Which leaders you'd change

[The Templar]

Ha! New idea:
Each Civ gets its evilest or most decadent leader - then no one can complain that they've been singled out!

Germany - Hitler
Russia - Stalin
Zulu - Shaka
China - Mao
Japan - Tojo
England - Cromwell
France - Napoleon, Louis XI
US - Harding? Hoover? Grant? Nixon? Reagan? Bush II?
Rome - Nero, Caligula
The rest - someone bloodthirsty or stupid from history

Sounds like fun!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by The Templar
Ha! New idea:
Each Civ gets its evilest or most decadent leader - then no one can complain that they've been singled out!

Germany - Hitler
Russia - Stalin
Zulu - Shaka
China - Mao
Japan - Tojo
England - Cromwell
France - Napoleon, Louis XI
US - Harding? Hoover? Grant? Nixon? Reagan? Bush II?
Rome - Nero, Caligula
The rest - someone bloodthirsty or stupid from history

Sounds like fun!

Thats EXACTLY what I would have too! I came to post that, but....you beat me too it

[Mad Bomber]

Bruus and Solomwi:


I'd love to continue this discussion on the CW but alas this really is not the place for it. All I can say is that you have your opinion and I have mine and we should leave it at that.

[congobeast]

Originally posted by The Templar

Germany - Hitler
Russia - Stalin
Zulu - Shaka
China - Mao
Japan - Tojo
England - Cromwell
France - Napoleon, Louis XI
US - Harding? Hoover? Grant? Nixon? Reagan? Bush II?
Rome - Nero, Caligula
The rest - someone bloodthirsty or stupid from history

Sounds like fun!

Heh. The Templar is the man. Pure genius. It would fit most people's actual playing styles, from what I've seen on the boards- and I'm no exception.

Let's see if we can add to this:

Ottoman Empire: Sultan Ghazi Mehmed Rechad V. His bumbling, incompetant diplomacy and poor leadership led to the final collapse of the "Sick Man of Europe."

Anyone else?

[Trifna]

Who voted SHAKA ZULU for the ZULUS???? Who did that?! WHO??? I wanna know who!!

It's the only leader they ever got!! LOLOL

[Ribannah]

Well, there is Buthelezi.

[Trifna]

Oh?... Thought Zulus simply suddenly got out of their place with their expansionist leader and went back to their place after...

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Trifna
Who voted SHAKA ZULU for the ZULUS???? Who did that?! WHO??? I wanna know who!!

It's the only leader they ever got!! LOLOL

What about Nelson Mandela or Dingisweyo (sp?) who built up the Metawa empire that Shaka shanhgeied after his death?

[Trifna]

/me takes back his comment since it seems there other leaders for Zulus

But Nelson Mandela seems to be a leader that's not specific to Zulus. And Metawa empire = Zulu?...

For shanhgeied, would have thought he didn't really did something incredible compared to Shaka.<

/me gets out of the conversations on his toes

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Trifna
* Trifna takes back his comment since it seems there other leaders for Zulus

But Nelson Mandela seems to be a leader that's not specific to Zulus. And Metawa empire = Zulu?...

For shanhgeied, would have thought he didn't really did something incredible compared to Shaka.<

* Trifna gets out of the conversations on his toes

Since The Zulus represent all of the nations of South Africa I believe that Nelson Mandela would be an appropriate replacement for Shaka

Shaka was born into a (then) minor tribe known as the Zulu, he was ostracized as a youth and ended up in a karral of the Metawa empire. He joined the Metawa army (such as it was) and rose through the ranks. He became the trusted lieutenant of Dingeswyeo after creating a regiment of his own and introducing new tactics that revolutionized warfare for the South African tribes. After Dingeswyeo's death Shaka assumed the rulership of the Metawa and Zulu tribes, as well as many subjugated tribes. soon after, all of the tribes identified themselves as Zulu.

[chairmanmeow]

Since Civ III is mainly about expanding one's empire and conquering other empires, I think each ruler should be someone who did that in some way. This is what I think some of them should be:
Germany: I have to admit I don't know much about Bismarck, but I think he should be kept, because he did establish Germany, and he did conquer Alcase-Lorraine from the French.
Britain: Elizabeth is a good choice, but the leaderhead definately needs work. Perhaps a younger portrait of Elizabeth. If Elizabeth must be replaced, I would probably suggest either Victoria or Winston Churchill.
Persia: Perhaps Darius would be a better choice than Xerxes.
Greece: I think Alexander is the right choice. Under his command, Greece expanded greatly, with Greek culture spreading as far as India and Egypt.
Egypt: Cleopatra is definately the wrong choice. Under her rule, Egypt suffered, and was taken over by the Romans. Ramses II would be a much better choice, but he would change the male/female ratio, risking the "political correctness factor." Hatshepsut as Egypian leader would maintain the male/female ratio, but she lacks name recognition.
France: Joan of Arc is the wrong choice. She would make a good GL, but she never actually ruled France, so she should not be the leader. Napoleon would be a better choice than Joan of Arc.
Rome: I think Caesar is the right choice. As a general, he conquered Gaul, and contributed greatly to the expansion of Rome.
America: Lincoln was a very important leader in U.S. history, but he did not contribute to a very large extent in expansion of the United States. There are several potential replacements. I know this would not be a very popular choice, but James Polk contributed to expansion by, among other things, pushing for the annexation of Texas, settling the border dispute over Oregon, and he was president during the Mexican War, which was initiated in order to conquer the territory that is now the southwestern U.S. However, he lacks name recognition, so other potential choices could be Jefferson, who doubled the area of the U.S. with the Louisiana Purchase, or T. Roosevelt, who increased the power of the United States.

[Andreiguy]

Hitler attacked Soviets but he was the winning side. His only bad move (as a leader) was alliance with Japans but who was able to thing that they would attack USA?

Many Americans like to think of the USA as the saviour of Europe. I know this has been addressed before, I just want to make it clear - the USA's help was invaluble in the war, especially in drawing away Japan's attention - but Russia, and Russia alone (though with an incredible price) drove the Nazis out of their country, and out of most of Eastern Europe, including Berlin. (though what replaced nazism was not very much better).

Also, someone said Stalin's accomplishments pale before theirs?
Do you often murder twenty million of your own people through artificial famine and political punishment?
Do you often send an entire generation to die in a fight that was ultimately successful, but at a price that had never before, and hopefully never again, been paid?

Russia- For anyone who says Stalin - being Russian, I take about as much national pride in him as I do in communism. (not a lot). Catherine? Again Firaxis is trying to create a sex ratio that does not exist in the real world. Peter the Great made far more contributions to Russia, and set it on the path to become a superpower.

America - Washington was a great leader who set many fine precedents for the USA, but I think that the best leader America has ever had - FDR should be in Civ instead. Serving four terms, Roosevelt led America through what was possibly its most trying time.
It's often said that the Civil War and Depression were the most difficult times for America -
The only reason I would not choose Lincoln is that for most of his presidency, he ruled over only half of his country.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Andreiguy


Many Americans like to think of the USA as the saviour of Europe. I know this has been addressed before, I just want to make it clear - the USA's help was invaluble in the war, especially in drawing away Japan's attention - but Russia, and Russia alone (though with an incredible price) drove the Nazis out of their country, and out of most of Eastern Europe, including Berlin. (though what replaced nazism was not very much better).

Also, someone said Stalin's accomplishments pale before theirs?
Do you often murder twenty million of your own people through artificial famine and political punishment?
Do you often send an entire generation to die in a fight that was ultimately successful, but at a price that had never before, and hopefully never again, been paid?

Russia- For anyone who says Stalin - being Russian, I take about as much national pride in him as I do in communism. (not a lot). Catherine? Again Firaxis is trying to create a sex ratio that does not exist in the real world. Peter the Great made far more contributions to Russia, and set it on the path to become a superpower.

America - Washington was a great leader who set many fine precedents for the USA, but I think that the best leader America has ever had - FDR should be in Civ instead. Serving four terms, Roosevelt led America through what was possibly its most trying time.
It's often said that the Civil War and Depression were the most difficult times for America -
The only reason I would not choose Lincoln is that for most of his presidency, he ruled over only half of his country.

I agree with you that Stalin should not be a leader for Russia, but I do think that Catherine has got to go, so who should be the leader of Russia? Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Lennin? The choice is not clear cut and these are fairly disreputable as well. As for American help in WW2, do not forget that America supplied Russia with lend lease equipment and also with resources that Russia did not have at the time (for example, the US suppied over 80% of Russias supplies of aviation gasoline) They did much more than keep Japan preoccupied (esp considering that the Japanese army could not have taken on the Russian army even if they had decided to go in that direction, one could argue that Japan's failure in 1939-1940 in Manchuria indirectly resulted in the decision to attack Pearl Harbour)

[CTPFAN]

Did someone write that Hitler was as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans??? Wow, where did that come from.....which Americans....Not me or millions of others

[Worthingtons]

Hitler is a source of Humiliation to the Germans. Most people agree he would be fun to play against,but come on , Germany has experienced enough Humiliation in the last century, we coudnt include him. And Bismaark is a good choice of leader anyway.

I would definatly like to see Stalin or Lenin in place for the Russians though. Stalin's shrewd tactics were crucial in WW1.

As for our Mighty Country, Churchill should be the leader, he was one of the greatest ever leaders in world history for certain. No offense to the great Queen Elizibeth tho.


Cheers
Matt