I think there are only a handful of Civs that really would *deserve* (let alone need) more than two leaders total. Those are India, Greece, England, Russia and Persia
The following would be okay with more than one leader: Turks (one Ottoman and one Seljuk/Turkish leader), Romans (incl. Byzantium), France, Germany, China, Arabia, Egypt and Japan.
The rest? Probably shouldn't be given more than just the one. The only reason why the aforementioned civs would even merit an additional slot is due to their long continuous history (like England, China and Egypt) or their fragmented, blobby nature (India, Russia, Greece) giving them many different aspects to work with.
Although I personally would prefer an approach similar to Macedon where they make the "alternative" leaders separate Civs altogether...
Yes, I’d prefer alt leaders as seperate civs, but making sure that alt leaders would qualify as separate civ’s, so they specifically couldn’t be a dynasty to one main nation, but a different nation that occupied a different space.
So Mughals and Maurya count as different civs, but Han and Ming, while both arguably the most influential chinese dynasties, both considered themselves the rulers of ‘China’ so Yongle and Wudi could be alt leaders to a China civ, while Rajaraja Chola, Chandragupta Maurya and Akbar could have their own civs.
That said, that’s a pipe dream.
I agree with you that India, Persia and Greece could reasonably deserve more than two leaders. For Russia, I think 2 is more appropriate (I see the case to pick two of Catherine, Alexander II and Peter) and with England, I can see the case but I’d personally pick one more early leader, like, say, Richard the Lionheart, and one Rennaissance/Industrial Leader like Elizabeth or Victoria.
I’d rather the seljuks be outright their own civ or appear as an alt to Persia than an alt to a Turk civ (that would lead to a load of various issues, not beginning to consider that outside of their ethnicity, they were nothing alike. And if you’re combining civs by ethnicity, then why wouldn’t the Timurids or Mughals also be alts for the Turks)
Rome deserves two, I agree, personally, I’d pick someone early on, like Augustus, and a later ruler, like Hadrian, but if they develop a way to differentiate the Chola, Maurya and Mughals under ‘India’, then I have no problem with the Byzantines occupying an alt spot, because they’d have enough flavor to define that leaders’ playstyle as representative of the Byzantines. That said, they do distinguish themselves from Rome just as much as any of the three subcontinental empires I mentioned do from India, so I hope Firaxis will be consistent.
Japan could receive a feudal lord like Tokugawa or Oda + Meiji, so that’s a good assessment
Egypt could deserve two as well, simply on the basis of their long history.
For Greece, I’d imagine the choices would be Alexander, an athenian and an Spartan, maybe to switch it up a bit, they could do Leonidas and Solon?
Deserve is such a strong word. I'd be curious for you to explain your reasoning why you f.e. put India in one group and China in another or why England has a longer history than say Egypt or Korea? You are on a very slippery slope to racism there.
The pathway for civ, however, points away from these grand millennia-spanning civs. As you state, they can get blobby and they are hard to balance against each other. Early Game Benefits will always be way better and they need to invent early era bonuses for later era civs (see Gran Colombia).
I expect a more dynamic system for Civ 7 than the rigid one we have now.
Ummm I don’t think determining which civ’s deserve more alt leaders than others leads to racism lmao, way to go with the slippery slope fallacy.
India is undoubtedly deserving of three because in its 5000+ year history as a subcontinent, it has only been united once: By the British. None of the Kingdoms and Empires preceding the British ever controlled all of India, even if they claimed that they did, and most didn’t even do that. This also feeds into the fact that nearly every major empire in Indian history has come from a different ethnicity and culture. The Chola, Pallava and Pandya were Tamil, the Maurya and Gupta were Bihari, the Mughals were Turks, the Chera modern day Malayali, Rajputs Marathi.
The current civ 6 form of India is very unrepresentative of the 5000 yr+ history it’s supposed to represent as a blob civ. So 3 leaders makes sense to disambiguish the various kingdoms. In my mind, you’ll get the most varied gameplay from the Chola, the most powerful South Indian Empire, the Mughals and the Maurya.
China’s dynasties were historically and culturally very diverse. Yes, the Yuan were Mongols, yes, the Ming were Manchurian. Every Chinese dynasty, however, controlled most or all what was historically considered China. Undoubtedly, the Ming strategy varied greatly from the Qin’s. This is why China is deserving of two leaders (I’d personally want a Han and a Ming emperor—Ming for exploration and trade, Han for culture). But I don’t know if there was enough differentiation (outright different languages, like India, not just different dialects, or general cultural rather than police differences) to justify more than 2. As for England, Egypt and Korea, they kinda fall into the same catagory as china in my mind, that they have had different points in history which differentiate enough to justify 2 leaders, but not enough to justify 3 or deblobbing
