Does firaxis know what they're doing?

[Deathwalker]

How the hell can some one not heard of Mao. For **** sake during that start of the cold war Moa and Stalin were the worst bad guys

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by FlyDude
On the Greeks: Alex wasn't exactly Greek, he was Macedonian. He didn't rule the Greek empire (for there never was one), he ruled the Macodonian.
Maybe they should have taken Pericles as one of the great Athenean rulers.

Actually it was under Alexander the Great from Macedonia that the Greeks were for the first time "united". As he ruled over Greece and almost all the known, at the time, world. That's that and nothing more or less. I am tired of hearing about this subject and trying to explain the same thing over and over again. Now of course you can dispute this but then I can dispute and say that the sky is not actually blue (looking at it from Space it's not) or that George Washington was not an American but a Virginian and never actually felt American since at the time each State considered themselves as unique and not as the States of America as we know it today. Now we can discuss this over and over again and with the same trail thought I may prove to you lots of things contrary to popular or modern belief but what's the point.

Alexander was from Macedonia Greek as much as Strauss was a German from Bavaria or as much as you are dutch from Amsterdam.

On the topic I was always wondering why they choose Abe as the leader of USA and not Washington or any other member of the founding fathers

[Yit]

Oh, you want something to laugh about? My senior year was the *first* year that my history class that ever covered anything past 1876 or so. *sigh*

Now that I think about it, I think we surpassed Mississippi in being the dumbest state in the US

[FlyDude]

Let's call it a truce with saying Alexander was Hellinic (Greek with some eastern elements thrown in)
Oh, and the unification was done by his father, but I think I'm nitpicking now....

I just think Pericles was way cooler.

[The Pioneer]

I wont call a truce on that FlyDude it's alot deeper than one might think or assume. It was not meant to be an attack either, only a clarification .

Anyway Pericles would be ok I guess, actually they should have given us a choice!

SO long....

[Q Classic]

i don't understand why all of you are having apoplectic fits over these leaders.

granted, they may not fit your idea of a "perfect" leader for the civ, but you do realize that the civ game is moddable enough that you can a) change the names and b) change the leaderheads...

so, like, what's the problem?

[FlyDude]

Maybe the subject has to be changed then to who you'd consider the coolest leader in history

Hmmm, interesting thought. Who in all History does the Civ community consider to be the best, the nicest, the coolest, the brightest, etc?

Personally I think that would be Marcus Aurelius. Or Abe? Or Pericles? Hmmm, this is going to be difficult.

Anyway, it's not of real concern, that's right. Some people just do have a little more knowledge of general history and would like to see things according to that knowledge.

[zulu9812]

Re: Does firaxis know what they're doing?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Chinese-This is RIDICULOUS! Mao is one of the worst world leaders ever. He stomped on Chinese culture and killed millions of people. If Mao's China is the one FIRAXIS wanted in Civ 3, then they're stupid. It should be on of China's leaders during one of there golden ages when they were an actually brilliant civilization.

Absolutely: it seems that Firaxis went with the most well-known leaders - the 'popular' choice, as it were. Wasn't China named after it's first ruler, Chin? He'd be a much better choice.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
English-Liz is the best choice for a female leader, but still not a good idea. It should be Churchill.

Balls. Churchill was leader of Britain, not just England. It should be an English monarch. Who better than the Virgin Queen?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
French-This is also ridiculous. WTF did they have her be a leader when she never lead the country. It should DEFINITELY be Napoleon. If not him, maybe Charles de Gaulle

Indians-Ghandi never lead the country, so he shouldn't be leader. He's a terrible choice. I don't know who should be, though.

Agreed. Choosing figureheads with no political power seems an odd decision. Again, it's the populists' choice. Dunno about India, but who better for France than the man who conquered half of Europe?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Germans-I would have to say Hitler. A terrible man, but when you come to think of it, he went from being a bum to leading Germany out of a terrible depression into one of the most powerful nations ever. But it would make nobody want to be Germany. Bismarck did lead the second Reich, and he's not too bad a choice.

Tricky one this. Hitler lead Germany for 7/8 years and whilst the impact is still felt, he brought ruin to Germany. It only takes a weak man to go to war; it takes a great leader to weld together various states into one unified whole. Hats off to Bismark, I say. Although, having said that, I replaced Bismark with Hitler in my mod...

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Does firaxis know what they're doing?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Americans- It should be FDR, maybe G. Washington, but Abe Lincoln isn't too bad of a choice.

Agree, don't know why they chose Abe, maybe they're all Republican! That would explain why they chose the first Republican president, but even then I'd rather they went with Teddy Roosevelt cause the diplomacy dialogue would've been a hoot!

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Chinese-This is RIDICULOUS! Mao is one of the worst world leaders ever. He stomped on Chinese culture and killed millions of people.

Qin would've been better. Mao did more to destroy China and its culture than build it in my opinion.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Egyptians-How stupid are they? Oh yeah, I forgot. They want girl leaders so they don't look sexist. For those of you who don't know the story of Cleo I'll tell it to you. She fell in love with caesar, and then he got killed. So then Marc Antony and two others lead Rome. He wanted her help so he could take over Rome, and then they fell in love. To make a long story short, the Romans came when they saw he was enslaved by love and they crushed Egypt and that was the edn of their civilization. So why Cleo?

Not saying Cleopatra was the best choice. But, she was able to defeat her brother in the civil war and gain rulership of Egypt. She accomplished this by using Ceasar. She built a powerful navy and when Ceasr died she began using his arch rival to gain control of the Roman Empire, unfortuanately the Roman Navy defeated them or she could've gained control of the entire Mediterranean. That's a lot more potential than most of the other candidates.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
English-Liz is the best choice for a female leader, but still not a good idea. It should be Churchill.

Churchill over Liz? Elizabeth defeated the Spanish Empire when it controlled almost half the world. She challenged and defeated the most powerful navy of that age. She built the British Empire. What did Churchill do? Hmmmmm.... Well, he did lead Britain through part of WW2........ I guess that qualifies him as the greatest British leader of all time! All hail King Winston I!

Originally posted by johncmcleod
French-This is also ridiculous. WTF did they have her be a leader when she never lead the country. It should DEFINITELY be Napoleon. If not him, maybe Charles de Gaulle

You're right on everything but deGaulle. The only thing he was good at was taking credit for the stuff he was too useless to do and isolating France from the rest of the world.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Indians-Ghandi never lead the country, so he shouldn't be leader. He's a terrible choice. I don't know who should be, though.

Absolutely right.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Romans-They got that one right, no one should come close to Caesar.

Julius is a good alternate, but Augustus is the obvious choice.

[ACooper]

I think the Civs should have been named A, B, C, etc. Then name their leaders A Leader, B Leader, C Leader etc.


BTW, why does a leader have have political power? Ghandi is a swell dude.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by ACooper
I think the Civs should have been named A, B, C, etc. Then name their leaders A Leader, B Leader, C Leader etc.


BTW, why does a leader have have political power? Ghandi is a swell dude.

That would be a bit on the "lacking imagination" of things I guess.

I will say this agian maybe they should have given us a choice of leaders for each country but I really do not care about what the name of leader is, you can actually change it if you want with 3rd patry files!

[Jon Shafer]

Whoever said that Firaxis picks the most recognizable figure (sort of... who'd pick Joan over Nappy ) was correct. I do give them hats off for picking Bismarck though, that was actually pretty unexpected.

That having been said, just because someone is the most recognizable doesn't mean that their leader should be representative of their civilization. Do you think Hitler makes a good representative of the German people? Who cares if he's the most recognizable to America's (undereducated ) youth. If you go by that, then the Beatles should be England's leader, Elvis America's and Chirac for France.

America's history aims are very bad... in the past 5 years, I've gotten 4 1/2 years of American history, and the half year that I had 'world history', the pace was frantic, and what I learned little. If it weren't for my love of history (especially wars), then I probably wouldn't know a thing (sounds kind of like everyone else I know). The same goes for geography... I had a geography class, and they could barely even find states. I can't believe how little some people know about history... I guess I only say that because I'm a history major.

[johncmcleod]

Ok fine. You guys win. It should be Bismarck, and I guess you're right about England. Churchill lead Britain, not England. But why do they have England instead of Britain if Scotland, Wales, and Ireland aren't in the game? And why did the thread get one star? What was wrong with it?!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Ok fine. You guys win. It should be Bismarck, and I guess you're right about England. Churchill lead Britain, not England. But why do they have England instead of Britain if Scotland, Wales, and Ireland aren't in the game? And why did the thread get one star? What was wrong with it?!

You admit we're right?

Are you sure your at the right forum site, cuz I was under the impression that we NEVER admitted we were wrong no matter what the circumstances.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Ok fine. You guys win. It should be Bismarck, and I guess you're right about England. Churchill lead Britain, not England. But why do they have England instead of Britain if Scotland, Wales, and Ireland aren't in the game? And why did the thread get one star? What was wrong with it?!

I would throw a fit if Britain was in the game. Great Britain has only been around for around 250 years - there's a hell of a lot of Scottish history before that. I hate it when Americans lump Scotland in with England - it really pisses me off. And as the crown motto goes:

"No one provokes me with impunity"

P.S. voting for your own thread, eh johnmcleod?