A question regarding the lack of plurality of leaders

[ElihuRoot]

Hello, all. I just signed up for the forum, and I have been an avid Civ IV player since about 2007 or so, as well as an avid player of most 4x games (I have many an entertaining anecdote regarding Empire Earth II).

To me, what gives Civ the jump on most other strategy games is its unequivocal depth and density. Therefore, my question is why the multiple-leaders-per-civilization feature of Civ IV was simplified with merely one leader per civ? To me, having multiple leaders for a civ provides an interesting strategic incentive at the start of the game, and literally determined the course of your civ's development. For instance, I loved mulling over whether to choose George Washington or Franklin Roosevelt before playing as the Americans. In my opinion, adding as many relevant leaders as possible for each civ would only aid in this matter - it just adds another dimension of depth to a game that is deeper than the Marianas Trench (I mean that in a good way! )

I guess we can hope for reform in an expansion then?

-Elihu

 

[Mercade]

Welcome to CivFanatics, ElihuRoot.

In one of the interviews (the link escapes me), one of the guys explains that it was a decision of Jon Shafer to have single leaderheads (in vanilla Civ5) because he wanted to focus more on the differences between Civs than on having a second leaderhead for some Civs. In the end I suppose it's just a question of priorities and resources. It's not said that it won't happen in an expansion.

Edit: Civ4 did have multiple leaderheads for 8 civs and single leaderheads for 10.

 

[cccv]

I don't think Vanilla IV had single leaderheads only.

Since civ-specific abilities are in and traits are out, extra leaders would only be there as an aesthetic. Though maybe if they make an expansion they will toss traits back in or something, which would make it worthwhile. as things are now though, the only reason for extra leaders is because you'd rather stare at Boudica than Brennus.

Frankly though, I think they're going the DLC route rather than the XPAC route, so if they're hoping to exploit us for any lengthy period of time, they probably will start making new leaders, even if there's no point to them, just because people want to play as or against Lincoln or whomever. They could toss a new leader our way every month and have us tossing more money at them for two years or more on those alone.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If I understand correctly (and I hope to) they don't plan to include multiple leader per civ feature. And it's great, because in Civ4 the difference between civs was too minor.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Civ IV had 18 civs, 26 leaders (according to the info center here at CFC). To be fair, it sounds like the leader personalities in Civ V are more complex and require more effort than those in Civ IV, beyond the graphical changes.

All said, I'd rather have 18 civs at 1 leader each than 18 leaders spread over fewer civs.