I know some people don't like DLC set-ups, but if they had a DLC pack of only alternate leaders, I would be so in on that
If it was a 5-leader pack, my dream pack would include 2nd leaders for (bold indicating what I really would want): America, China, France, Germany, India
You left out the part that those 100 years were the most prosperous and democratic in human history, in large part because of America. The country could disappear tomorrow and historians would still put it up there with Rome and Egypt.
But I agree, America is definitely low low low down on my list of civs that need extra leaders, not least because they would need to have a second possible capital (what, Richmond? Haha yeah right).
You left out the part that those 100 years were the most prosperous and democratic in human history, in large part because of America. The country could disappear tomorrow and historians would still put it up there with Rome and Egypt.
But I agree, America is definitely low low low down on my list of civs that need extra leaders, not least because they would need to have a second possible capital (what, Richmond? Haha yeah right).
You left out the part that those 100 years were the most prosperous and democratic in human history, in large part because of America. The country could disappear tomorrow and historians would still put it up there with Rome and Egypt.
But I agree, America is definitely low low low down on my list of civs that need extra leaders, not least because they would need to have a second possible capital (what, Richmond? Haha yeah right).
We've seen last year how democratic it really was. (superdelegates, electoral college, winner-takes-it-all, voter supression). Can you call a country longer democratic if only between 50-60% of the voters turn out. But it's not really the point.
Gameplay wise a new leader wouldn't add much to the American civ. There are other civs more worthy of an alternate leader. And I also believe the Anglosaxon world have enough civs and leaders for now. England is a candidate for an alternate leader (Elizabeth I or an old medieval king) and we definitely will get Canada at some point. There is even more Anglosaxon centrism than Eurocentrism in the game tbh.
I think the real problem is that a secondary leader should have to be able to reasonably appear in the same game opposite the first leader, like Gorgo and Pericles, whose city-states were well-documented rivals with vastly different ethics that complimented each other from a game play perspective. They don't even necessarily need to be independent from each other, just different. Having George Washington pillaging and razing the city named after himself, the city he built, just because he led America (the same exact America led by Teddy, only with more stars on the flag) from Philadelphia while DC was under construction a few miles away, is a bit silly. You might as well have Edith Roosevelt meet her husband on the battlefield (to that, I would also add it's much more likely that any case of "dual leaders" would be male/female, seldom male/male; the very reason they went with Gorgo over Leonidas was to make the two Greek leaders as different from each other as possible in terms of physical appearance. Also, women).
Alternatively, the two leaders could be from vastly different time periods where the culture, religion, or language wouldn't overlap, such as giving India a Mughal leader.
I'm not keen to see a second American leader, but I would prefer Jefferson or Kennedy over Washington or Lincoln. America with a science bonus would be interesting.
I don't think America needs a second leader more than almost half of the existing civs. I am very convinced that India, Egypt, France, China, England, Germany, Russia, Japan, Spain, Persia, Arabia, Poland and Indonesia would make better use of alternative leaders than America. Teddy is a great leader.
But they could add a second American leader for marketing reasons, even thinking that America is at a very low priority.
I'm not keen to see a second American leader, but I would prefer Jefferson or Kennedy over Washington or Lincoln. America with a science bonus would be interesting.
The different capital requirement is going to put a hold on any non-founding father President. However, just because they were not a President shouldn't disqualify a ton of other extraordinarily influential leaders of America. Humanitarians like Eleanor and MLK, innovators like Edison or Ford would all fit well into a leader role. And of course there were many extremely politically influential leaders that never held the office of President. Any of the founding fathers that didn't later hold office would fit that bill and they all naturally have Philadelphia as a sensible capital. For my money I don't think you could beat Ben. An interesting take of a scientific America, and has a personality that could match Teddy.
I'm not keen to see a second American leader, but I would prefer Jefferson or Kennedy over Washington or Lincoln. America with a science bonus would be interesting.
India suffers from the "Greece" syndrome where hundreds of historical states are crammed into one because of more contemporary politics, so you'll end up with some weird situations like that no matter what. In a way Gandhi is a good fit, if anything because he really does associate himself with the modern concept of "India".
Greece is probably a decent comparison, in that there was a people and an area, but never unified. They also have an epic poem that unifies them. I think one difference is that in Greece's legendary history, they were still City States (albeit in a league), while India was unified under a legendary emperor Bharata. But Greece was actually (all but) unified under Alexander, so India was never unified under the Mauryan dynasty.
You're right about Gandhi being the modern concept of India, which is smaller than the historical concept of India. A lot of Pakistanis were upset that India named itself the Republic of Bharat, as that lays a claim to all of Bharat, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. A more logical name would have been Hindustan. In the same way, Greeks had desires to get western Anatolia, particularly Istanbul. There are probably more similarities I'm not thinking of, but that's enough to make it interesting.
I'm not keen to see a second American leader, but I would prefer Jefferson or Kennedy over Washington or Lincoln. America with a science bonus would be interesting.
I've long thought it strange that the two civs that inspired the space race VC are usually science poor in the civ franchise.
At this point, if Canada gets in (which seems a bit unlikely now) I expect PET would take the spot. He's one of our most well know leaders, he is a member of the only PM dynasty and he focused specifically on french inclusion and positioning us as a peacekeeping nation.
Well since the Taj Majal is in the expansion, why not Shah Jahan for the second leader of India? He's widely considered one of the greatest Mughal Emperors and created many of the buildings and monuments the Mughal Empire was famous for. That way we still get Gandhi but India also gets a more serious leader not just based around a Civ in-joke.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
