very true, all civ3/4 succession games I played had the civ as the theme, not the leader at all. And those Civ6 MP games I played, nobody went by leaders.
ThERat, if you still have Civ 3 Complete, you can play CCM3 in combination with the C3X mod. As far as I know, it is still the only mod of the civ series with changed leaders in the 4 different eras of Civ 3. Different to Civ 7 the civs are defined from a today-view, looking what happened in the current territory in history in the four eras of Civ 3. There is no problem for the players to identify the civs in the game, as the sequence of the names for a civ is fixed (per example Rome/Italian City States/Italy/Italy) and there is no manipulation of the territory and the cities when entering a new era.
Floods aren't even that big of a deal. If later civs get the same bonuses...it kind of destroys the point of that civ to begin with. I think you are missing the point of switching. You will get a new civ, with new abilities! You don't need your old ones.
In the dev diaries Firaxis said they tried both and switching leaders was very confusing.
Yeah switching leaders seems pointless. I like what they did. I think we have lots of possibilities, just need it refined and polished.
I also don't think it makes sense for the concept of history and layers and such, but that's beside the point.
So having Ben Franklin leading the Greeks and then leading the Normans and then leading Russia would be less confusing? I dont think Firaxis tried very hard.
Yes, it's less confusing because the civilization's face doesn't change.
But the actual civilization does.... You say potayto, I say potahto. I, for one, dislike the immersion-breaking design choice of switching civs, and Firaxis is getting cooked because of it.
I don't find it immersion breaking, but it's fine that some people do. Leader switching would only have made it worse IMO.
Honestly I thought it could have been a good idea, but Firaxis have been thorough and I'm sure if they say it was confusing, then it probably was.
Lets take examples of each:
It could if you had Alfred the Great, Elizabeth, and Victoria that came with their own different uniques leading England/Great Britain.
Humankind also had bland, unrecognizable leaders who changed appearance with every switch, leading to confusion. I never formed any attachment to the AI players and often struggled to keep track of what our relationship was or had been. This was far from Humankind's only problem, but it was one of many. Humankind is the poster child of why leader switching is a bad idea--because leaders essentially changed along with their civ.
No, Old World does not have leader switching. It has Paradox-style dynasties and a limited historical scope. It's a phenomenal game, but it's not a Civ-like game. Also, changing leaders five times a turn on Civ's scale sounds like an absolute nightmare. You'd never know who your neighbor is or have any meaningful relationship with them. Humans form relationships with faces, not abstract numbers. Civ7 already has a problem where it's lacking in personality; divesting it of what little human connection it has would make it extremely forgettable.
Civilizations are best abstracted into flags, not immortal highlanders.
I would suggest that saying Old World has a "leader switch" mechanic is burying the lede: the "leader switch" is in fact more of a dynastic family simulator a la Crusader Kings, situated within an abbreviated window of time (a facsimile of the real life ancient Mediterranean and Near East). There are many things it does differently from other games in the genre, and I sincerely doubt that having multiple leaders over time is the key ingredient that makes people like Old World.
I wouldn't play a Civ game without leaders. I'm here for stories about people; if I wanted a spreadsheet simulator, I'd play a Paradox game.
