Jabberwockxeno
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 507
It's not just in multiplayer, it's singleplayer tooOk, variety of opponents in multiplayer is third perspective, but it's still leader+civ combination. Each leader has very powerful abilities, which are often game-changers, like additional resource slots and the like.
If I'm for example, trying to play an all Asian or Middle Eastern, let alone all Indigenous American match, then even in solo play, it doesn't matter if the game has like 6-7 total civs from those regions across all the eras, because I only play one era at a time and then I can only have 2-3 other civs in the game (if even that) else for some eras there will have to be non fitting ones.
I also think you, like Firaxis, might be overestimating how much the people into the series for the history set dressing care about Leaders: I have always seen leaders just as a figurehead proxy for the civilization they are representing. From that historically minded perspective, the gameplay combinations you get by mix and matching leaders and civs is, I guess, neat, but it is vastly outweighed by the negatives of not every civ having a fitting leader and especially the fact that even the ones which *do* have a fitting leader, will be forced to have them not fit in specific eras where they are a different civ, or because two civs might share the only somewhat sensical leader option and only one of them can use it
Anyways, at this point the conversation is becoming less about the merits or downsides of a fourth "Atomic" era, and more about the civ switching and leader mechanics in general, which isn't what this thread is about, so I think maybe we should leave it here, ahaha