Does firaxis know what they're doing? - Page 2

GhengisFarb™ · August 3, 2002, 08:28

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812

I would throw a fit if Britain was in the game. Great Britain has only been around for around 250 years - there's a hell of a lot of Scottish history before that. I hate it when Americans lump Scotland in with England - it really pisses me off. And as the crown motto goes:

"No one provokes me with impunity"

P.S. voting for your own thread, eh johnmcleod?

What the? I thought the Scottish Monarchy ruled everything nowadays, why are you complaining? England's run by your guys/gals?

PS: If johnmcleod voted for his own thread, why did he give it only one start?

zulu9812 · August 3, 2002, 09:07

I think someone else gave it 1 star, johmmcleod saw it and then gave it a 5 to take it up to 3.

GhengisFarb™ · August 3, 2002, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
I think someone else gave it 1 star, johmmcleod saw it and then gave it a 5 to take it up to 3.

Maybe it was someone from Firaxis........

johncmcleod · August 3, 2002, 13:11

No, I swear, I didn't vote for it! And yes, I agree, Britain shouldn't be in the game. Scotland and Wales always get lumped in together with England. In fact, most kids I know call GB England. Anyway, yes, I'm admitting I was wrong. I'm going to start a revolution. People will now admit their mistakes.

GhengisFarb™ · August 3, 2002, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I'm going to start a revolution. People will now admit their mistakes.

@*%# potato farmers..........

Andemagne · August 3, 2002, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
I think the Civs should have been named A, B, C, etc. Then name their leaders A Leader, B Leader, C Leader etc.

ACooper, BCooper, CCooper.....

ok, sorry, I just had to say that.

Quote:

BTW, why does a leader have have political power? Ghandi is a swell dude.

YEAH! why not Platon for Greeks?????

Pioneer: didn't Greeks fight "united" againts Persia in 490's BC and 480's BC?

zulu9812 · August 3, 2002, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
YEAH! why not Platon for Greeks?????

Surely you mean Plato?

Andemagne · August 3, 2002, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
Surely you mean Plato?

Plato,Platon ..... same guy.
atleast in Finnish its 'Platon', dunno about Greek.
sorry if I confused you, I also write Aristoteles usually instead of Aristotle.

Anodyne · August 3, 2002, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
didn't Greeks fight "united" againts Persia in 490's BC and 480's BC?

...yep, under Alexander the Great. Who was Macedonian, btw. Although ancient Macedonians were as Greek as Prussians are German.

Lord Merciless · August 3, 2002, 18:42

The King of Prussia was originally the Duke of Brandenburg. One day the dukes wanted more than just being called "Duke", but they were not allowed to assume the "King" title. So they resorted to a clever idea: Get a piece of land that didn't lie in the German territory, and they picked Prussia, a land formerly controlled by Teutonic Knights, but unclaimed at moment. Sometime around early 18th century, the Duke of Brandenburg assumed the title "King of Prussia". Therefore the Prussians were mostly Germans and not some foreign invaders.

Anodyne · August 3, 2002, 18:54

Lord Merciless> I only made a metaphor there, but thanks for the story anyway

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod

Americans- It should be FDR, maybe G. Washington, but Abe Lincoln isn't too bad of a choice.
...no comment here

Aztecs-That's an easy one. They didn't screw it up.
Agreed

Babylonians-They got that one right. It's obviously him.
Agree here, too

Chinese-This is RIDICULOUS! Mao is one of the worst world leaders ever. He stomped on Chinese culture and killed millions of people. If Mao's China is the one FIRAXIS wanted in Civ 3, then they're stupid. It should be on of China's leaders during one of there golden ages when they were an actually brilliant civilization.
Absolutely agree. Even Hitler would be much more PC than Mao...

Egyptians-How stupid are they? Oh yeah, I forgot. They want girl leaders so they don't look sexist. For those of you who don't know the story of Cleo I'll tell it to you. She fell in love with caesar, and then he got killed. So then Marc Antony and two others lead Rome. He wanted her help so he could take over Rome, and then they fell in love. To make a long story short, the Romans came when they saw he was enslaved by love and they crushed Egypt and that was the edn of their civilization. So why Cleo?
...and Cleopatra was a Greek. One more reason.

English-Liz is the best choice for a female leader, but still not a good idea. It should be Churchill.
Disagree with Churchill choice, for reasons already listed

French-This is also ridiculous. WTF did they have her be a leader when she never lead the country. It should DEFINITELY be Napoleon. If not him, maybe Charles de Gaulle
Agreed, d'Arc is ridiculous. And I wouldn't like deGaulle, either. Louis XIV would be the best choice, I say

Germans-I would have to say Hitler. A terrible man, but when you come to think of it, he went from being a bum to leading Germany out of a terrible depression into one of the most powerful nations ever. But it would make nobody want to be Germany. Bismarck did lead the second reich, and he's not too bad a choice.
Bismarck is the best choice... no one wants to play a murderer

Greeks-I don't know who else could possibly be the leader besides Alexander.
Yep

Indians-Ghandi never lead the country, so he shouldn't be leader. He's a terrible choice. I don't know who should be, though.
Perhaps some Aryan (or other dynasty...) king / emperor / sultan...

Iroquois-They were right on that one, though it would be hard to mess up. It could be Sageyowatha (Chief Red Coat), though.
No comment here

Japanese-I know nothing about Japan's history, don't ask me who the leader should be. It would be kind of cool though to play against Tojo.
Hmh, one of the emperors suits just fine.

Persians-Good choice. The only other option would be Cyrus, but it defintely should be Xerxes.
Cyrus would be the ONLY choice, or maybe his son. Xerxes is just plain ridiculous. He did really nothing. Except for losing 2 wars against the Greeks and ending the Persian reign as the leading country in that area. He sucked.

Romans-They got that one right, no one should come close to Caesar.
Trayan would come pretty close, I'd say. But Caesar goes fine, still

Russians-What a stupid decision. It's because they want girl leaders in the game. It should be Peter the Great or Stalin.
Stupid decision, yes. Peter the Great would be good. But Stalin? Like I said, no one wants to play a murderer. And Stalin was twice as worse as Hitler.

Zulus-They were right, it definetly should be Shaka.
No comment here either

Andemagne · August 4, 2002, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ade
...yep, under Alexander the Great. Who was Macedonian, btw. Although ancient Macedonians were as Greek as Prussians are German.

no, time of Alexander the Great was 150 years later than that.
(born 356bc, took throne 336 bc, died 323bc)

Fighter · August 6, 2002, 16:55

Ghandi was put in for PC value... and no I dont mean personal computer.

As for Bismark, he was THE MAN! The guy effectively controlled Europe, he did what he wanted to left and right, getting away with it everytime.

I dont realy like Joan D'arc but whatever, shes again for PC value.

As for Mao, he was a major leader in China in a time when China was actualy being noticed by the West, no one else can realy fit that bill so therefor the West generaly doesnt care about previous leaders.

Lord Merciless · August 6, 2002, 17:22

I think Cleo is the worst choice among all leaders. Reasons?

1. She was not an Egyptian, but a Greek. The Ptolemy royal family, like any other previous Egyptian royal families, inbred with each other. Thus you can forget about "merging with the local population" theory.

2. Why is she painted black? Even if they buy the "Black Egyptian" claim, the fact that she was a Greek still makes it wrong.

3. Cleo was the final ruler of the ancient Egyptian culture, someone who led a civilization to its final resting place. Such a person should never be representative of that civilization. Using her as Egyptian leader is the equivalent of using Galla Placidia as the Roman leader, Empress Dowager Cixi as Chinese leader, and Marie Antoinette as French leader.

GePap · August 7, 2002, 15:23

Mao is by no means the 'worst' choice for a chinese leader: It's him who has a giant poster over Tianamen Square, and that is not meant as a quibble or joke.

Mao got a lot of people killed, but he also created modern china, not destroyed it- those people that say he desroyed it have little clue about what china was and how it fared from the fall of the manchu's (and more like it from the middle of the 19th century) to 1949. Its not a pretty picture. At least Mao can claim to be the first to have no new foreign powers come in.

Was Mao responsible for millions of deaths? Yes, as were many previous chinese emperors, and countless leades through the world- newsflash people, giving a damn about millions dying is a rather new concept in governance, not an acient one.

There may be many Chinese leaders (not very well known outside of china) that ruled long properous times, and maybe they are better sysmbols of china than Mao, but to label Mao the worst ruler ever is no less than idiotic. I can think of mnay worst ones, including just simply the guy before him, Chiang kai Shek, or the Empress Dowger, or the Last Manchu Emperor, and so forth and so on. Mao was not a Good man but good men and good leaders are two different things. Did he change China, and was he fundamental in the creation of modern china? Yes, and simply for that, he has every right to be in the running, no matter how many detractors he ahs in Apolyton.

Lord Merciless · August 7, 2002, 15:39

Jeanne saved France. In the four centuries following her death, France was Europe's bully boy and bad buy. So she was kind qualified as the French leader.

Fighter · August 7, 2002, 17:51

Joan can be explained, however not the best choice by far. The absolute best choice would have been Napoleon, by far.

Joan was also not a ruler, effectively just a general. Not to mention the fact that she was totaly sold out by the French King.

Ribannah · August 7, 2002, 19:00

Hm. I would always pick Charlemagne as the leader of France. He did a lot of good for the country. Bonaparte was little more than a general, just like Jeanne, only with more power.

Fighter · August 8, 2002, 05:08

Napoleon little more than a general?

Try the self crowned emperor of France weilding the power of half of europe.

Ribannah · August 8, 2002, 05:37

The key word is "wielding".

IMHO good leaders of nations are those who also concern themselves with other aspects of the realm than conquest, the best don't need it at all.

Lord Merciless · August 8, 2002, 15:32

I see the only argument against Napoleon is that he got busted at Waterloo. History is tough on losers.

Today, Napoleon's real impact lies in that he spread the ideal of French revolution across Europe(which ultimately backfired against the French Imperialism), and founded the legal and administrative framework of modern France.

Charlemagne should not be considered French only because he was also the founder of Germany. When his empire dissolved after his death, the western part became France, the eastern part Germany.

DarkCloud · August 8, 2002, 15:48

Quote:

French-This is also ridiculous. WTF did they have her be a leader when she never lead the country. It should DEFINITELY be Napoleon. If not him, maybe Charles de Gaulle

It's because they needed some women. They could have easily solved this problem by creating one male and one female leader

Egyptians should have Seti I or someone such as him (I can't remember exact names) He expanded egypt, etc. Cleopatra was the last queen of egypt and she was under Rome's influence... Just how much good did she do?

GhengisFarb™ · August 8, 2002, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
Hm. I would always pick Charlemagne as the leader of France. He did a lot of good for the country. Bonaparte was little more than a general, just like Jeanne, only with more power.

I disagree, Napoleon was good at EVERYTHING. He was an excellent general, an excellent diplomat, and excellent statesman. He built the Republic, he wrote the Napoleonic Code, he took a Revolutionary government that was failing and made it succeed.

For some reason, the general populace only knows about General Napoleon and never takes the time to discover there was more than just conquest.

DarkCloud · August 8, 2002, 19:22

-Napoloeon was also a great purveyor of art, he stole hundreds of works from Italian villas, etc.

-Although, I think he left Venice alone because they surrendered without a fight

Charlemagne or Napoleon :hmm: one was the first Holy Roman Emperor... The other marched to Moscow and held the world in his hand.

I think that Napoleon wins, but only because he's more recent.

Naresuan · August 13, 2002, 08:48

If not Gandhi, the Emperor Ashoka who promoted the Buddhist religion throughout and beyond his kingdom would be my nomination for India.

Whoseyourbishop · August 13, 2002, 10:16

I only agree with about half of the leaders.

America - Why choose Abe???? Definitley should have been FDR.

Aztecs - Perfect choice. Not many people have ever heard of any other Aztec ruler.

Babylon - He works.

China - Ummmm. Well, he sure sucked as a ruler but they needed rulers for the modern time period so he works because people should at least recognize the name.

Egypt - Wrong choice. It should have been Ramses II without a doubt. If they chose Cleo just for the female ruler why didn't they choose Queen Hatshepsut???????

England - This choice is fine. Churchill wouldn't have been a good choice.

France - They should have quit with the female rulers while they were ahead. What were they thinking? Definitly should have been Napolean or Louis XIV.

Germany - Bismarck is a good choice because its not like he didn't do anything. A reason that they didn't choose Hitler is because they didn't want to step on any toes.

Greece - Not really any other choice (even though he wasn't really Greek).

India - Ummm. Once again a good choice for a modern leader but wouldn't have been my choice.

Iroqoius - No comment.

Japan - He works.

Persia - Not really sure he was the right choice but whatever.

Rome - Hit the nail on the head with that one. Not really any other choice.

Russia - She is fine for a female leader but probably should have been Peter the Great.

Zulu - Don't even get me started. This Civ shouldn't have even been put in to begin with. The Spanish shouldn't have gotten back burner this civ.

Coracle · August 13, 2002, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by redstar1
This my freind is half the problem. The US education system doesn't really focus on world history/events, moreover when they don't concern the US itself. This is fair enough but it does lead to the sort of situation where you don't know who Mao Tse Tung is, have never heard of the Zulus and as far as you were concerned all Germany have ever done is lose 2 world wars, and only cos you turned up late for both of em

. . .

The U.S. public education system is a joke, believe me.

Just look at the number of people who think so many ridiculous NON-historical aspects of Civ 3 are cool and accurate.

Lord Merciless · August 14, 2002, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

The U.S. public education system is a joke, believe me.

Just look at the number of people who think so many ridiculous NON-historical aspects of Civ 3 are cool and accurate.

King of Rasslin?

Whoseyourbishop · August 14, 2002, 12:25

I would have to agree with the people who say the US education system sucks. It does. I know that the history of your country is important and should be taught but after 5 years of US history being the only history taught in the schools I've gone to it became very VERY boring. The only way I was able to learn about world history was on my own and by taking one of the three electives that they have for that subject at my school. Pathetic.

While I have to admit that one of the reasons I don't like the Zulus is because I knew next to nothing about them (Africa is probably the most neglected continent in my school system with the exception of a little focus on Egypt). But the Zulu team itself was absolutely awful when I played as them.

Fighter · August 14, 2002, 17:21

If you want to learn about the Zulu's, rent the movie, Zulu. Good movie, lots of gun shots, lots of screaming and fighting.

You dont learn too much, although the movie is cool.