Gorgo now confirmed, so what about Isabella?

[Deadstarre]

israel is not going to be a civ for the same reason palestine is not going to be a civ

 

[daft]

You must be against Tibet as well?

Well, the conservatives like you sooner or later are proved wrong, just give it time...

 

[dnoisette]

You must be against Tibet as well?

Well, the conservatives like you sooner or later are proved wrong, just give it time...

It's not a matter of being conservative and I'm pretty sure no one here is against having Israel or Tibet but it simply won't happen because of the potential issues that might arise with their addition to the game. They're still too sensible a subject for a fair number of people IRL to risk a controversy and the fallout that follows...

 

[Ikael]

Using different leaders for the same civ in order to represent wildly different political bodies over the same territory is genious (Constantine of the Romans in order to represent Byzantium, Charlemagne of the Germans in order to represent the Holy Roman Emire, etc), but that might not be enough to account for the huge differences between some of said entities (I don't think that Mhugal India would be different enough from "regular" India with just a Unique Leader, seeing how little difference there is between Gorgo VS Pericles).

As for the inclussion of polemic civs such as Tibet or Israel, I think that the safest option would be to go with the "city state route".