Hello all, my friend (we're playing hotseat) plays as Augustus Ceasar (Imperialistic, Industrious) and I play as Bismarck (Expansive, Industrious). Has my friend an advantage over me? Or do I have an advantage over him, with this leader choice. We play on a huge map with 2 continents and 5 opponents. We're both on another continent, so we havent yet met eachother.

I dont think there ia a clear advantage on the either side. The ability to expand early (where imp might have a slight edge for the cheap settlers) does not matter on a huge map with no direct contact between the two of you...

Overall imho in long term expansive is a bit better than Imperialistic because of those +2:health: also Bismark will get his UU rather late, while Augustus Praets will be obsolete by the time you meet.

Huge map with only 7 civs seems very few. Default is 11. Anyway the Romans are ridiculously good cos of the praetorians. He could take out all the other civs on his continent long before you meet him. The question is, will he do that? I personally don't really think Bismark is a very good leader but ppl might disagree with me on that.

So i think your friend has the advantage, but that certainly wont stop you from winning. :)

If your opponent is aggresive, he will own his continent and have a lead by the time you meet. More likely he will wonderspam and you will have the edge late game do to Assembly Plants and extra health for factories.

Will lead to an intrisitng wonder race with both of you industrious. War wise will also be intrisint since you'll meet each other ratter late, though he might just conquer his contanent like was metioned above and then out produce you into submission.

Bismark might not have praets, but he's still good to conquer his continent as well. Preats are not the only unit capable of conquest :D