Lakeman

I'm sorry, apparently, I misunderstood your statement; I thought you were asserting that seducing powerful men was indeed Cleopatra's only serious contribution to history, which is not accurate. I agree with you that that is what she is most famous for to most people. However, I certainly don't think that that should be the basis for which heroes are chosen to be in 0 A.D. I also don't think the heroes necessarily have to be chosen due to military command skills alone, as diplomatic skill was and is very important as well (although this is not [yet?] well-represented in the game) and Cleopatra was a skilled diplomat. I am no historian, and it's a very debatable point, but I would certainly not call her an "incompetent" military leader either, despite Actium. I wouldn't actually argue that she is a "better" hero than Arsinoe II to include, but I would argue that she is not a worse choice. The limit of 3 heroes per civilization is arbitrary anyway, so why not include both of them?

This is my first post in the forum. As a longtime RTS fan, I've been following this game since I discovered it about a year ago, and I'm absolutely enthralled with this project. I look forward to each beta iteration, and in the longer term I'm also excited for campaigns and the 1-500 CE civs. Anyway, I finally had to register because I EMPHATICALLY disagree with the following suggestion: While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign.