Does firaxis know what they're doing?

[DarkCloud]

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

How would you define mobilization?

IF you define mobilization by formally declaring- "We are mobilizing for war"- you MAY have a point
But I define mobilization as REBUILDING the war machine- creating a larger army AGAINST the treaty made in WWI, etc, etc.
-
The only reason Germany got out of the great depression was the same reason that Sweede did- they followed John Maynard Keyne's idea of Deficit spending!

Except Germany spent deficits to increase thier army, etc... whereas Sweeden spent it on the people/infastructure.

WWII drew britain out of the depression for the same reason... the same with america.

[Apep]

Shouldn't England be Queen Victoria? She was ruler during the pax britania after all.
Mao is a good choice really because people connect Mao with China and vice versa, it isn't how good the leader actually was in reality but how closly they are associated with their country of origin. Also everyone did do exactly as Mao told them, I believe that makes one a strong leader, the respect they're given not what they actually accomplish (For example deedswise Clinton was a strong leader however he got no respect and will be forever joked about)
Ghandi while not a leader did do some amazing things for India, same goes for Joan of Arc (Also she is the only non-ugly leader in the game, cut her some slack).
Cathrine the Great ruled Russia during the 'Golden Age' and is better than Ivan the Terrible who was psychotic and Peter the Great who was associated with the antichrist (Or possibly vice versa).

[Beren]

I wouldn't go for Mao. Bring in some tradition Chinese leader from say, the Han-period.
Ghandi is ridiculous. India has had many high cultures, but the latest one (founded by Ghandi) was not one of them. You should have a leader from their golden age, some one out of the Gupta dynasty. Asoka (Maurya dynasty), I think, is also acceptable, because he is so well known and you can consider his period as a golden age. But then again, it is better to choose a Hindu leader. (For those out there who think Sidgarta Gautama is a good choice, YOU ARE WRONG!)
Joan of Arc? Throw her out immediately. But then again, who should be thrown in? Clovis is too early, Charlemagne was founding father of Germany as well. The real golden age of France was around the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Napoleon is a bit late and was not really French, but I would go for him, because he represents the pride of France.
For Egypt, I wouldn't choose a Ptolemaic ruler who got the country conquered as being the most representative ruler. Any pharao would have been a better choice, even Hatshepsut (the only female pharao ever existed). This way we don't have to change the look and we can still choose a real pharao.

[Heresson]

Re: Does firaxis know what they're doing?

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

Isn't that the guy whose election started a civil war?

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?

Because she was Greek!

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

Churchill was an idiot.

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

I have doubts about Napoleon as ethnically He wasn't a Frenchman.

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.

Yes, Hitler represents Germans well.

Greeks-I don't know who else could possibly be the leader besides Alexander.

Who was Macedonian, not Greek.

Romans-They got that one right, no one should come close to Caesar.

I'm not sure. What did He do in fact? Destroyed the republic? It was in shatters already. Anected Gaul?
It was a hardly any profit for Rome.
Pompeius conquered Syria, Palestine, defeated Armenia - that were victories that made the Rome a might. Victories over Carthago, anecting Egypt,
it was all more important than Gaul. I'd opt for August.
Or Heraclius.

Russians-What a stupid decision. It's because they want girl leaders in the game. It should be Peter the Great or Stalin.

Stalin is a bad choice. Don't forget that 1) He was Georgian, 2)USSR wasn't Russia.
That Katherine was a German is another thing. But she really did much for Russia. She made some mistakes,
she destroyed Poland (since Peter the Great a Russian protectorate) and allowed Prussia to grow in power,
but still, her gains in Poland and Turkey were very important and it was finally her that made Russia a part of Europe.

[quote]
Zulus-They were right, it definetly should be Shaka.
[quote]

First of all there should be no Zulu or Iroquis or whatever civ.

[Beren]

Cleo is bull****. She should leave and everybody agrees on that.
I would choose Octavian over Caesar. Caesar ruled so well he managed to got himself killed. Octavian played it all so smoothely that Rome remained a monarchy until the end of the empire.
I want Liz for England too.
Napoleon isn't perfect, but still an awful lot better than Joan of Arc.
If you take Panzers as golden age for Germany you should take Hitler for leader.
Catherina was a great choiche. Peter wasn't that populair (in fact unpopulair) and the USSR is not really represented as golden age.
Greece: Alexander was Macedonian, but there was never before a ruler who ruled over entire Greece (except for his daddy, after Alexander only more Macedonians ruled) Unless you want Greek changed into Athenian (with strategoi Perikles as leader, of course) you would have to go for Alexander.

[Heresson]

I want Liz for England too.

Yup, her look fits what we know about English girls perfectly.

[Panag]

hi ,

guys , if you dont like , there is always the editor , .......

have a nice day

[Apep]

First of all no one would allow the Germans to be under Hitler, there are too many people who remember all the absolutly horrible things he did.
For all the horror and idiocy of Mao he is the reason why practically everything one buys says, 'Made in China'
I think both Ghandi and Joan d'Arc are actually quite good, while not leaders in the political sense they were spiritual leaders, and spiritual leaders can be very important.
Regardless of the little that Cleo did she was the only Ptolmy to learn Egyptian. And she was the first modern politician, she used both Mark Antony and Ceaser. Also everyone connects Cleopatra with Egypt.
Caeser was the title of all the zRoman Emporers so it is conceivable to claim that it isn't Julius you're playing as or against but Augustus or Nero.

Yes Hitler represents Germany quite well.

I think there are a LOT of Germans who would punch your nose in for that remark.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Apep:
I think there are a LOT of Germans who would punch your nose in for that remark.

Definitely.

Yeah, Mao created modern China. By destroying everything left from its glorious past including confuciusism, and he also killed many, many innocent people. Yes, Ghandi and Joan of Arc were great spiritual leaders, which is why they shouldn't be the games leaders. They could be the name of a great leader, but in Civ3 the leader of a country is the one who is actually in charge and making the decisions, not creating excellent social movements.

Apep, so being the first of a lot of politicians to do a certain bad thing makes her a good choice? That's like saying the first war leader to murder innocent civilians was a good leader because he started a common trend.

[Apep]

... that makes it sound like the first leader to kill innocent civillians was good because he created a common trend

(Or something like that)

Well, that is one of the basics of Civ III, attack people, raze cities, feel that high you get only from making someone suffer for your own pain, that's what civ III was made for, the only problem being it isn't realistic enough.

[Beren]

I wouldn't really call Joan of Arc a spiritual leader. She was the example for a character that would fit to be a great leader. I would not consider her as a person who was in total control. In fact, she was merely a servant to the Dauphin.
Considering Ghandi, he was not really in control either. But more importantly: the choiches for Ghandi and Mao imply that before the end of World War II China and India did not play any role of importance. That is absolute bull****. For India: depending on what India you want to include you can choose:
A) For ancient India before the Aryans we don't have any names for leaders.
B) Sidgarta Gautama? He is the buddha. Choosing him as leader would I think not really justify the Hindu population.
C) the famous Osaka if you want the Maurya period.
D) some Gupta ruler. The Gupta dynasty is considered the golden age of India.
E) Ghandi for modern India.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Apep:
Well, that is one of the basics of Civ III, attack people, raze cities, feel that high you get only from making someone suffer for your own pain, that's what civ III was made for, the only problem being it isn't realistic enough.

Yes, but remember, we're talking about who great leaders are. Killing innocent civilians may not be bad in civ 3, but that was an example of someone starting a bad trend. I could go on about more bad trends in politics. Lying to the public. Giving your citizens no rights. Completely stamping out cultures. Genocide. Racially biased laws. Breaking treaties. Does that make the first person to start one of these trends a good leader? That's why your reason for Cleo being a leader is illigit

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Apep
(Or something like that)

Well, that is one of the basics of Civ III, attack people, raze cities, feel that high you get only from making someone suffer for your own pain, that's what civ III was made for, the only problem being it isn't realistic enough.

Indeed. But Culture Flipping and razing, and the Diplomatic and Trade AI, and naval warfare, and many other things, are not realistic at all.

Perhaps some people here think one damaged unit making a city of millions instantly vanish while turning the city itself into grassland is "realistic".

One of the first posts I ever made on Civ 3 was about Immortals having swords - they never did. They used spears and bows. Joan was a ludicrous choice and I changed that to Napoleon with a new leader head nine months ago.

Now we have PTW. Which I don't have. But I've read plenty about it. There appears to be a "Numidian Mercenary" unit for Carthage. Also wrong. IBERIAN mercenaries, yes. As for Spain, "Conquistadors" is another absurd choice for a UU as they never existed as a military unit and only were a small number of thugs who went to the New World and massacred natives.

So no, Firaxis does NOT know what they are doing.

[aahz_capone]

well, culture flipping is a tiny bit realistic. I mean cities (or dukedoms or whatever) have changed sides. Rebelions, desertions, it's all good.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by aahz_capone
well, culture flipping is a tiny bit realistic. I mean cities (or dukedoms or whatever) have changed sides. Rebelions, desertions, it's all good.

"Tiny bit"??? Maybe. Most of culture flipping AS IMPLEMENTED IN CIV 3 is a crock.

Large garrisons don't just vanish in reality.

City populations don't rebel with a huge enemy army just three tiles away ready to exterminate them.

A major city that has been part of one civ for over 5,000 years does not suddenly decide to join a different civilization.

A conquered city does not "flip" back to the original civ when that civ has just been defeated in a war and is across a sea and consists only of its capital in a small town.

Cities are not magically razed, instantly, the population vanishing, for fear of another crazy flip.

Civs at war are not in reality forced to exterminate the civ they are fighting for fear if they don't a major city will flip.

None of this, and other things, makes the slightest sense in realism or even game play.

Flipping is why I stopped playing Civ 3.