Ghandi the Conqueror

[Catalyst635]

I found today's Daily Victim on Gamespy to be quite appropriate for here...
LINKY

[jshelr]

'twas funny. Thanks.

Actually, I've always thought that it was a bit off putting to have Gandhi represent India as their most revered military leader. Can't be right. Very Euro-centric choice.

And how about Joan, how did she beat out the short guy?

I'ld be more afraid of Joe than Cathy and would have preferred one of the Plantagenets on the British throne, perhaps looking like Peter O'Toole. Same theme: I like Ike in place of Abe, or, at least George in place of Abe.

Shaka is, beyond doubt, just right. No question about that.

We can all agree that have Adolph head Germany would create even greater psychological problems for civ players than the game already is.

[zeh]

Like uncle Sid said: "Rewrite History!". This is civ3.

Anyway, the "most dreaded cutthroat barbarian the world has ever seen" part, when he talks about Ghandi, is very cool... and weird!

[Lunacy]

Ideally I would like the civs to have choices for leaders just like you can pick the continent type, climate, size, etc. Joan IS appropriate for France in that she definitely did lead her people in a military struggle. She was canonized because she supposedly communicated with the big dude but her life was otherwise not particularly "saintly". She went about motivating people to fight. HOWEVER, I can definitely see an argument for having included the "short guy" in there as well.

For the upcoming PTW they could have easily used Boudiccea - the famous Iceni queen - for the leader of the Celts. For the English I like Liz but Churchill would have been fun too - would have loved to see him in some ancient garb.

What would be even more interesting is if your choice of leader and the opposing leaders you got ALSO affected the game - France under Joan would be one thing and under Napoleon another. Imagine the Americans under McArthur or Patton!

Lunacy

[jshelr]

What would be even more interesting is if your choice of leader and the opposing leaders you got ALSO affected the game - France under Joan would be one thing and under Napoleon another. Imagine the Americans under McArthur or Patton!

Now there is a thought!!!

Choose Churchill and you get England as mililtaristic and industrious. Choose France under Napoleon and you get the appropriate characteristics. Maybe the country gets one characteristic and the leader determines one. I like it.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by jshelr
What would be even more interesting is if your choice of leader and the opposing leaders you got ALSO affected the game - France under Joan would be one thing and under Napoleon another. Imagine the Americans under McArthur or Patton!

Now there is a thought!!!

Choose Churchill and you get England as mililtaristic and industrious. Choose France under Napoleon and you get the appropriate characteristics. Maybe the country gets one characteristic and the leader determines one. I like it.

That is a pretty sweet idea. wow. very interesting. Makes for more variation in the game definately. And I was only hoping to get alt gender leaders, this is a much more entertaining idea.

.

[JohnM2433]

The short guy is in the game, barely -- he's one of France's Great Leaders. I think it should be the other way around, with Joan as the GL and him the head of state. After all, Joan was a military leader, not a political leader. Napoleon was both, and it seems more reasonable to think of him leading the French in peacetime (despite his militaristic tendancies).

[jbsloan]

Just to add to the idea, It would be interesting if you could change leaders during the game and thus change your leader associated charactaristic.

IE Be Patton during wartime and FDR at peace. It would require a broader scope of leaders with different characteristics, but it would be cool, and you would learn more. (which is the excuse I always use for why I spend way too much time in front of civ.)

[bongo]

jshelr : Great idea

Maybe something for civ4?

[jshelr]

I like the idea, but it was Lunacy's.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by jshelr
What would be even more interesting is if your choice of leader and the opposing leaders you got ALSO affected the game - France under Joan would be one thing and under Napoleon another. Imagine the Americans under McArthur or Patton!

Now there is a thought!!!

Choose Churchill and you get England as mililtaristic and industrious. Choose France under Napoleon and you get the appropriate characteristics. Maybe the country gets one characteristic and the leader determines one. I like it.

Lunacy and jshelr: Great idea

[jbsloan]

I was thinking of in game changes. Say in year 200 bc, you want to go from being expansionist to being a warmonger, so (like a revolution) you get rid of Captain John Smith as your leader and go with George W. Bush. It would be interesting if you had to account for the transition within each government type as well. If the transition in a Monarchy or despotism was extremely limited, but within a democracy or republic it was easier.
In fact it would be cool if while playing in a democracy or republic, the people (AI) choose a leader that represents your style of play and you don't have a thing to do with it. When chosen you would then get the trait associated with that leader (which of course was originally Lunacy's idea which I am just adding to... sorry about the lack of reference earlier.)

[Fredric Drum]

Problem about Civ3 is that EVERYBODY is super-aggressive ALL the time. Leader faces are only for show.

[bongo]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum
Problem about Civ3 is that EVERYBODY is super-aggressive ALL the time. Leader faces are only for show.

Which means that everybody end up with hannibal lecter as ruler