would lead to a game with a retail price over 299 usd , .....

what they can do and should do is to let us choose what leader we want to be , ....

example ;

France , either play as Joanne or as Napoleon , ....

have a nice day

[Daedalus]

Just for everyones reference so that they don't start scratching their heads every time they see Tokugawa on their 'choose your civ' screen-

Tokugawa Ieyasu was the first Shogun (Dictator) of Japan to unite the entire country under one solidified, unchallenged rule. Allied with Oda Nobunaga ('The Taiko'), Tokugawa aided Nobunaga in taking control of Japan by defeating all rival daimyos, allowing Nobunaga to seize power and claim the title of 'Kwampaku' (essentially Prime Minister). Nobunaga was assassinated shortly after, sending Feudal Japan into uncertainty over who would rule the country. This caused a schism, creating two rival factions- The loyalists under Ishida Mitsunari, whose agenda was to insure that the power remained with the imperial family (in reality, an attempt by Ishida to claim the title 'Kwampaku') and the usurpers under Tokugawa. At this stage Tokugawa was the most powerful daimyo in Japan. Under his command, the usurper forces defeated the loyalists at the battle of Sekigahara (1600 AD), leaving Tokugawa unchallenged in his claim for the Shogunate. Under the control of Tokugawa, rival daimyos were deposed, leaving only allied daimyos in control of Japan's provinces. This allowed Tokugawa to put an end to the bloody feuding that plagued Japan's history, and establish an unprecented period of peace, and keep the Tokugawa clan in power untill the Meiji restoration in the 1800's.

So, yes, Tokugawa was the right choice as leader of Japan. Although, Oda Nobunaga would also have been a decent choice.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by jsw363


Can you think of any Russian leaders that have been nice to the peasants?

Come to think of it there weren't many leaders of ANY nation that were all that nice to the peasants, I mean they were PEASANTS.............

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
Mao is by no means the 'worst' choice for a chinese leader: It's him who has a giant poster over Tianamen Square, and that is not meant as a quibble or joke.

That's true a generic panda would be a worse leader for China. Just because he has a poster doesn't make him the greatest leader of all time. WEAK leaders are always displayed in poster form in hopes that the glamorizing of their image will somehow strengthen their status in history.

Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and yes Mao are the immediate names of "Poster Child" leaders.

[NeOmega]

I think catherine the great was a good choice for Russia.

I think Tokugawa was the best choice for Japan, cuz two of the Japanese style games I've played, Nobanunga was portrayed as evil. Not sure why, maybe it is one of those winner righting history things.

[Daedalus]

If you're referring to Onimusha, I think they portrayed Nobunaga as evil BECAUSE he was so effective in defeating his enemies.

[NeOmega]

Ahh thank you, that was the other game I couldn't remember. Yes, it was Genma Onimusha for Xbox, and Inindo, Way of the Ninja, for the Super Nintendo (an interesting FF type RPG).

[NeOmega]

Even thought the end of Inindo was interesting..... because you kill Nobanunga, but it's not like he is evil or anything, he just starts saying something like you are young, and the seasons must pass..... but japanese storylines are always a bit quizzical.

[ville]

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark
the Superhero "Theodore Roosevelt" Americas.

Well that´s what I call president! Has someone made a leaderhead of him?!

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Fighter
Hitler was a strong powerful ruler, under Hitler, Germany underwent an almost golden age state in the 30s. Germany soared out of Depression, something no one else could do. Hitler brought in much needed reforms, including health care.

Granted he did do many terrible things, the elimination of the Jewish people and other minorities for example, and Im sure others can(and will) chime in with more.

The point is, he went a few steps too far. Had he stopped before Poland, we likely would put him up their instead of Bismarck because his reign would have been long and prosperous and the rest of the world would be a very different place, consider what came out of WW2, a strong US, the UN, the cold war, many new technologies, the bomb (Japan would have gotten slapped around by US and Brit and French etc. making for no need for the bomb). Ok so some things would be good, others bad.

anyway, my babbling is going to cease now.

Germany's "golden age" was the mostly result of the war machine and shifting the burden of the Depression onto the minority for the sake of the majority. The war machine will drag an economy down if it sits idle. When you destroy businesses and dismiss employees of specific minorities, the people who are not in that minority will naturally have more plentiful opportunities. For example, if you're suffering from 10% unemployment, and then make 5% of the workforce unemployable, you are down to 5.26% unemployment. When you destroy 10% of the businesses, the rest get 11.11% busier. You can't maintain this type of pyramid scheme long-term in an industrialized nation (at least, no country ever has).

Even before Poland, Hitler was on the brink of war with Russia, England, and France over Czechaslovakia (sp?). In fact, the war machine was the direct result of Hitler's promises to the German people to conquer what had once been theirs, including a substantial part of Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Poland, he would have been thrown out for a leader that would have been willing to invade.

[Zero]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

That's true a generic panda would be a worse leader for China. Just because he has a poster doesn't make him the greatest leader of all time. WEAK leaders are always displayed in poster form in hopes that the glamorizing of their image will somehow strengthen their status in history.

Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and yes Mao are the immediate names of "Poster Child" leaders.

stalin? weak leader? evil yes but weak no~ hoho

[Zero]

Originally posted by One_Brow

Germany's "golden age" was the mostly result of the war machine and shifting the burden of the Depression onto the minority for the sake of the majority. The war machine will drag an economy down if it sits idle. When you destroy businesses and dismiss employees of specific minorities, the people who are not in that minority will naturally have more plentiful opportunities. For example, if you're suffering from 10% unemployment, and then make 5% of the workforce unemployable, you are down to 5.26% unemployment. When you destroy 10% of the businesses, the rest get 11.11% busier. You can't maintain this type of pyramid scheme long-term in an industrialized nation (at least, no country ever has).

Even before Poland, Hitler was on the brink of war with Russia, England, and France over Czechaslovakia (sp?). In fact, the war machine was the direct result of Hitler's promises to the German people to conquer what had once been theirs, including a substantial part of Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Poland, he would have been thrown out for a leader that would have been willing to invade.

actually germany never mobilized for war like america has. nor did Japan.