CIVS SHOULd HAVE TWO LEADERS TO CHOOSE... IT GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY

[Onun]

Hi all

What do you think in having two leaders to choose for each civ, with diferent agendas and bónus.

I think it is good because it gives more flexibility to the civ, like it was made in colonization 4.

What do you think

Thanks

 

[awesome]

Current speculation is that we're getting that eventually, but I'd honestly rather just have one leader per civ and have more civs.

 

[Ryika]

Jeez, this is not youtube, no need for clickbatey all-caps titles.

Topic has been discussed here for example:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=569260

 

[Zaarin]

THAT IS SUcH A GREAT IDEA!

I used to be in the "one leader per civ" camp, but poor choices like Cleopatra and Catherine de Medici have changed my mind. Fortunately, it looks like, in all probability, multiple leaders will be a thing; unfortunately, new Egyptian and French leaders have not yet been confirmed.

 

[Ryika]

I used to be in the "one leader per civ" camp, but poor choices like Cleopatra and Catherine de Medici have changed my mind.

Wow, why do you hate women so much?

Hmmm... better add an on topic part to this post or I'll be accused of making too many jokes again:

I actually have changed my mind on the topic as well, although I'm not sure why. I now think multiple leaders are a pretty neat idea.

 

[Zaarin]

Wow, why do you hate women so much?

Hmmm... better add an on topic part to this post or I'll be accused of making too many jokes again:

I actually have changed my mind on the topic as well, although I'm not sure why. I now think multiple leaders are a pretty neat idea.

Does it help if I mention that Tomyris is my favorite new leader and I was originally hoping for Hatshepsut for Egypt?

 

[Ryika]

Should be enough for a cover-up tactic, yes.

 

[MistyRonin]

I'm all for only having the most relevant historical empires as playable civs with a good amount of leaders to allow a different flavour.

But I usually play Civ V in a "Colonization" way. I use Earth or Continents maps with the most relevant historical empires in Eurasia (in my mind Barbarians and city-states represent the tribes and minor nations). So for instance I'd never use in my games, civs like the Shoshone, Huns, Mongolia, Netherlands, Siam, etc.

Having different leaders would really change every gameplay, like I did in Civ 4. Besides it's hard to keep a distinct flavour (civ unique ability, building and unit) for each main civ, if you have dozens of them.
While the leader unique ability just adds different shades of a civ, besides that allows you to play with a civ even if you don't like one of its leaders (for instance I never used Spain in Civ 5 due to Isabella, that never ruled Spain, only Castile, unlike his husbie that was regent in Castile and ruled over the countries of the Crown of Aragon).

 

[Zaarin]

I use...the most relevant historical empires in Eurasia (in my mind Barbarians and city-states represent the tribes and minor nations)...I'd never use...Mongolia

You must have astonishingly stringent qualifications if the largest empire in history doesn't qualify.

(for instance I never used Spain in Civ 5 due to Isabella, that never ruled Spain, only Castile, unlike his husbie that was regent in Castile and ruled over the countries of the Crown of Aragon).

With no disrespect intended to Ferdinand, who was powerful enough in his own right, it's well known that Isabella was the real power in the relationship; Ferdinand was mostly along for the ride.

 

[MistyRonin]

You must have astonishingly stringent qualifications if the largest empire in history doesn't qualify.

I don't know how to formulate it without sounding pedestrian, but it's not the size what matters to me.

I like to use a more holistic approach, years, cultural influence, art, cities, etc.

With no disrespect intended to Ferdinand, who was powerful enough in his own right, it's well known that Isabella was the real power in the relationship; Ferdinand was mostly along for the ride.

A bit off-topic, but although I'm quite familiar with that theory, most of the historical facts and documentation are against it. To the point that after Isabella's death, it was precisely Ferdinand who ruled Castile as regent (when he was allowed after Philip I of Castile died). And he always kept a complete independence of the Crown of Aragon's countries from the Crown of Castile; status that lasted until 1705-1716's decrees of New Plant.

That theory was spread widely during the Spanish Dictatorship of Francisco Franco as a way to justify Spanish nationalism (even nowadays the dynastic union is still used by some Spanish nationalist politicians to defend the birth of a unified modern nation, when nationalism is something of the 18th century-forward). You only have to check Spanish history books from the early 1930s and the ones produced during the dictatorship or even nowadays.

In case you are not aware, the dictator Franco and the Spanish fascist and only legal party "La Falange", used a lot the Catholic Kings symbols, specifically the yoke and the arrows .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Francoism#Escutcheon

Thing is that, saying that Isabella from Castile was the one that had the control of the relationship, is a mean to justify the supremacy of the Castilian culture over the others (the Crown of Castile was totalitarian and the most used language was Spanish, against the pact-friendly Crown of Aragon where each country had its medieval parliament which whom each monarch had to negotiate with).

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Let's not kid ourselves. Every civ isn't going to get multiple leaders. Some will only get the one, some will get a few, and others will get a ton of them. Firaxis' marketing team is probably already crunching the numbers to see which civs should get the most leaders to maximize DLC sales.

For better or worse, that's just how it's going to be.

 

[ZTZaorish]

Hi all

What do you think in having two leaders to choose for each civ, with diferent agendas and bónus.

I think it is good because it gives more flexibility to the civ, like it was made in colonization 4.

What do you think

Thanks

Actually, speculation is that there will be the possibility for this.

 

[Guandao]

Let's not kid ourselves. Every civ isn't going to get multiple leaders. Some will only get the one, some will get a few, and others will get a ton of them. Firaxis' marketing team is probably already crunching the numbers to see which civs should get the most leaders to maximize DLC sales.

For better or worse, that's just how it's going to be.

That is correct. I doubt Sumer will have a second leader, with the civ ability being based on the Epic of Gilgamesh rather than on Sumerian civilization in general.

I bet Kongo, Aztecs, Scythia, and possibly Norway will be single leader civs.

 

[IgorS]

That is correct. I doubt Sumer will have a second leader, with the civ ability being based on the Epic of Gilgamesh rather than on Sumerian civilization in general.

I bet Kongo, Aztecs, Scythia, and possibly Norway will be single leader civs.

Hopefully, guys like Ekmek will figure out how to add leaders (or maybe just static pics, as it is done in Civ V), so we can add the second leaders ourselves for those poor civs without a second leader.