More Civs or different Leaders for the future?

[Louis XXIV]

UAs are balanced with everything else. That's why the Ottomans are ok in spite of a weak ability. Adding leaders with different UAs would be a balancing nightmare and clearly lead to some civs overwhelmingly better than others.

In addition, I'd rather they devote their resources to full civs given the two. It's more fun to play as a new civ than an old civ with a new leader, since I won't be seeing the leader anyway. Most of the resources go into a leader anyway, so it's nearly the same amount of work. It's overwhelmingly a better use of my money to get new civs over new leaders.

 

[Louis XXIV]

None of those suggestions require artists, though. It's possible to do both since the artists will still need things to do while those other features are worked on.

 

[JFD]

None too suprising that the majority want more civs. Perhaps I should have voted for a mix. I would still rather alternative leaders, but I wouldn't like that to come at the expense of so many fans of the game.

 

[Uberfrog]

The way I see it, a new civ would have to do something extremely wrong for me to even consider not getting it.

An alternate leader for an existing civ, on the other hand, would have to do something extremely interesting before I bought it.

I just don't think Civ V's system really lends itself to multiple leaders. I'm not sure I need two vastly different ways of playing England, for instance. Besides, while some civilisations are easy to conjure up multiple leaders for, there is a very definite risk of some tenuous (or flat-out fabricated ) choices of alternative leaders/UAs.

It also calls into question the UAs which currently reflect the civilisation as a whole, rather than the leader (like India and its rapid population growth, and soon-to-be Sweden, whose Gustav Adolf could hardly have had less to do with the Nobel Prize).

 

[CoolLizy]

Besides, while some civilisations are easy to conjure up multiple leaders for, there is a very definite risk of some tenuous (or flat-out fabricated ) choices of alternative leaders/UAs.

Shakala Zulu, I'm looking at you.

 

[Kimuyama]

With the complex leaderscreens of the game, it'd be like putting an almost equal amount of work as for a civ for a dlc no-one would pay the price of a civ for. Just a little more work (U-Units/buildings, city list) and they'd be able to get full civ-dlc money.

In short terms: It'd be more economically feasible to do the USSR than to do only Stalin.

 

[nokmirt]

With the complex leaderscreens of the game, it'd be like putting an almost equal amount of work as for a civ for a dlc no-one would pay the price of a civ for. Just a little more work (U-Units/buildings, city list) and they'd be able to get full civ-dlc money.

In short terms: It'd be more economically feasible to do the USSR than to do only Stalin.

So, maybe your right. They should make alternates of whole civs. Rome/Italy England/Great Britain Russia/USSR like you said, etc etc. Sounds fine to me.

 

[Gucumatz]

Shakala Zulu, I'm looking at you.

always gotta love how they just made her up.

Anyways, I voted more Civs. I wouldn't mind new leaderheads instead, but I prefer new civs, new strategies, :: for personal flavor, game flavor and historical flavor.

 

[Bechhold]

All I want is to play Russia with Alexander II as leader, and play America with Theodore Roosevelt is that too much to ask?

 

[Alexastor]

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think this is ever gonna happen.

The leaderheads and their audio are probably the most expensive things in development of a civ. Instead of adding just new leaders, they could add completely new civs with (relatively) low extra effort.

On top of that, new civs would likely sell much better than simply new leaders... and the game would need a new system that allows alternative leaders in the first place.

So yeah, it's simply not worth it. Not gonna happen.

 

[Louis XXIV]

All I want is to play Russia with Alexander II as leader, and play America with Theodore Roosevelt is that too much to ask?

Well, I want them to make modding easier, which would grant your wish.

 

[nokmirt]

Well, I want them to make modding easier, which would grant your wish.

Modding is not all that difficult. The problem is a lack of good step by step tutorials. We had plenty of those with Civ 4. There is Kael's, but no others I have found, at least not yet. The other issue is getting the mod tools to work properly. I can get them to work, but not linked to steam. Modding should be much more user friendly and its not at this point.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I thought the programs didn't work quite the way they were supposed to, which is why there's such a paucity of animated leaderheads.

 

[Oohforf]

More Civs.

There are still many parts of the world that need to be represented.