Napoleon

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


2) The egyptian herald, who looks more like a pole dancer than an ambassador.

I always made sure that Egypt was one of the civs.

[mhaupert]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


I agree, welcome to the world of PC. Why did firaxis insert the Zulus? They started in southern Africa, yet are considered middle eastern culture. Sounds like a quick implementation of a civ to me. I'm sure there are a couple of other large African empires out there in history to insert. Wasn't Ethiopia an Egyptian rival for a while?

Nubia. As in Nubian Empire.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I always made sure that Egypt was one of the civs.

Well, at least we have our priorities straight.

What I mean is: Okay, Joan may be in for so-called "sex value," but in reality Civ2 was more "sexed up" than Civ3. Thus, those people who flame Firaxis for sexing up Civ3 really don't have a valid point (unless they went from Civ1 to Civ3 directly).

[nato]

If Civ3 is sexed up, then what I consider hot is far far too demanding.

Seriously, if Joan was meant to be hot, I don't think she would have a shaved head at one point.

[LordAngus]

a way to end this debate

There is an electronic database known as "Arts and Humanities Search." It provides an index of how often something is cited in webpages, acadmeic articles, books, and other sources. One could, hypothetically, run the names of various rulers through this dataabase. Those who get the most hits--De Gaulle over Joan, for example--"should" be the ruler of their respective civ.

[Akka]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Well, at least we have our priorities straight.

What I mean is: Okay, Joan may be in for so-called "sex value," but in reality Civ2 was more "sexed up" than Civ3. Thus, those people who flame Firaxis for sexing up Civ3 really don't have a valid point (unless they went from Civ1 to Civ3 directly).

Well, Civ3 suffers from not being able to improve that much on its ancestors, right ?
Guess so that they failed to improve sex over Civ2

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Guess so that they failed to improve sex over Civ2

Yeah, tell that to Coracle... or, on second thought, don't.

[HazieDaVampire]

I think most countries used think of Napoleon as a kinda French Hitler, and my dad also refers to him as 'The bastard'

[Akka]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
I think most countries used think of Napoleon as a kinda French Hitler, and my dad also refers to him as 'The bastard'

It's called "jealousy" most of the time

Seriously, except for the bloody Spain war, Napoléon never was harsh on the civil populations, and more than anything helped to modernize the countries he conquered. He was ambitious, not bloodthirsty.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
You didn't buy Civ2 simply because of the Senate? That seems like a pretty small gripe to pass up such a good game... why not just go Commie or Fundy?

Those two governments never played well with my style. I tend to be a builder more then a warmonger. The senate wasn't the only reason I didn't go for Civ1 or Civ2. The senate is preventing me from hijaking this thread by listing my reasons I went from Civ SNES to Civ3.

[nato]

Well Napoleon definitely is not a monster like a Hitler or a Stalin (or a Mao or a Pol Pot ... geez where do all these guys come from! ). He didn't purposefully murder thousands of civilians or anything, so I don't think it is fair to put him with Hitler.

And he did help modernize and reform places, and the code Napoleon is still a basis for laws in some places, I think.

However, he isn't all innocent either. Somehow, someway, he found it necesary to start wars all over the place. Maybe some of the wars were not his fault, but when one guy is involved in sooo many, you have to start figuring maybe it has something to do with him! So he is responsible for a lot of wars and all the killing and misery that causes.

So I would say definitely not evil like a Hitler, but guilty of starting a lot of wars.

[Akka]

So I would say definitely not evil like a Hitler, but guilty of starting a lot of wars

You would be surprised, but the only wars he started were the Spain war and the campaign of Russia. All the others were started by his enemies.
Of course, they had some reasons, as he was constantly trying to improve its domination through many ways (economy, politics...).

[nato]

I expected a response like that. That is why I said "Maybe some of the wars were not his fault, but when one guy is involved in sooo many, you have to start figuring maybe it has something to do with him! "

Seriously, you think he just HAPPENED to get into wars with everyone? Poor innocent peaceful Napoleon, minding his own business!

edit: I don't want to sound harsh, like I said I didn't think he was evil. But I think he was definitely causing most of the wars. Like Egypt and all the times he conquered Italy. Also when he refused to let France's borders return to the way they were, he knew that meant the other powers would invade ... and when he returned from Elba, he must have known that would start a war too ... he's no innocent.

Your post just sounds to me like blaming France and Britain for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany ... not quite right.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato
Your post just sounds to me like blaming France and Britain for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany ... not quite right.

"Defenders always start the wars. The guy on the offense just wants to conquor, he dosn't want a war..."
[paraphrasing] -Sethra Lavode

[Akka]

Nato, have you read the entirety of my message ?

Just in case, I'll requote it :

"Of course, they had some reasons, as he was constantly trying to improve its domination through many ways (economy, politics...)."

Don't looks like a victimization in my mind.