JSMCAG
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
- Messages
- 780
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! ![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)
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! ![lol :lol: :lol:](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif)
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...
![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)
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!
![Stick Out Tongue :p :p](/data/assets/smilies/tongue.gif)
![lol :lol: :lol:](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif)
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!
![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)