Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America

[Quintillus]

This was actually one of my least favourite aspects of Civ3, actually. I found it quite jarring and goofy, visually.

It could be a bit goofy at times, but so can the later versions of Civ in their leader animations. I love Kupe in Civ VI pantomiming that he's going to slit your throat, but it's certainly goofy. Same with Catherine the Great when she's upset with you in Civ IV.

In the end I think leader animations are a matter of personal taste.

I like this idea as long as it's not set in stone that this leader can only lead for two eras, and not before this era etc.
Regarding France who would be there leader at the beginning of the game if Jeanne d"Arc was only available starting at Medieval. Surely, we wouldn't have a leader from Gaul?
To me there's not a problem with this idea if we could start the game off with someone like Napoleon and then decide to switch to her through something like a government change.

Clovis? Charles "The Hammer" Martel? Charlemagne? (the latter possibly as a dual-leader a la Eleanor of Aquitaine in Civ VI, also leading Germany) I don't think you can really go earlier than the Merovingians and have it represent France, or you'd be crossing into the "clump everyone who's lived in the same geographic region into one Civ" representation with the problems that can cause in areas where many different peoples have lived over time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Clovis? Charles "The Hammer" Martel? Charlemagne? (the latter possibly as a dual-leader a la Eleanor of Aquitaine in Civ VI, also leading Germany) I don't think you can really go earlier than the Merovingians and have it represent France, or you'd be crossing into the "clump everyone who's lived in the same geographic region into one Civ" representation with the problems that can cause in areas where many different peoples have lived over time.

Considering they would also be from the Medieval Era as well, I really wasn't even thinking about them, but sure.
Then again, I wouldn't mind Charlemagne and the Franks be a separate civ from France and Germany, instead of making him a dual leader for both.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I see leaders as player avatars, not proper leaders. I mean both human and AI players lead a civ for 6k years and control aspects of their civs that in no way a real goverment can do.
What I mean is that CIV is a computarized boardgame, so the other leaders are like if you sit to play a board game with historical figures like Gandhi, Saladin and Victoria.
There is not need to make sense about civs transforming into others, people want to play as "what if..." Gauls never fell to Rome and we have Industrial Gallia. We already sit to play with Washington and Gilgamesh as part of "what if..." Determine civs to change into others is kind of absurd, like why if Gauls start with China, Zulu and Inca around them and they are doing pretty well in Classical Era why would they turn into Franks from nowhere for no reason?
Gauls turning into France only make sense after lost to Rome and Franks, in your match as Gauls if that not happens there is not reason to change, you are supposed to have success where real Gauls failed not to repeat their defeats.

 

[pokiehl]

And with only 4 eras (versus 9 in Civ6 + GS), it was manageable in terms of art overhead.

The quality of character art between now and then is like night and day. With current standards it’d be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. It’s a silly idea anyway, one I’m happy to see never return.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally I see leaders as player avatars, not proper leaders. I mean both human and AI players lead a civ for 6k years and control aspects of their civs that in no way a real goverment can do.
What I mean is that CIV is a computarized boardgame, so the other leaders are like if you sit to play a board game with historical figures like Gandhi, Saladin and Victoria.
There is not need to make sense about civs transforming into others, people want to play as "what if..." Gauls never fell to Rome and we have Industrial Gallia. We already sit to play with Washington and Gilgamesh as part of "what if..." Determine civs to change into others is kind of absurd, like why if Gauls start with China, Zulu and Inca around them and they are doing pretty well in Classical Era why would they turn into Franks from nowhere for no reason?
Gauls turning into France only make sense after lost to Rome and Franks, in your match as Gauls if that not happens there is not reason to change, you are supposed to have success where real Gauls failed not to repeat their defeats.

I don't think anyone here other, than the OP, wants to change civs during the course of the game.
I however wouldn't mind the idea of changing leaders throughout the game, as an optional mode.