Who else misses having multiple leaders per civ?

Personally, if more interesting, more diverse, and generally more civilizations comes at the expense of multiple leaders per civilization, then I'll gladly take it!
Don't get me wrong, having multiple leaders per civilization is not bad - but it's better to have both a new leader and a new civilization than just a new leader! Besides, this allowed us to have civilizations that would otherwise not be here if they had to spend time and money on America's 8th leader or something!

In the end, the reason that we now have civilizations such as Morocco, Indonesia, Polynesia, etc... is because there was no resources spent on giving England one more leader yet again. After all, leaderscreens are expansive and time consuming! We can't have the cake and eat it too! And, in the end, it's the representation of various cultures that makes the game richer in content...

I don't miss Mao or Stalin.

If Firaxis were to add additional leaders at this point I seriously doubt we'd see more that 3 per civ. Having a choice of 2 leaders for a majority of civs might be possible though.

They could always release packs of additional leaderheads as DLC. I know not everyone would buy them, but I'm sure there are enough people who would be interested to make it worth the effort/cost.

Although I somewhat miss the previous system slightly, I think having one leader to represent a Civ is much better. This is particularly so since it means they can focus much more on the leader themselves and their presentation within the game. All of the leader screens in the game have so far been top-notch and the voice acting, for what it is worth, is definitely something that I admire as part of the overall production. 1 leader per Civ may also mean that future updates would ensure that any other Civilization to be included would be a completely different one rather than having the same nations but with different figureheads. Also the choices for the leaders this time seems entirely appropriate and unlikely to offend anyone.

Guandao said:

I don't miss Mao or Stalin.

Click to expand...

I love having the mean leaders of history in games. That doesn`t mean I LIKE them, I don`t, there`s a difference, people.

Nothing like having to do negotiations with sly old Stalin or even Hitler! The tension of having to deal with such cunning and heartless characters of history makes one really focus his strategy. Good or ethical Leaders often had to deal with horrible, unethical and even evil leaders- don`t even think of leading if you can`t handle that!

I think it`s sad that political shenanigins now go so far that you can`t even have a civilization game include these characters to deal with.

Just give it a few hundred years though and they`ll be back in games just like Attilla the Hun whom no one seems to care that he was a blood thirsty killer and destroyer of cities or even the Romans who had slavery to a fine art and killed people for their own amusement in the arena.

The Human race: a contradiction in itself.

Socratatus said:

I love having the mean leaders of history in games. That doesn`t mean I LIKE them, I don`t, there`s a difference, people.

Nothing like having to do negotiations with sly old Stalin or even Hitler! The tension of having to deal with such cunning and heartless characters of history makes one really focus his strategy. Good or ethical Leaders often had to deal with horrible, unethical and even evil leaders- don`t even think of leading if you can`t handle that!

I think it`s sad that political shenanigins now go so far that you can`t even have a civilization game include these characters to deal with.

Just give it a few hundred years though and they`ll be back in games just like Attilla the Hun whom no one seems to care that he was a blood thirsty killer and destroyer of cities or even the Romans who had slavery to a fine art and killed people for their own amusement in the arena.

The Human race: a contradiction in itself.

Click to expand...

The Chinese government would have something to say about Mao in a civ game. They did replace him with Taizong of Tang in Civ4.

Guandao said:

They did replace him with Taizong of Tang in Civ4.

Click to expand...

Seriously???
Are there any pictures of this special version - or is there a mod that adds him to the international version?

Guandao said:

The Chinese government would have something to say about Mao in a civ game. They did replace him with Taizong of Tang in Civ4.

Click to expand...

That is news to me, but a quick Google search indicates that the same thing was done in Civ III.

You can see an image of the Civ III Taizong at this link:
http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?244-Which-Civ3-version-do-you-have

(see post #13)

Leaderheads are basically the most time-consuming aspect of a civilization, if not the game as a whole. They require several sets of detailed models to be competent with what's already in the game, alongside extensive voicework in languages that may barely exist today.

Multiple leaders for civs would be nice (not to mention how the game's coding seems structured to allow leaders to be defined by UAs while civs are defined by other uniques), but honestly, I would much rather the extensive time and effort used for modelling and voice acting be put into new cultures yet to be represented than civilizations we've already seen.

Maybe, maybe, should Civ V continue being expanded and expanded and expanded with more and more civilizations, when basically all the real marketable options for new civilizations are expended, then I'd consider adding new leaders for...let's say realistically, the original vanilla civilizations to be a good idea. But we're far, far from that point, we still have a plethora of civilizations from previous games that aren't in, much less all those prospective entities to be considered.

Gyra Solune said:

But we're far, far from that point, we still have a plethora of civilizations from previous games that aren't in, much less all those prospective entities to be considered.

Click to expand...

You think so? Except Hittites, Mali (predecessors to Songhai), the somewhat redundant Holy Roman Empire, the Sumerians (which also are geographically somewhat redundant to Babylonians and Assyrians) or the Khmer (in V we have Siam instead) I don't really miss any Civ that was in a previous game (unmodded). And - although nations like Canada or Australia (both former Britisch Colonies) or some South American nations (most of them former spanish colonies) - are still missing, I think we now really have a good and satisfying part of important historic empires and nations covered. We should not push this to the point where we have to think about adding Civilizations like Trinidad and Tobago or Mauritis to the roster. The charm of the Civ games results from playfull interaction with important historic leaders and nations. So let's try to keep it that way...

i thought multi-heads was way cool. don't see what the big deal would be about having both in the game. some civs may have multi-heads, some not. i also miss Mao and Stalin and couldn't care less what the PRC government thinks about that