Which leaders you'd change

[August Borms]

I would change Joan of Arc to Napoleon
And maybe Catharina to Lenin or Stalin

Bismarck is fine for Germany, and I think Hitler would have been acceptable too.

[Wise Ass]

I would change Cathrine... I can't stand seeing her in diplomatic negotiations!

[Thrawn05]

Cleopatra -> Ramses (either I or II)
Joan D'Arc -> Napoleon
Lincoln -> Truman

As for Rome, Cæsar was never the leader of Rome. So in my Latin Mod (please download and try ), I changed it from Cæsar to Augustus, the first and longest lasting emperor. I also changed the title from Emperor to Cæsar, since that was all the emperor's formal title.

[monkspider]

Julius Caesar served as dictator for a few years before he was assasinated Thrawn.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Sonic
So Hitler was bad and Mao wasn't? Stalin for example killed more people than Hitler and even if people calls him bad, there wouldn't have been such reaction here if I named him.

I was not advocating the choice of Mao - actually that is also a rather disturbing one, but I can't recall any Chinese I might want to replace him with... Most Western people know very little about great Chinese leaders.

I would oppose Stalin as fiercely as I oppose Hitler.

Originally posted by Sonic
Hitler was bad, but there were much worse, and after all Hitler was a strong leader. People thinks he was the worst man only because all the prejustice everyone is given at school etc.

Sorry, have to disagree strongly. Only after reading a lot about WW2 I came to understand how much evil Hitler was. He was a charismatic leader, that is correct. But it was mostly because of his megalomaniac, ill-thought military and political decisions that made Germany lose the war eventually.

Originally posted by Sonic
And this is only because he lost the war (look at quoute at my signature). Stalin was worse. And beyond Truman order also many civilians were killed.

Yep, it is true that most leaders do cause people die in one way or another. But NONE of the leaders currently featured in Civ3 could stand up against the pure evil Hitler was. The level of destruction he caused was simply times bigger than for the rest of the leaders combined. The fact that Stalin was worse does not qualify Hitler for a Civ3 leader any better.

Originally posted by Sonic
Yes, putting Hitler wouldn't help sell the game and he was bad, but he wasn't the worst and he was strong leader. Even if Hitler would have killed 100 times more people than he did, he still should been here (and then he should be here even more). Leaders could be good or bad, but if the does impact for nation/world, then they are strong leadres. And Hitler did that impact.

It is rather difficult for me to argue against such a cynical approach. It seems that further discussion on this topic would be useless, as we may hardly find a common ground. Do you really think that the more people someone causes to die, the more he deserves to be featured in Civ3?

I am not trying to be politically correct. After getting involved in the localization of several multimedia titles about WW2, learning a lot about WW2 in the process, I feel very strongly about this issue. Crediting Hitler for anything but unbelievable destruction brought to the world is something I will always fiercely oppose.

[vondrack]

male/female leaders

One thing I would love to see is a male/female leader for every nation. I know it would be difficult for many civs, but it is rather weird when the game asks for my gender/title and after learning it, happily leaves Catherine's picture in place...

Something like:

Joan - Napoleon
Elizabeth - Henry VIII
Cleo - Ramses

OK, I know it is nonsense... I just feel uneasy seeing myself as that ugly woman...

Maybe making the leader animation a more tailorable feature with the possibility of creating one's own one or using a still picture?

[Incan_Warrior]

Vondrack -

Please check out my earlier post. I still think those opposing Hitler/Stalin/Napoleon are approaching the topic from the wrong angle. Civilization is not a game for peace-lovers, and, to be honest, many many many players use strategies that resemble the strategies Hitler implemented during WW2: He made his own population suffer, terrorized/enslaved/killed anyone that stood in his way and made no excuses for it. How many times have you, while playing Civ 3, broken a peace treaty, killed off your own population to rush a city improvement, razed a city, destroyed an entire civilization? It isn't a stretch to say that playing Civ 3 is vicariously carrying out the very plans Hitler dreamed of. THUS, you and others shouldn't be disgusted by a proposition that Hitler be a leader, you should instead be disgusted when real-life peaceful leaders, like Ghandi, are thrust into a game that revolves around war.

[monkspider]

I can't believe so many posters don't want to see Bismarck in the game!
I thought he was the perfect choice for Germany. I would take him over Fredrick the Great any day.

[Sonic]

I don't think the more people person kills the more better candidate for civ3 he is, but I think the more impact on history someone does the better candidate for civ3 he is.

[Signa]

Chancelor Bismarck => created German nation, what more is needed?
Queen Elizabeth => ruled forever, beat Spainish, set the foundation for the UK.
Shaka Zulu => The only Zulu leader that the general gamers might re-cognize.
Chief Montezuma => Lost to Spainish, the only well-known Aztec leader.
Chief Hiawatha => Don't know much about the Iroquois, but he's in the poem.
Emperor Xerxes => The Persians have Cyrus and Darius (both successful) but the screw-up gets the nod?
King Alexander III (the Great) => Father conquers the Hellas, he conquers Persia... it works
Queen Cleopatra => She defended her nation to the death in the face of overwhelming Roman force.
King Hammurabi => You could flip a coin between him and Nebucenzzer II (i mispelled that...).
Saint Jeanne d'Arc => Didn't even lead France, its obvious that Napolean should be here.
Shogun Tokugawa => Unified feudal Japan and created its greatest city (modern) in Tokyo.
President Lincoln => He's fine, for Washington fits as a military leader but FDR could be very good too...
Emperor Caesar => Conquers Gaul and Britianna, and dominates Roman politics for the rest of its history.
Mahatma Ghandi => As before I know very little of Indian history, but he is re-cognizable.
Chairman Mao => His guy MUST go. He out-murdered Hitler and Stalin combined and HE get it!
Czar Catherine II => Peter the Great would be better due to he did more to modernize Russian than her.

Hum... so i get 2 must changes and 4 more that could be changed all and all.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by monkspider
I can't believe so many posters don't want to see Bismarck in the game!
I thought he was the perfect choice for Germany. I would take him over Fredrick the Great any day.

And I can't believe that many don't want the georgeus Joan d' Arc to be the leader of France...She's as much of a leader as Napoleon, but she got a great bonus...she's a she...a damn good looking she in fact...

[Incan_Warrior]

ADG - are you talking about in real life, or in Civ 3? I wonder if my Joan looks like everyone elses - because mine is NOT cute. She looks like a Chubby Gerber baby....BOY. Not appealing at all.

[monkspider]

I don't want to start a whole Pro Mao vs. Anti-Mao debate, but I will just say this. I think Mao is largely misunderstood in western thought. He prevented China from falling once again to western Imperialism, and put China on the path to being a great world power in the latter part of the twentieth century. I am not a big fan of Mao by any means, and some of his programs such as the Cultural revolution were admittedly brutal, but I think a fair case can be made that he did more for China than any other Chinese leader, and certainly, at least more than any other Chinese leader that would be remotely famillar to westerners.

Plus you have to admit his big fluffy hat rocks.

[Carver]

Originally posted by The Templar
While Hitler would be fun to play against, I suppose Hitler IS, after all, as offensive to Germans as Reagan is to Americans. Then again, a WWII scenario featuring Hitler and a cold war scenario featuring Reagan would both be fun.

Now you've got me anticipating PTW regicide games with Reagan as the American leader. I would have to keep reloading the autosave so I could kill him over and over.

[Cypselus]

Joan of Arc is ridiculous, and so is Cleopatra, who wasn't even Egyptian, but I suppose they didn't want a wholly male cast of leaders. I would suggest Louis XIV or Napoleon in Joan's place, and Ramses or Akhenaten in Cleopatra's place. George Washington seems like a better American leader. I have no particular quarrel with any of the other choices.