Which leaders you'd change

[RGBVideo]

Caesar to Augustus ; Caesar was militiary leader who had the power for less than a year,
Augustus spent his whole lifetime, was more like a emperor than a warmonger,
and truly improved the Rome to rule whole mare nostrum.

Catherine should be switched, perhaps to Alexander II.
Mao should also definetly be switched, since Chinese civ should have the Sci & Ind instead of
Ind & Mil, (Germans to that), and Mao would then look stupid.

[wervdon]

Gandhi and Joan of Arc never led their countries in a political sense

The only reason I didn't vote to replace Ghandhi is cause I honestly can't think of a real indian leader Im sorry to admit that I truelly am ignorant of eastern history And Im equally ignorant about Iroquis/Aztec/Zulu history

I do know a decent amount about american, european, and mediteranean history though Enough to say that Lincoln, Elizabeth, and Bismark weren't bad choices. They might not of been the best choices, but they weren't bad choices. I do think Bismark probally was the best choice though, and Elizabeth would be a close call between her and Winston Churchill, Henry VIII and Queen Victoria. And I actually do like Lincoln, I just personally like Washington and Jefferson more. FDR would be good too as he was our only 4 term president

[RGBVideo]

After checked comments of this thread...

Joan to Napoleon! Ah, forgot that one, altough IMO Napoleon wouldn't be a good choice, either.

[Iskandar Reza]

Cleopatra, because her animated head is ugly as hell. And annoying.


Yes, I know that's shallow.

[Anguille2]

Gandhi...non violent person.


Joan of Arc...has never ruled the country...maybe then Louix XV? or Vercingétorix


Catherine the great...i have always been a fan of Peter the great.


Bismark...is a good choice however he should maybe be replaced by an Emperor...Charlemagne?

In general, the leaders should not be from the last century...

[Anguille2]

Originally posted by Elagabalus
What criteria should apply when selecting a National Leader?

Some here object to Hitler/Mao/Stalin because they were *evil* and murdered a lot of people including many of their own countrymen. However, how many players have not done
* pop-rushing - crifying our own countrymen to complete something fast.
* razed a city - to clear the space of foreign nationals making the room for our own ethnic guys.
* declared war on your neighbor with no or little provocation?
I certainly have, all or soem of the above in every single game I have played.

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

i do not agree...
When you meet an other country in CIV, you should be neutral...if i was facing Hitler, my only goal would be to destroy him...i just couldn't be neutral.
(and i do play the Germans in Axis and Allies...but the idea of the game is different).

[Deathwalker]

Joan od Arc should never have been the French leader. They should have picked Napoleon or one of the other Kings who did well. BUt not her she never even lead France at best she should be a great leader.
Also Catherine of Russia was not the best choice either. It should have been either Stalin or one of the others

Though I feel that you have more than one leader per Civ and you can select who you go up against at the start or leave it random

[Deathwalker]

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

Just out or curiosity, why shouldn't Cloepatra be in the game. Given that her plan would have lead to her ruling even more land than Alexander, if it worked. She fits your cirteria for a leader

[Sonic]

Artifex, you said Greman army was great but Hitler wasn't. Remember it was Hitler who built that army. And it was Japan Tojo Hideki who was responsible for losing war, not Hitler. 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?

I totally disagree with Anguille, who protests Hitler but says nothing bad about people who suggested Stalin, who was much worse. Also, I could make alliance or be friendly with Hitler in civ3 because remember, it's just the game, not a real life. And game is about rewriting history. In it Hitler might be the best man ever been and Gandhi might be killing people for fun. My opinion on the other leaders in civ3 depends on their in-game moves, not on what they did in real life.

[wervdon]

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?

I don't really want to get in a historical debate, but Id really rate both the reason Hitler and Napolean lost as attacking Russia. Sure the US helped alot with ending the war, but it was the russian campaign that ate at Germany's resources so much before then. They probally still would of lost, but it would of taken much longer.

And yes Germany (and Napolean) both "won" in Russia. The problem with that is they won by having the people burn their own villages/cities and supplies and moving further and further east dragging their armies further and further east into Russia (past their supply lines) until the winter kicked in. Its called winning the battle but losing the war.

EDIT: Just to clarify, Im not saying the US entering the war was not significant, it certainely was. Im just saying don't totally discount the Russian Campaign as another signicant reason why they lost, and that the same thing was true for Napolean. Of course, Napolean also missed up hugely in Spain by trying to overthrow the King there and replace him with a puppet relative of his when the king was already loyal to him in an effort to extend his continental system (blockade against the british) to the spanish ports more effectively.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Sonic
Artifex, you said Greman army was great but Hitler wasn't. Remember it was Hitler who built that army. And it was Japan Tojo Hideki who was responsible for losing war, not Hitler. 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?

It was not Hitler who built the German army up, it was his generals - Guderian, to name at least one of them. Hitler's credit in this matter is very small. He did make the bold political decision to break the Treaty of Versailles and let his generals rebuild the army, but that's the only thing that he should be credited for.

Your view of the Japan's involvement and importance is completely distorted. It was very clear that Japan would eventually attack the US possessions in the Pacific long before they did so. And even if not, it would have been perfectly okay for Hitler to break the Axis Alliance with Japan after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. Instead, he declared war to the US in a futile effort to fight the whole world! Quite uselessly, as the Americans were not particularly eager to get involved in a war in Europe.

Japan's decision to attack the US instead of Russia in the Far East really helped the Russians a lot, but indirectly, as the Russian elite, best-equipped divisions could have been reassigned from the Far East to the defense of Moscow. But it can certainly not be seen as the key point making Hitler to lose... How can you claim that it was Tojo losing the war for Hitler? It just gives no sense. It was Hitler who attacked Russia and as Japan never promised to help Hitler by attacking Russia in the Far East, Hitler knew very well he would have to win on his own.

What you say about the Germans winning in Russia is also debatable. They had a grand opening, smashing through the Russian defenses like hell. The initial period of the Russian campaign was a fantastic triumph, never seen before in the military history ... but not thanks to Hitler, but thanks to the excellent German field commanders (Guderian, von Runstedt, von Manstein and others). Unfortunately, Hitler grown so self-assured of himself that he stopped listening to his best generals and decided to take over the military leadership. He diverted and split the core of the German forces heading for Moscow - sent one group to Leningrad (never forcing it to fall), another to the Caucasus, and let the rest just sit and wait... thus granting Russians the vital time to regroup. It was Hitler who sacked his best generals just because of they disagreed with his ill-thought military ideas. It was Hitler's idiotic commands to stand fast where his generals knew would have been better to withdraw that made Germans lose the Russian campaign eventually. It was primarily Hitler who made Germany lose the war (I might even dare to say that Germany might have a chance to win it without him).

I believe that your knowledge about Hitler and WW2 is far from complete (not that I would suggest mine is not). If you spend some time looking for more info on the topic, you will find out that Hitler was one of the worst military leaders Germany has ever had (effectively double-cancelling his notable political successes).

[Deathwalker]

Hilter is not the best leader for the Germans the Germans have had lots of a good leader so there more choice. Persoanlly I like Bismark as the german leader.
The problem leaders are the ones that were picked because they are female. So the game can be polically correct not because they are good leaders

[Sonic]

If not Hitler German might not only would not won the war, but also didn't had army. It was Hitler who rebuilt it. Hitler is maybe the most blamed man in history and this is why so much people thinks he was bad leader. I read in fact several books on WW2 (which are not a blame). To know more about Hitler (only documents, not biased opinion) you could visit www.hitler.org .

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Sonic
If not Hitler German might not only would not won the war, but also didn't had army. It was Hitler who rebuilt it. Hitler is maybe the most blamed man in history and this is why so much people thinks he was bad leader. I read in fact several books on WW2 (which are not a blame). To know more about Hitler (only documents, not biased opinion) you could visit www.hitler.org .

Simple question: what is an attribute of a good leader?

Arguably, his results - the rise of the nation under his leadership.

Germany had no army before Hitler. Germany had no army after Hitler. He "created" it (even if I disagree with that Hitler rebuilt the German army) and then annihilated it, killing millions of Germans in the process. Is this something that qualifies him as a great leader? Nope. Looking at the website you mentioned, I noticed he was credited with founding the German highway system and designing Volkswagen Beetle. Yeah, that's cute. Is it supposed to counterweight the fact that he - because of his stubborness and immense ego - brought the total destruction to the major part of Germany by refusing to surrender when the tides changed? Nope. His positive achievements were negated hundred times by what he did wrong.

Something a bit OT: remember that he who fights your enemies, must not necessarily be good. The fact that Hitler fought Stalin (who was by all means evil, annexing the Baltic states and Poland, for example) does not mean that Hitler was good/better. Just BTW - why didn't you propose replacing Cathy with Stalin? If Hitler was great in your eyes, Stalin must have been even greater, as he defeated Hitler (or was one of those that defeated him). I am not advocating Stalin's choice, it would have been just as outraging - do not tell me how evil and bad and whatever he was, I know that. But try realizing your reasons for respecting Hitler, while trashing Stalin...

Hitler was a bad leader, because his rule was an ultimate failure, whatever his plans and efforts were. The total destruction of Germany and millions of dead Germans... this is not a biased opinion, this is a fact.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I changed Bismark to Hitler. Caterina to Stalin as well. Not to mention Joan of Arc to Napoleon.

same choice for me too...