More Civs or different Leaders for the future?

[JFD]

An interesting idea was brought up in another thread. If there was to be a second expansion, how many would rather a chance to play as a different leader of an existing civ than a completely new civ? There are plenty of opportunities for additional leaders, but are there really enough marketable civs left for a second expansion, especially if we are to assume there is to be more DLC - which, IMO, will be of the Zulu and then of Portugal?

I can understand that there are a number of civs that the game would benefit from, such as Indonesia, Tibet, or Israel. But are we really likely to ever see these civs in a game, when looked at aside England, America and Russia? I don't feel that alternative leaderheads would deny the game of anything additional civs could add, or vice-versa, but frankly different variations of each civ sounds more exciting. It could even give a fresh makeover of the UA system.

For instance, what if we had England, with both Victoria and Elizabeth as a leader. If England had a base production bonus toward Naval units, then Victoria could gain the +2 Movement bonus, whilst Elizabeth gained a bonus to XP for Naval units. In this way, we wouldn't lose out on the uniqueness of each civ, yet we would still have a choice of strategy if we still wanted to play as, or face, England.

 

[Raiki]

I honestly think that I would like opposing leaders more to throw variation into the opponents I would face than I would to play them myself. Yes, effectively doubling the number of unique abilities to choose from is fun, but the added variability of doubling the number of opponents would be more interesting, IMO.

But then again, I'd also like to see at least a few more new civilizations. (Though, unlike what seems to be a very vocal majority here, I don't really care if we ever see the Zulu again).

~R~

 

[Camikaze]

Well, you would lose out on uniqueness unless all the unique slots were filled. So you'd be mainly paying for the leader art, and perhaps a different UA (though given UAs would be balanced against the other uniques, I'd think it'd be hard to achieve). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not like it'd be the same thing as a whole new civ.

 

[BobDole]

I don't think we'll see new leaders for existing Civs, and I don't think they're really necessary, either. I'm fine with Firaxis adding more civs, which is what they've been doing.
I will admit though, I miss having an alternative to George Washington as America's leader...such as Roosevelt and his tendency to get every civ in the world pissed of at him.

 

[comatosedragon]

More leaders for sure. Imagine an expansion which includes new leaders for the (currently) 34 civilizations ... Epic! Maybe throw two or three new civs for good measure.

 

[nokmirt]

More leaders for sure. Imagine an expansion which includes new leaders for the (currently) 34 civilizations ... Epic! Maybe throw two or three new civs for good measure.

I agree and imagine the bundle they'd make on a additional leaderhead, UA,UB, UU DLC for civs. I'd buy it, but like others I would like to see some other civs added too. Anything that adds diversty to the game to make it more immersive and fun, is a plus for me.

 

[Ozzy88]

Nooo, no new leaders, no new civs, why don't we get some new gameplay mechanics or something like that. G&K adding religion and subterfuge is awesome but it's been done before, can't we get something new?

 

[janboruta]

I thought yesterday that alternative leaders could be a DLC (and voted so), but I'm afraid the price would be very high even for a simple pack of 5 additional leaders - the artwork is much more complex than in previous Civs and thus the artists deserve to be paid accordingly. Also, playtesting alternative UAs, maybe even UUs, would be really consuming.

But such DLC shouldn't be a priority, because I would really like to see more and more unique Civs in-game.

 

[Liex]

When I think of a new leader I think of a new leader screen and new unique features.

That would only be possible (or at least more reasonable and easier) if the new leaders were taken from a very different era and political context, so I guess we would not be seeing a Queen and a Tsar for England and Russia; we'd probably get a Prime Minister and a Soviet Leader for UK and USSR.

So wouldn't it be a whole new civ? Almost, but I'd never regard it as high (and fun) as a de facto new civ. It'd be odd to have both in the same map. Their city list would pose a problem. And if these things are true to USSR - the best example I could think of, since they are a very different polity and offer different names for Russia's cities - what to say about USA, France and the others?

To go through all this because people think a non featured civ is obscure, non deserving etc. is a bad thing. To go through this because it's good for business - and I hope this poll shed some light on the matter - is... understandable...

 

[HammerandSickle]

Actually I want both. I really want leader DLCs, especially leaders as Louis XIV, Victoria, Roosevelt, Saladin, maybe Hatshepsut, and others. But what I really really REALLY want is Charlemagne, maybe as leader of Germany, as well as Gilgamesh (he has dreadlocks in his beard for God's sake).
As for new civs, well, they're welcome, but not ones that were, I don't know, not so "important" let's say.

 

[CoolLizy]

If they're going to put work into a new leaderhead, I'd rather it go to a new Civ instead of just being an alt for an existing one. If you're not doubling-up leaders, then you can have far more Civs--and I want far more Civs.

 

[bcaiko]

While I guess I wouldn't mind new choices in leaders as DLC, I don't know what that would accomplish. It's not like the leaders themselves do anything if you're the one controlling the Civ (unlike in Civ4). All the leader controls is the personality matrix of the AI, which can be changed now anyways by randomizing the personalities. And you can't even interact with the leader screens on Multiplayer.

The only way to make this idea even remotely viable is to grant the leaders new UAs. But that would still have to be balanced against the existing UUs, ect., and as others have said, that seems difficult and unlikely.

I would much rather have new civs and new wonders.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If they're going to put work into a new leaderhead, I'd rather it go to a new Civ instead of just being an alt for an existing one. If you're not doubling-up leaders, then you can have far more Civs--and I want far more Civs.

This is my feeling too. If they open that can, we're just going to see them put all of their effort into new "choices" for the most popular civs.

 

[mitsho]

I'm really torn.

Civ 5 puts really much into the leader screen which imho isn't worth it. So I'm not sure they should waste their time in producing a Leader Screen for Victoria or Stalin just for that. These leaders then should also play differently and probably have a different Unique Ability. And I'm not sure there's so much leeway left to do that...

Better wait with that for Civ 6 and then include Civilizations in a way to make them unique but don't overinvest in the Art/Eye Candy. For me I'd rather have the leaders change over time than have "realistic" pictures/videos, since those will never be realistic anyways...

So, civs first I guess, unless they have a good idea to include the leaders in a creative way enhancing gameplay.

 

[AriochIV]

The elaborate Civ V leaderscreens are a waste of resources, because when the screen comes up, my eyes are on the text at the bottom, so I don't even see most of the animations. It's a terrible design.

Having new Unique Abilities for existing Civilizations would be nice, but right now the UA's seem to have been chosen for the Civ, not the leader (example: Furor Teutonicus has nothing to do with Bismarck), so adding new leaders with distinct UA's would mean completely redoing the current list of UA's, and I don't think there's any call for turning the game upside-down like that.

 

[ehecatzin]

Considering the amount of work that goes into them I think it makes more sense to focus on new civs, and sell them along with scenario packs, rather than make new leaders for existing ones.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Differents leaders for current civs would be a terrible idea,because they wouldn't have time to create a new civilization . If there was still that generic traits from other Civ games,it wouldn't be complicated to do such thing,but it's not possible to do this in Civ5,due to the fact that the UA of the civilization is entirely based on the civilization history,rather on the leader's history . If such thing is planned to be released as a dlc,it shall be the last dlc of Civ5 .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There are only a few instances where I would prefer a different leader for an existing civ. I think if it were incorporated, it should be as a DLC pack which can be opted off.

 

[GLaz]

I do want to see Poland in this game with Jozef Pilsudski or John III Sobieski as a leader. Poland was one of the biggest states in the Europe during the XVII-XVIII centuries and deeply influenced on the European politics. It has to be in the game!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I do want to see Poland in this game with Jozef Pilsudski or John III Sobieski as a leader. Poland was one of the biggest states in the Europe during the XVII-XVIII centuries and deeply influenced on the European politics. It has to be in the game!

Not if the Geographical Representationists had their way.