1. Leader swapping has more support from previous Civilization games
Previous Civilization games have had multiple leaders for the same Civ. This at least provides some precedent for allowing the player to switch between different leaders. Civ swapping has precisely one element of support in previous games (Eleanor of Aquitaine).
Except that, in Civ VI, you choose a
leader to play, not a civ. I was the leaders that were proposed. And even in the case of Eleanor, you choose "Eleanor (France)" or "Eleanor (England)". But you didn't choose "India (Chandragupta)" or "Greece (Gorgo)". It was Chandragupta or Gandhi or Pericles or Gorgo. If anything, this point more about the leader being the defining characteristic rather than the civ.
2. Leader swapping is more realistic
The premise the developers provided in their (mostly abysmal) reveal last week, was that Civilizations transform into something else when faced with a crisis. This is only really true if you look at the crisis as one of being conquered, subjugated, or colonized. Anglo-Saxons became English because they were conquered, not because they were faced with some nebulous crisis.
Except... it's not. In both cases, you have an immortal leader. Having him die after a three thousands year instead of staying until six thousands years is not "more realistic". They're both unrealistic to such degrees that making a difference is pointless.
Also, I thought we went through it, but "realism" shoudl
absolutely not be an argument in the discussions about a game where Montezuma built the Hanging Gardens in the taoist holy city of Timbuktu. Talking about
immersion is much more relevant. However, I personally don't feel than swapping leader would be more immersive than swapping civs.
5. Leader swapping allows for roleplaying or creating a new history as a civ, which many players enjoy
This isn't particularly important to me, but many players like having modern Romans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, etc. Civ swapping removes that aspect of gameplay.
I'd say the opposite. Despite everthing, we're all humans, and most people have an easier time roleplaying as people (even immortal leaders) than as countries.
I spent some years on a political forums where each player was roleplaying a country; but, to be honest, we were all more roleplaying as the main characters of the countries than the country in itself. When talking to another kingdom, I was talking mainly to their queen or her ambassador more than the country itself. It was a necessary basis, but even their, where we were roleplaying countries, we naturally chose to use characters as the main roleplaying element.
And I say that as someone who
loves roleplaying countries and nations and blocks like that.
I've also said multiple times that I wouldn't tie leaders to certain eras either. If you wanted to start a game with Napoleon as France to expand quickly and then jump to Louis XIV to build wonders, or stay as Napoleon and conquer the world the whole game, it doesn't matter to me.
While I personally have no problem with this idea, just imagine the uproar of the fanbase about "breaking immersion". They already can't stand having Franklin leading Rome, do you imagine how their mind would break if you could play Louis XIV
after Napoléon?
Great! Then can I keep calling it Rome, have cool legion banners & red flags? After all, my civilization is the same, it just gained new bonuses?
Sure, why not? Have some generic bonuses without any cultural tie to how and why you have them, just pile them up atop from each other! That's what Humankind did, and at the end, each civ was looking exactly the same.
More realistically, the point of having a civ rather than a bunch of bonuses under a generic flag or name is that the player know what kind of bonuses they can have through a superficial knowledge of what they are. Mongolians? I can expect to have horses. Rome? I can expect them to be good builders and conquerors. Byzantium? I can expect them to be good at religion. But adding new bonuses on top of each other will cause problems, because you'll have to have generic bonuses untied to the civilization itself. Because what bonuses would you give to Information Era Romans? And what bonuses would you give to Ancient Era Americans? So, for those civs, you'd have to have "generic" bonuses that are untied to History for when you play them at those eras. And you'd loose what make each part of your history meaningful. You wouldn't be the wonder-building Egyptians, you would be the wonder-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Egyptians, while the neighboring romans who made the same choices would be the city-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Romans, and they would loose their identity much quicker than otherwise. Which, for people who seem to care about identity, would make you go the opposite way of what you're looking for. Instead of having civilizations you can relate to, you'll end up with a mash-up of random bonuses than end up having no identity, like in Humankind.
The game is called Civilization, not Leader. I think that sums up my feelings rather succinctly.
Except we never played civilizations. Because playing a civilization would be at the same time much more restricted and too broad to have any meaning.
Prithee, pray tell: give me a definition of civilization that could explain having at the same time British England and British Scotland, having at the same time the city-State of Venice and the nomadic Huns, that split the Romans and the Romans between two separate civilizations (here the Byzantium) while still presenting as a same civilization the Mauryas and modern day India, a definition that include at the same time the cultural people known as Maoris and the modern nation-state built as Australia, a definition that ended up separating Germany and Austria while often depicting Germany in its state where Austria was blended into the monstrosity that was the HRE? The definition of a "civilization" is so nonsensical that staying on the idea what we play a "civilization" makes no sense.
Here, we would be playing civilizations, in the way that civilizations evolved and changed name. In the way that Rome became Byzantium rather than being two distinct "civilizations". In the way that modern day Germans and Italians and French all reclaim the heritage of the Roman and Greek civilization. We'll claim the heritage of our previous "civs", while still being one age-spanning civilization that, despite what you may say, will stand the test of time, by evolving rather than monolithically staying the same.
(Also, the games Victoria, Victoria 2 and Victoria 3 dared existed while allowing us to play other people than queen Victoria. What a shame. Everyone knows that a game should stick exclusively to what the title say rather than exploring new avenues.)