Its going to be so un balanced :sad:

Not only will we have things like boudica with preats, but think about gandhi with rome! Killer traits, a UB which has utter synergy with those traits, and then a great UU for war :\

Some civs will ignored, like the celts with their starting techs and UB/UU, eek, Im not looking forward to that change!

Its going to be so un balanced :sad:

Not only will we have things like boudica with preats, but think about gandhi with rome! Killer traits, a UB which has utter synergy with those traits, and then a great UU for war :\

Some civs will ignored, like the celts with their starting techs and UB/UU, eek, Im not looking forward to that change!

Good thing its only an extra option. It will be like (for example) permanent alliances. These can be turned on, but this game option is usually turned off. Interchanging leaders and Civs is most likely also not a default setting.

Sorry but I seriously don't understand a word you're saying (poster 1). What is it you want us to know?

Sorry but I seriously don't understand a word you're saying (poster 1). What is it you want us to know?

Maverick read this (the multiplayer features part):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222075

Amaterasu is saying how this is going to be overpowered in multiplayer.
Which I don't feel is going to be a problem because 1) its not a default option and 2) if the option is selected, everyone has the chance to make an overpowered leader/civ combination.

I read about Boudica upon hearing of her inclusion and I was left wondering how such a crappy leader was even included let alone with some of the best traits. Seriously she lost her revolt against something like 2000 troops as opposed to over 100000. Her troops were clearly not upgraded. Upon losing that battle she committed suicide.
On a more related note the option to pick leaders with traits is stupid. I'll probably go with something like Huaynic with India and use the fast workers, or the obvious Boudica with Rome and pwn with Praetorians. I'm excited about the rest of the expansions inclusion though.

Oh right, well if its an option its all good ;) I thought it was going to be the norm.

The problem is that every one else who plays multiplayer except us might create games where leader swapping will be the norm.

was another thread just a little bit ago on this started by Ldeska called
Civ4:BtS-changes for multiplayer when the first interview with Alex Mantzaris came out May 9th. It's on the third page of General Discussion.

The problem is that every one else who plays multiplayer except us might create games where leader swapping will be the norm.

It will not happen when im the host.

Is this option only going to be for multiplayer? Everyone keeps referring to it as a "multi-player" option, but I always play single player and would like the option to try it as well with the AIs having random leaders/random traits as well.

The problem is that every one else who plays multiplayer except us might create games where leader swapping will be the norm.Opinion seems to be split on the occasions over the last week when this comes up rather equally into "Wow, how aweful!" and "Might be interesting sometimes..." I'm sure you'll be able to find players to stick to default leaders.
Is this option only going to be for multiplayer? Everyone keeps referring to it as a "multi-player" option, but I always play single player and would like the option to try it as well with the AIs having random leaders/random traits as well.It was originally mentioned in a dev as something that might put a new spin on mp. No reason to assume it is limited to there, we'll see.