Does firaxis know what they're doing?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Fighter
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.

You will learn a lot more if you rent the prequel - "Zulu Dawn" depicting the Battle of Isandhlwana.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080180

[johncmcleod]

Agreed! The education system is terrible where I come from (Idaho) we're like 49th in the US in education. I am going into ninth grade and you know what, all of these leaders haven't even been mentioned in school:

Shaka (and all the Zulus)
Xerxes (and we've mentioned Persians like twice)
Catherine the Great
Tokugawa
Bismarck (maybe mentioned once or twice)
Napoleon has been mentioned several times, but we haven't studied anything about him
Mao
Hammarubai

If it wasn't for my love of history I would know absolutely nothing about these leaders. And I think the Zulu aren't to bad of a choice. They needed an African civ, though the Bantus probably would've been the best choice, the Zulu were warlike and they fought with the British several times, which most of the great African tribes didn't, for they died out before the African colonization period.

[Ribannah]

That last one is a silly remark after admitting that you get bad education, don't you think?

[TacticalGrace]

I think that these should be leaders because they amrked the birth / rebirth of their country making them imperial contenders:

Germany: Bismark
England: Elizabeth I (or perhaps Edward Longshanks)
France: Charlemaine
Russia: Peter the Great
America: Washington
Babylon: Hammurabi

These leaders because they built an empire:
Rome: Julius Caeser
Greece: Alexander

For China the leader shouldn't be Mao because there was nothign great about him at all. The problem is that there is no single well known chinese leader. The greatest period of chinese history was during the Han dynasty. But who has heard of Gao Zu, the first Han dynasty?

[King of Rasslin]

Our education rules! I think it's amazing that our country has so much history that we can take 4 or 5 years of classes and still not learn it all!

Compare us to the Zulu or the Mongols. How can you say we are uncivilized? You know, I have taken more American history than world history, and I still have years of American history left to cover. We finished our world history in a single semester. It's actually sad to see how great we are compared to the world.

[flame bait mode off]

[Fighter]

While my brain is busy hemoraging, Im going to assume that was sarcasm......

Were somewhat more enlightened, we teach a mix of Canuck history and World History. Granted I could have tought my socials 11 class.

[Ribannah]

KoR, at your speed, history goes faster than you can learn it.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

Nice points there, but I have to disagree nontheless.

Good men and good leaders are indeed different things - but was Mao a good leader? Did he lead his country in the right direction? True, he created modern China, but what kind of modern China did he create? None of the power and wealth that China has today can be attributed to him. He didn't create Modern China - he destroyed China, and modern China rose from the ashheaps after he was gone.

When he died in 1976, he left behind a smoldering heap of a state, isolationist and poor and conservative and overpopulated, with a rotting military, nonexistant economy and brainwashed population. All of the progress, all of the wealth, and all of the power that China has today were created without him.

True, Mao did one single thing - he created a unified state, upon which other things can be done. But compare that one single thing to all of the stupidities, errors, and just plain evil things that happened under him. I wouldn't call him a "great leader" at all.

Note: Qin was the name of the state that unified China, not the person. The person was "Qin Shi Huang", first emperor of China.

[TacticalGrace]

but it was the Han dynasty that lead China into its golden age

[ranskaldan]

I'd consider China to have had 3 golden ages: the Han, the Tang, and the Song.
There were also stretches of golden-ness in the Ming and Qing Dynasties but by then China was falling behind.

[Whoseyourbishop]

There are just a few things that I need to say to KoR . You had better be kidding about what you said about the American School System and America's history. You live a sad, pathetic life if you truly believe what you wrote.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Whoseyourbishop
There are just a few things that I need to say to KoR . You had better be kidding about what you said about the American School System and America's history. You live a sad, pathetic life if you truly believe what you wrote.

Look at KoR's last post, he's probably joking.

[Hagbart]

They did not choose Hitler, because he was a bad leader. Probably the worst Germany have ever had. Because of Hitler alot of people were killed and German cities (culture) bombed. If anyone votes for Hitler, it's just because they are Americans (and others) who wants to play WW2 and do not have knowledge of history.

I have heard so much about ww2 that I'm getting tired of it!

Any German leader is better than Hitler.

[Fighter]

History judges people based on what the biggest thing the person did was, then assumes that all things were done like that.

Hitlers biggest thing was WW2 and the holocaust, so everyone assumes that what happened before WW2 under Hitler was equaly as bad.

Hitler was a strong powerful ruler, under Hitler, Germany underwent an almost golden age state in the 30s. Germany soared out of Depression, something no one else could do. Hitler brought in much needed reforms, including health care.

Granted he did do many terrible things, the elimination of the Jewish people and other minorities for example, and Im sure others can(and will) chime in with more.

The point is, he went a few steps too far. Had he stopped before Poland, we likely would put him up their instead of Bismarck because his reign would have been long and prosperous and the rest of the world would be a very different place, consider what came out of WW2, a strong US, the UN, the cold war, many new technologies, the bomb (Japan would have gotten slapped around by US and Brit and French etc. making for no need for the bomb). Ok so some things would be good, others bad.

anyway, my babbling is going to cease now.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Fighter
anyway, my babbling is going to cease now.

THANK YOU!

[King of Rasslin]

I do think that Joan of Arc isn't a very suitable leader for France. Also, I think the Eygyptian War Chariot was way before Cleopatra's time. I guess that is ok, since Abe would still be alive today with F-15s if he wasn't assassinated.

Elizabeth is actaully an excellent leader for England. Catherine the Great is a horrible leader for Russia. She did take a lot of territory for Russia, but she wasn't very nice to the peasants. I think they have to put her in because Mao needs some company as one of the worst leaders ever. It's too bad that I (and 200,000,000+ other people!) know so little about China that I wouldn't know about any other leader.

Ghandi for India is like Joan for France, but I don't know of any other person that could lead India. Bismark is perfect for Germany. Most of the leaders are good, but some of the lady leaders were pushed in to be fair.

Firaxis should just make more room for more civs and have an option for making alternate leaders. That would be enough.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Catherine the Great is a horrible leader for Russia. She did take a lot of territory for Russia, but she wasn't very nice to the peasants.

Can you think of any Russian leaders that have been nice to the peasants? Catherine was a great monarch. She liberalized Russia's arcane legal code, started schools and universities, promoted women's rights, starts the Hermitage art collection, and applied the Enlightenment ideals of Western Europe to Russia. She also greatly expanded her empire. This all as a German women in a hostile foreign country. I would say that was impressive.

[johncmcleod]

What fighter was saying was what I was trying to tell you at the beginning. Yes, he's one of the most horrible people ever. Hitler changed Germany from shambles to one of the most powerful empires ever on this earth in a few years. We go on and on about ancient leaders doing that for their nation when the rebuilding process took their whole life or even longer! Though I did do more research on Bismarck (remember, no one mentioned him in school) and I still agree with my statement saying he should be the leader of Germany. Hitler just isn't as bad as you all think at being a leader (though he still is a terrible man).

Random note: Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian because he thought eating meat was cruel to animals?

And does anyone agree with me about the Zulu?

[Panag]

hi ,

, what would be great , but almost not possible would be if they could get different leaders over the years with the same civ , .....

but the cost of implementing this would lead to a game with a retail price over 299 usd , .....

what they can do and should do is to let us choose what leader we want to be , ....

example ;

France , either play as Joanne or as Napoleon , ....

have a nice day

[Daedalus]

Just for everyones reference so that they don't start scratching their heads every time they see Tokugawa on their 'choose your civ' screen-

Tokugawa Ieyasu was the first Shogun (Dictator) of Japan to unite the entire country under one solidified, unchallenged rule. Allied with Oda Nobunaga ('The Taiko'), Tokugawa aided Nobunaga in taking control of Japan by defeating all rival daimyos, allowing Nobunaga to seize power and claim the title of 'Kwampaku' (essentially Prime Minister). Nobunaga was assassinated shortly after, sending Feudal Japan into uncertainty over who would rule the country. This caused a schism, creating two rival factions- The loyalists under Ishida Mitsunari, whose agenda was to insure that the power remained with the imperial family (in reality, an attempt by Ishida to claim the title 'Kwampaku') and the usurpers under Tokugawa. At this stage Tokugawa was the most powerful daimyo in Japan. Under his command, the usurper forces defeated the loyalists at the battle of Sekigahara (1600 AD), leaving Tokugawa unchallenged in his claim for the Shogunate. Under the control of Tokugawa, rival daimyos were deposed, leaving only allied daimyos in control of Japan's provinces. This allowed Tokugawa to put an end to the bloody feuding that plagued Japan's history, and establish an unprecented period of peace, and keep the Tokugawa clan in power untill the Meiji restoration in the 1800's.

So, yes, Tokugawa was the right choice as leader of Japan. Although, Oda Nobunaga would also have been a decent choice.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by jsw363


Can you think of any Russian leaders that have been nice to the peasants?

Come to think of it there weren't many leaders of ANY nation that were all that nice to the peasants, I mean they were PEASANTS.............

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

That's true a generic panda would be a worse leader for China. Just because he has a poster doesn't make him the greatest leader of all time. WEAK leaders are always displayed in poster form in hopes that the glamorizing of their image will somehow strengthen their status in history.

Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and yes Mao are the immediate names of "Poster Child" leaders.

[NeOmega]

I think catherine the great was a good choice for Russia.

I think Tokugawa was the best choice for Japan, cuz two of the Japanese style games I've played, Nobanunga was portrayed as evil. Not sure why, maybe it is one of those winner righting history things.

[Daedalus]

If you're referring to Onimusha, I think they portrayed Nobunaga as evil BECAUSE he was so effective in defeating his enemies.

[NeOmega]

Ahh thank you, that was the other game I couldn't remember. Yes, it was Genma Onimusha for Xbox, and Inindo, Way of the Ninja, for the Super Nintendo (an interesting FF type RPG).

[NeOmega]

Even thought the end of Inindo was interesting..... because you kill Nobanunga, but it's not like he is evil or anything, he just starts saying something like you are young, and the seasons must pass..... but japanese storylines are always a bit quizzical.

[ville]

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark
the Superhero "Theodore Roosevelt" Americas.

Well that´s what I call president! Has someone made a leaderhead of him?!

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Fighter
Hitler was a strong powerful ruler, under Hitler, Germany underwent an almost golden age state in the 30s. Germany soared out of Depression, something no one else could do. Hitler brought in much needed reforms, including health care.

Granted he did do many terrible things, the elimination of the Jewish people and other minorities for example, and Im sure others can(and will) chime in with more.

The point is, he went a few steps too far. Had he stopped before Poland, we likely would put him up their instead of Bismarck because his reign would have been long and prosperous and the rest of the world would be a very different place, consider what came out of WW2, a strong US, the UN, the cold war, many new technologies, the bomb (Japan would have gotten slapped around by US and Brit and French etc. making for no need for the bomb). Ok so some things would be good, others bad.

anyway, my babbling is going to cease now.

Germany's "golden age" was the mostly result of the war machine and shifting the burden of the Depression onto the minority for the sake of the majority. The war machine will drag an economy down if it sits idle. When you destroy businesses and dismiss employees of specific minorities, the people who are not in that minority will naturally have more plentiful opportunities. For example, if you're suffering from 10% unemployment, and then make 5% of the workforce unemployable, you are down to 5.26% unemployment. When you destroy 10% of the businesses, the rest get 11.11% busier. You can't maintain this type of pyramid scheme long-term in an industrialized nation (at least, no country ever has).

Even before Poland, Hitler was on the brink of war with Russia, England, and France over Czechaslovakia (sp?). In fact, the war machine was the direct result of Hitler's promises to the German people to conquer what had once been theirs, including a substantial part of Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Poland, he would have been thrown out for a leader that would have been willing to invade.

[Zero]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

That's true a generic panda would be a worse leader for China. Just because he has a poster doesn't make him the greatest leader of all time. WEAK leaders are always displayed in poster form in hopes that the glamorizing of their image will somehow strengthen their status in history.

Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and yes Mao are the immediate names of "Poster Child" leaders.

stalin? weak leader? evil yes but weak no~ hoho

[Zero]

Originally posted by One_Brow

Germany's "golden age" was the mostly result of the war machine and shifting the burden of the Depression onto the minority for the sake of the majority. The war machine will drag an economy down if it sits idle. When you destroy businesses and dismiss employees of specific minorities, the people who are not in that minority will naturally have more plentiful opportunities. For example, if you're suffering from 10% unemployment, and then make 5% of the workforce unemployable, you are down to 5.26% unemployment. When you destroy 10% of the businesses, the rest get 11.11% busier. You can't maintain this type of pyramid scheme long-term in an industrialized nation (at least, no country ever has).

Even before Poland, Hitler was on the brink of war with Russia, England, and France over Czechaslovakia (sp?). In fact, the war machine was the direct result of Hitler's promises to the German people to conquer what had once been theirs, including a substantial part of Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Poland, he would have been thrown out for a leader that would have been willing to invade.

actually germany never mobilized for war like america has. nor did Japan.