Civ V is best Civ.

Pedro I was better and had a longer rein, almost 60 years, I believe. The first king of Brazil. And their leader in the Second World War, Getúlio Vargas. Very interesting bloke, a bit controversial, he ended his life while in office, as he realised he failed his country (they wanted him out); he was a true nationalist.

Pedro I's sole purpose was to shout "independence", because his reign had little to no progress and was full of unrest.

Getúlio Vargas is the first - and the best option - that comes to mind for the role.

Machu Picchu. The largest S. American civilization before the colonization era. Yes they deserve to be here. More than the Aztecs, anyway.

Largest empire, you mean?

Well, that's no big achievement. It's like saying those asian khanates are more deserving of a spot than India because they were bigger.

If you mean largest population, that's the aztecs. Largest cities? Aztecs. Most technologically advanced? Aztecs.

p.s. neither of them should be in; neither of them was anywhere near civilized, or has enough history to make a civilization on. I'd prioritize Austria, the dutch, Italy, the byzantine empire and many, MANY other civilizations over them. Realistically, they are only here to make latin americans happy over "their" country's "history" being "recognised". And, well, both of their leaders are responsible for the fall of their empires. Well done.

Edited 6/7/2016 00:10:11

Oy can we ditch Elizabeth for Victoria or one of the good Kings? I'd even take Cromwell.

I don't feel like Roosevelt is a good pick, I'd have preferred Jefferson, Lincoln, or FDR.

I approve of a "Gran Colombia"

How about a more unique Roman Emperor. Tiberius maybe.

Do we have to do Ghandi AGAIN?

Same with Napoleon. There are other French leaders. Louis XIV?

I approve Frederick the Great.

I like this leaders in general. Its not just about the greatest/most relevant leader of a nations, but there are other things too, like how this leader would be to the gameplay (each one has a different personality based at the leader at real life)

My opinions:

America- T. Roosevelt (Good - he have a balance between economy and war)
Arabia- Saladin (Great - Maybe not a true arabian leader, but he is a good leader in the game, leading to wars and good diplo)
Aztec- Montezuma I (Great - One of the most traditional leaders of the civilization, he always bring death and destruction to the game)
Babylon- Hammurabi? (Good - Normally an annoying leader to play against)
Brazil- Pedro II (DLC) (nah - i would prefer Getulio Vargas)
The Celts-Grace O’Malley (dont know much, but yess pirates!
Chinese- Qin Shi Huang? (good - he will try to unify your lands to him!)
Danish- Ragnar Lodbrok (great - yaa ragnar is back!)
Egyptian- Cleopatra (nah - Bring me back Ramses or Hatshepsut)
English- Elizabeth (nah - Victoria is much better!)
French- Napoleon (ok - he is always in)
German- Frederick the Great (good - he was very balanced at other civ games)
Gran Colombian- Simón Bolívar (greaat! - yeaah lets kick some spanish ass!)
Greek- Alexander (great - as always he is in)
Incan- Huayna Capac??(Not sure.)(DLC) (Good - normally a great leader in the game)
Indian- GANDHI (good - He is always in, and suree bring some nukess gandhi!!! (For who dont know, gandhi is very pacific in the game, but when he get nukes he make the world burn )
Japanese- Toyotomi Hideyoshi (ok - tokugawa again could be nice too)
Malinese- Musa I of Mali?? (good - they put musa because he is a very financial/technological player)
Mongol- Genghis Khan (great - he brings war to the game everytime)
Ottoman- Suleiman (ok )
Persian- Cyrus (good - he is well balanced too
Polish- Mieszko I? (DLC) (dont know well)
Roman- Julius Caesar (ok - i want augustus back!)
Russian- Catherine (great! - he is a bitch in the game, will backstab and fuck you if needed, as he did at other civilizations)
Sioux- Sitting Bull (ok )
Spanish- Isabella I (DLC) (good - to bring faith to all the game, and to attack you when you dont follow her religion)
Venetian- Enrico Dandolo (ok - dont know much of his history, only from civ V)
Zulu- Shaka (DLC) (great! - Impis running and killing all)

They should just ditch all civs from the Americas, including the USA. Realistically, a mermaid can count on her toes how many good leaders this whole continent brought to the world. >_>

MAAAYBE there are some that are truly good, but... there are so many knobhead leaders - some even in power today.

Edited 6/7/2016 01:02:10

There's been 1 good leader in the western world by my count that wasn't a revolutionary(FDR)

Smh gopnik

FDR had concentration camps and bombed non-strategic cities.

^ tis true, but more justifiable because America was actually fighting for survival instead of invading a weak dictatorship for oil

America wasn't fighting for survival, Germany nor Japan had the ability to invade America. Only six months after Pearl Harbor, Japan started losing. And bombing non-strategic cities doesn't get you any good, that's the point of them being termed non strategic. They have no value in being bombed.

I never suggested FDR was perfect.
I said great and non-revolutionary and in the Americas.
He obviously had some flaws, but from my standpoint, his actions far outweighed his flaws.

His actions: Economic policies lengthened the Great Depression, caused WW2 inadvertently, started concentration camps, and started welfare. Not a single good there.

I disagree Smedly, as you probably already know. I however have a very grudging liking of FDR. I think he caused about as much crap as he saved and definitely doesn't deserve to be the liberal progressive figurehead.

We've already argued that increased the great depression thing, and I still hold my stance that as a fan of Keynesian economics, his policies were correct. How did he cause WW2 inadvertenly? lets see opposed supplying resources for Japanese expansion, and opposed German and Italian expansion, lets be honest, the aggressor parties started the wars, while his opposition to providing resources may have provoked the war, they certainly didn't create them. The concentration camps I agree is a massive flaw on his resume, and trust me, I spent probably 60-75 hours of my life researching that due to me being a japanese-American. Started welfare, well I view that as a good thing, as it avoids making people starve, and I don't give me any of that it makes people non-competitive BS(then why are the Nordic countries kicking our collective *sses in terms of living standard, crime rate, and other factors?). He also established social security, which avoids old people dying from starvation, which I view as a positive step, and created the minimum wage, which limited exploitation of workers. He also raised taxes on the rich, which weakened their influence on society, and helped to balance it. During the war, he in fact froze wages to save the economy from a worker shortage.

Civ V is best Civ.

Heresy.

We all know Civ IV is superior.

Civ V best Civ.

He started the war by keeping trade tariffs up high, causing a tariff war to go on throughout the world making warfare more viable for states.

Started welfare, well I view that as a good thing, as it avoids making people starve, and I don't give me any of that it makes people non-competitive BS(then why are the Nordic countries kicking our collective *sses in terms of living standard, crime rate, and other factors?)

One, it does make folk less competitive and makes less folk work. Two, Scandanavia is behind the US in living standards.

He also established social security, which avoids old people dying from starvation, which I view as a positive step, and created the minimum wage, which limited exploitation of workers

Social Security is the government promising folk money it doesn't have, and it is still immoral as all taxation is immoral.

Workers aren't exploited unless they're being forced to work. If you don't want to work for three dollars an hour, you can leave or try to talk it out with the owner of the factory, but putting a gun to his head and forcing him to do something means he is the one being exploited, not you.


He also raised taxes on the rich, which weakened their influence on society, and helped to balance it.

I'd rather have someone who made their money peacefully like a rich person have more influence in society than a warlord like FDR.

During the war, he in fact froze wages to save the economy from a worker shortage.

A war he effectively started.

USA has a higher living standard than Scandinavia? Source? Smedley you americacentrist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

https://www.aei.org/publication/if-sweden-left-the-eu-and-joined-the-us-it-would-be-the-poorest-u-s-state-below-even-mississippi/

http://www.haaretz.com/study-discovers-swedes-are-less-well-off-than-the-poorest-americans-1.46084

Stop crying Americancentrist, it's unbecoming, even for a socialist.

Smh gopnik goyyim