So if one day they want to code Victoria to be an alt leader for Scotland or India, go for it. It's literally free content. Forgoing the fact that the leader ability doesn't go with the rest of the civ's kit, literally who cares? Everybody likes free contents. Maybe there will be arguments in the beginning, like whether or not Victoria should lead India in game, but with time, everything will die down, and people will be content with what is given to them. After all, if all these leaders become alt leaders for another civ, it is just free new content to shake up the game.
It just isn't of particular interest to me, free content or otherwise, sorry. I think it just makes an unnecessary mess. And you actually raise another important point with regard to India- she was literally empress of India after all. She could similarly lead Canada and Australia as the queen of those countries of course. You say that will 'die down', but I think it is actually a valid point. I think it is easiest to just not have this precedent, by having each leader only belong to one civilization. Civilizations can have multiple leaders, that is nothing new in the series, Civilization IV had that.
It is never Firaxis' agenda to pick a "good" leader, as they have made themselves very clear on that. Even if the alt leaders can only lead 1 civ, forced inclusion of certain leaders will still be a thing. Firaxis will pick whatever they think would be an interesting choice, so if they want to go outside the box with a decision, it almost has nothing to do with whether or not a leader should be allowed to lead 2 civs.
You have wrongly assumed what I meant by 'good' though. I never specified 'good' to be 'the best' in some measurable sense. I even said I knew that was obviously subjective! An interesting choice is a good choice potentially, a capable but boring leader is not necessarily a better choice than a more colorful leader, this is what I refer to when I said this is of course subjective.
And I think it is possible according to what you are advocating, that we could end up with leaders being chosen simply because they apparently work for multiple civilizations, even if other choices might otherwise seem preferable. You say here that their leader choices will have nothing to do with leading 2 civs, but you contradict yourself here, as you have literally suggested Firaxis will aim to have leaders like this in every pack. If multi-civ leaders is a quota they are trying to fill, they might well choose leaders just to fit into that.
And the suggestion to get rid of alt leaders if there is more content to come just simply will not come true.
This is isn't phrased well I don't think, it is not clear what you are saying. What do you mean my suggestion 'is not true'? I presume what you are saying, is that what I'm asking for won't happen, or cannot happen?
Also, again, I'm not saying there should be no alternative leaders necessarily. I'm mostly taking aim at the concept of leaders having multiple civilizations. Although alt leaders should cost less than whole civs, I would say, given that is less work for them. So I can understand arguments about Kublai not being very good value.
What I said was your suggestion "added nothing new to the conversation." If you're upset by that statement, I sincerely apologize. While I should have phrased it better, I still think nothing in your previous comment (when all you said can be boiled down to "let's get rid of alt leaders") has not been beaten to death before.
I mean what I said cannot be boiled down to that, as I point out above my focus is on leaders for multiple civilizations being a gimmick I don't like. And it isn't a matter of me being offended by your language, I'm simply explaining why I defended myself, given you suggested I was claiming to be censored or something along those lines.
