Tweet
COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!
-
-
That is one of the defining books in my life (Along with "Blood, Tears and Folly". I semm to have a fetish for titles with 4 words in them.)"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Not at all.Originally posted by punkbass2000
Is that sarcasm?Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
Yes, it's a possibility. But its easier said than done. I don't think Firaxis would make such a drastic change.Originally posted by LordAzreal
Easy. Just add a third trait into each of the existing civs.
For example, the Romans could be Industrious as well as Militaristic/Commercial (think of the roads, bridges and aqueducts they were able to build ahead of their time). Germans could also be Industrious on top of their existing two traits (think of how quickly West Germany was able to reconstruct following the end of WWII).Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
tell us, what is a great leader for you?Originally posted by civman2000
COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!Comment
-
Frankly civman, it is you who has to read a bit of history. Well, not just a bit... actually a ton. Only in this thread, this is the third time someone applies the old adage that "Only those things I know count. Everything I ignore never happened".Originally posted by civman2000
COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!Comment
-
In what way would you disagree that Pizarro and Cortes were not great leaders Jay Bee?
Certainly you haven't read all the literature available out there regarding Spain's adventures in the new world yourself and thus are no less guilty of letting personal bias seep through than anyone else in this thread. In fact, you may be possibly much more guilty as you are universally known as an outspoken defender of all things Spanish.
http://monkspider.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Monks, it does not take many neurons to figure out that to forge an empire the size of the Spanish and to maintain it for 3 hundred years a strong military and very capable leaders are needed. Come on, it's not rocket science, man.
As to the personal biases, I really do not follow you. Who's talking here about personal biases? Not me, for sure. It was civman who advised some history reading to Azrael. Ever heard that story of the kettle and the pot?
EDIT: spellingLast edited by Jay Bee; June 5, 2002, 05:48.Comment
-
I don't disagree with you that the great Spanish empire needed much more than a couple of halfwits to run things. I have no doubt at all that there were many great Spanish leaders, In fact, I'm sure good ol' Espana has had about as many quality leaders as any of the great European cultures. I just think it's perfectly reasonable for Civman to believe that Pizarro and Cortes specifically weren't nescarrily good leaders.
http://monkspider.blogspot.com/Comment
-
And don't you think that it would be helpful to back up an affirmation like that with some info (especially if you are recommending people to read some "actual" history)?
I think you misunderstand my intentions, monkspider, mon ami
Comment
-
I did not mean to provoke a lot of discussion, just point a few things out. Cortes conquered the Aztecs and Pizarro conquered the Incas only bbecause of the diseases they brought. Unfortunately, I don't own Guns, Germs, and Steel so I can't find a quote, but expertise in military strategy or leadership abilities played little or no role in their successes. THis may not be exactly correct, but I think this is more or less the priorities of what let them conquer the areas:
1. Diseases
2. Help from natives that opposed the rulers (the Aztecs had many enemies and iirc Atahualpa had only just gained power after a civil war)
3. Psychological effects (including the Aztecs thinking the Spanish were gods)
4. (Aztecs only) Weak government structure; when the king was lost they collapsed.
5. Horses
6. Iron vs stone weapons
7. Guns
8. Other miscellaneous things, including Cortes's and Pizarro's leadership abilities.Comment
-
Not that drastic. Unless I'm remembering wrong, you can already set up to 4 traits in the editor.Originally posted by nostromo
Yes, it's a possibility. But its easier said than done. I don't think Firaxis would make such a drastic change.The true nature of a man is shown by what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.Comment
-
No offical info, but I can bet it there's at least one new trait, possibly two.Originally posted by Cesa
I didn't see any info on that. I think there's a chance this is the case, but we haven't seen any evidence have we?Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking ManComment
-
Yes, adding a civ trait or two is a piece of cake. But doing so would have IMO a drastic effect on game balance. And balancing it all afterwards could prove to be very, very tricky.Originally posted by Amadan
Not that drastic. Unless I'm remembering wrong, you can already set up to 4 traits in the editor.Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
Religious/Industrious/Militaristic would be just about unstoppable. Three traits per civ is too many, unless you add some more, and somewhat minor, traits.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
Comment