I think thats the trend in Civ games before Civ 4, I don't really know, having only played Civ 4 myself, but I liked being able to choose between multiple leaders for a single Civ. I'm not sure how I'll react to Civ 5 if thre is only one leader per civ... :sad:

I believe I tilted my head slightly when I first read that there would be only one leader per civ, but that was about it. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that having fewer leaders would allow for more differentiation between leaders. In my mind, this is a good thing.

not concerned.

More leaders might be nice, but not something i need.

Though hopefully they haven't made their new leaders so fancy that it's too hard to make new ones for historical scenarios etc.

One leader per civ, and only 18 civs, allows them to actually make each faction unique, and have its own playstyle. The "sameness" of civs has always been one of this game's biggest weaknesses.

So I think its great.

Hopefully the flavours system should allow you to have very diverse opponents even if there are only 18 visually different leaders.

I don't think it will detract from the game much at all.

I believe I tilted my head slightly when I first read that there would be only one leader per civ, but that was about it. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that having fewer leaders would allow for more differentiation between leaders. In my mind, this is a good thing.
One of the things I always really liked about SMAC was the clear differentiation between the factions and the personalities of their leaders, and the correspondingly different gameplay that each of them provided.
I think one leader per civ is a step in that direction for Civ, and I couldn't be happier.

I have no doubt that additional civs will become available with mods and expansion packs, which means there will be more leaders. Hopefully they'll also allow for something along the lines of unrestricted leaders and random personalities.

Of course, that was relatively easy to accomplish in Civ4 because, unless I'm mistaken, all the AIs are running the same code, but each leader was just parameterized differently. At the very least, Civ5 differs in that there will be some variation in the parameters used for a given leader: in one game Napoleon might be very aggressive, in another significantly less so. I wonder, however, if they've even gone beyond that and added some custom behavioral code for each leader.

Hopefully the flavours system should allow you to have very diverse opponents even if there are only 18 visually different leaders.

Flavors are just AI preferences. They have nothing to do with actual gameplay bonuses. So they lead to different behavior across AIs, but they have no impact on the human playing that faction.

The most important thing about differentiation is not making the AI's make different decisions from each other, it is making the different factions play differently in the hands of the human player. I want playing England to give me as a human more of an incentive to try to build up a navy and a farflung empire, not just to see an AI Elizabeth more likely to adopt that strategy.

One leader per civ, and only 18 civs, allows them to actually make each faction unique, and have its own playstyle. The "sameness" of civs has always been one of this game's biggest weaknesses.

So I think its great.

Exactly. I can't believe people are actually upset about this. I don't see any reason to have more than one leader per Civ really. It doesn't add much to the game. I'd rather have more unique civilizations than extra leaders.

Hopefully the flavours system should allow you to have very diverse opponents even if there are only 18 visually different leaders.


With this system, you don't really need to have seperate leaders. That was only to make, say, the Russian civilization slightly different each time you played the game. But flavours are going to do that anyway so there's no need to have more but 1 leader. The same leader is going to be slightly different every time you play a game.

Even if they play slightly differently, it still gets boring to play the same leader over and over. Plus now you can't model how a civ behaves differently under different leaders.

Plus now you can't model how a civ behaves differently under different leaders.

Why would we want to? We don't want multiple personality disorder AIs who keep changing their personality every few turns because of a change in government.

We want a particular AI player to behave consistently through an entire game. They might play differently next game, but that's different. If they don't behave consistently, then any diplomacy is doomed.

So in terms of "playing the same leader over and over" all you're really complaining in practice is seeing the same picture for them from one game to the next. Which honestly I really don't care about at all.

i don't really have a reason, but it doesn't bother me all that much.

Ideally, there would be some flavor to each civ in addition to a UU or UB, that might come in an aptitude to acquire or discover a particular tech, or a herding civ like the mongols getting a bonus (extra hammer?) from special resources of that type, while the seafearing vikings would get more from sea resources and the agrarian egyptians get more from crops. It should feel a little bit different to play as or against each each civ, independent of leader traits, which would still include a favorite civic.

Ideally, with expansions, each civ would have two leaders to choose from, even if both Chinese leaders were isolationists, both Spanish leaders were religious zealots, and both Americans were expansionists, etc.

Ideally, with expansions, each civ would have two leaders to choose from, even if both Chinese leaders were isolationists, both Spanish leaders were religious zealots, and both Americans were expansionists, etc.

You mean male and female? That would be a good idea.

I'd rather they spend their time including more civilizations than building more and more leaderheads for ones that are already represented.

Flavors are just AI preferences. They have nothing to do with actual gameplay bonuses. So they lead to different behavior across AIs, but they have no impact on the human playing that faction.

Sorry, yes, this is exactly what I meant. Not strictly in reply to the OP, but I see the main potential drawback from one leader per civ being the lack of AI variety (due to their bonuses) rather than the human players having less options with who to play as.

However, due to the flavours system, the AI variety is actually going to be greatly improved.

Do we know whether you're going to have gameplay bonus fixed to leaders as in previous versions, or are you going to be able to choose your bonuses for the human player? That would seem to be ideal, to completely detach it from leader selection.

I'd rather they spend their time including more civilizations than building more and more leaderheads for ones that are already represented.

I agree with this and when the first expansion is released we will get it most likely.

Although, I do enjoy two leaders for one Civ. You know that Asoka behaved differently than Gandhi. Kublai and Genghis acted differently.

You mean male and female? That would be a good idea.

Sometimes. I don't want bad leaders just for the sake of including women.

I can't think of any women that could play the part of leader for America.
I'm happy with Washington and Lincoln as choices.

With more than one leader per civ, you would feel more like playing the civilization rather than just one leader.

Exactly. I can't believe people are actually upset about this. I don't see any reason to have more than one leader per Civ really. It doesn't add much to the game. I'd rather have more unique civilizations than extra leaders.

But it adds some choice ;).
If we did not know, how the leaders for the most civs are, we would here have multiple polls about "Who should be Leader of Civ X?", and most of the mentioned leaders would be worthy to be included.
Plus it adds also a diversity in the civ. Quin Shi Huangdi represents another China than Mao. With the more uniqueness in Civ5, you could probably also design the game so, that you actually can see or feel the differences more than in Civ4.

Plus now you can't model how a civ behaves differently under different leaders.

:confused: why?


However, due to the flavours system, the AI variety is actually going to be greatly improved.


Can't see why.
We'll have 20 factors with an maxium range of 10. In Civ4 we have 83 factors with a range of 100.

Can't see why.
We'll have 20 factors with an maxium range of 10. In Civ4 we have 83 factors with a range of 100.

I'm pretty sure there is more to measuring AI variety than adding together some numbers and saying "this one is bigger".

There is no reason to say a flavour is equivalent to a single AI factor in Civ 4. The implication is that they are significantly more complex than that.

Fact- less is more- great idea

Fact- I have have not figured out civ4 yet , now civ5?

Fact- Screenshots look great

Fact- accidently bought an "MMO" and did not know what an MMO was and said
pay monthly? who in the #%%^E# would pay monthly and my son said "alot of old guys feel that way" and I felt old and ran back to Civ4- best game of all time

the evidence is clear- go away for a month or so, come back, and Civ5?
incredible.

Civ- the superior

Why would we want to? We don't want multiple personality disorder AIs who keep changing their personality every few turns because of a change in government.

We want a particular AI player to behave consistently through an entire game. They might play differently next game, but that's different. If they don't behave consistently, then any diplomacy is doomed.

So in terms of "playing the same leader over and over" all you're really complaining in practice is seeing the same picture for them from one game to the next. Which honestly I really don't care about at all.

I am pretty much in the opposite camp on a lot of your post. I would like an inconsistent AI in so far as when it changes its government style you get a new leadership style.

"If they don't behave consistently, then any diplomacy is doomed."

If they DO behave consistently then the challenge and fun of it is doomed. If the AI is consistent then it is predictable. If its predictable then why bother unless you are one of those guys out for a high score or just like to pat yourself on the back for beating the game on higher and higher levels? I would find it much more rewarding to beat a game on Noble difficulty with an AI that has the ability to change its routine under certain circumstances then one that cannot change at Deity level.

You don't want to see the AI going from warlord to peacemaker and back again in a 20 turn spread but maybe over 100 turns a real change could be had. A stagnant same through the whole game AI is kinda boring when you could have a dynamic one.

Not really concerned. I've played Civ on DOS. Back then, not only were there one leader per civ, but there was a limited choices as well. Be thankful you wipper snappers get a variety of choices :old:.

I'm pretty sure there is more to measuring AI variety than adding together some numbers and saying "this one is bigger".

There is no reason to say a flavour is equivalent to a single AI factor in Civ 4. The implication is that they are significantly more complex than that.

You're sure right with the complexity of a flavor itself, but the flavors itself are more limited than in Civ4 and can only be adjusted in less steps.

You're sure right with the complexity of a flavor itself, but the flavors itself are more limited than in Civ4 and can only be adjusted in less steps.

Well, that depends. What is the difference in Civ 4 between 99 and 100? Just because you can adjust on an extremely small scale, doesn't mean it actually affects anything.

If the devs decided that really, you only see a difference between 90 and 100, they could easily have decided to just reduce the scale for simplicity's sake without losing any actual substance.

To be honest I'm not too sure about how this stuff works, but I don't think the size of the number really means anything. They could make the scale all the way up to 10,000 allowing you to make extremely precise and utterly meaningless modifications.

I can't think of any women that could play the part of leader for America.
I'm happy with Washington and Lincoln as choices.

Well there's always Hilary Clinton. She came close at least to becoming an actual leader. And she had quite a bit of political clout during her husband's administration.

Much as I respect Hiliary, that is just a terrible idea on so many levels....

Really there aren't many women who have had massive civilization-shaking impacts.
Putting in mildly influential women leaders smacks of tokenism.
There are dozens of men who have had far more influence on US history than H Clinton.

I think its better to admit that for most of history, women have been horribly oppressed and denied significant power, and stick with only the handful of women who have been *really* significant on their own right, like Elizabeth I.

Well there's always Hilary Clinton. She came close at least to becoming an actual leader. And she had quite a bit of political clout during her husband's administration.

I'm really adverse to discussing current and recent political figures on these forums, because it degenerates until it results in moderator action sooner or later.


Edith Wilson was defacto chief of staff, if not actual acting President.

From Wikipedia-

The immediate cause of Wilson's incapacitation was the physical strain of the public speaking tour he undertook to obtain support for ratification of the Covenant of the League of Nations. In Pueblo, Colorado, on September 25, 1919[102] he collapsed.[103]

Then, on October 2, 1919, he suffered a serious stroke that almost totally incapacitated him, leaving him paralyzed on his left side and blind in his left eye.[104] He was confined to bed for weeks, sequestered from nearly everyone but his wife and his physician, Dr. Cary Grayson.[105] For at least a few months, he used a wheelchair. Later, he could walk only with the assistance of a cane. The full extent of his disability was kept from the public until after his death on February 3, 1924.

With few exceptions, Wilson was kept out of the presence of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, his cabinet and Congressional visitors to the White House for the remainder of his term. His wife, Edith, served as his steward, selecting issues for his attention and delegating other issues to his cabinet heads. Eventually, Wilson did resume his attendance at cabinet meetings, but his input there was perfunctory at best.[106] This was one of the most serious cases of presidential disability in American history and was later cited as an argument for the 25th Amendment"

Originally Posted by Ahriman
"One leader per civ, and only 18 civs, allows them to actually make each faction unique, and have its own playstyle. The "sameness" of civs has always been one of this game's biggest weaknesses."

I agree!

In Civ4, more leaders have meant more options.
I've played most of the 52 Civ leaders, and look to them to use different traits.
I put them all into a excel ans sort them, to easily find which traits I want that game, and that will be the leader I chose.

If we can chose our traits at the beginninng, like Moo2 and Empire Earth 1 AoC, then, the leader image matters less.
Which is fine for me.
Civ customization would matter most to me, because, that is me trying to beat the game.
I would prefer more traits to mix into different combinations. Have you tried DeGaulle of the Native Americans?
Build Stonehenge, and yout totem pole appear in all of your cities and give you +3xp for all new archers, and you get +2 happiness (charasmatic+monument).

To have fewer leaders, and fewer trait combinations, means I will master the game sooner, and move on to something else.
Perhaps, this is what Fraxis is after, us buying their latest game, instead of appreciating what they have created.

People have been around for years making games, so, I hope someone won't be saying that, because, this game is coming out new, it Must have better game play, that is just ignorance.
Think MOO3. Sequels are not always better than the earlier versions.

The graphics are better on Civ 5, but, so, Many things about it are a step backwards, and I for one, will not be buying this game the day it comes out.

Smart people wait for the manufactures to release the patches for the games they released flawed.
If it focuses on going to a pay only style, this will cause them to lose customers.
I bought Warcraft 2 and 3, and refuse to play WoW.