Multiple rulers per Civ?

Will we ever get to choose between a couple different leaders for each Civ? I'd LOVE to play as Franz Joseph of Austria (-Hungary)!!!

 

why? If it really means that much to you you can rename your leader...

 

Why have different sauces...it's all just chicken, right?

Having different leaders to choose from is a fun way of slightly changing a Civ, while still retaining the core feel and functioning of said civilization (assuming the different leaders bring with them different bonuses, obviously). Besides....I'm not gonna have my Austria led by a cross-dressing 'Franz Joseph'!

 

I've always thought an alternate version of certain civs would be appropriate. USSR, NAZI Germany, British Empire/Great Britain come to mind. They could be different leaders (Stalin, Hitler, Churchill) with different UAs.

 

I'm not sure. It doesn't feel like it would really work with CiV, where the leader and the Civ are almost synonymous. I wouldn't object to it being brought back in CiVI, but with this installment I'm quite happy with how things are.

 

It wouldn't make sense to give another UA with a new leader,because most of the UA aren't based on the leader's history,but rather,on the history of the civilization .

 

I'd rather they put their work into new CIVs than into new leaders for existing ones.

 

Different leaders is something I've missed terribly. I believe for the Celts in Civ 4, Brennus gave a bonus to culture/religion while Boudicca was more warlike. More customization is never a bad thing.

 

Unfortunately I don't think this will ever be done since as others have said the UAs are based on the Civ and not the Leader.

The only way I see them doing this would be to add a unique leader ability on top of the UA.

I'd personally prefer they added new Civs. That would be more customisation right there.
Choose leader or choose Civ is different sides of the same coin.

 

Yep, these^^^

Civ V has been planned from the start with the leaders and civs being synonymous. Giving Napoleon the "Ancien Regime" UA makes absolutely no sense otherwise. But I'd much prefer new civs than new leaders for existing civs anyway. I honestly don't see what it matters what the leader of your civ is -- you never even see your own leader.

 

I've written something like this before: The amount of work that goes in to making the leader for a civ is almost as much as for the rest of the civ, and few people would probably buy a leader for full civ-price, so for just a tiny amount of more work (uu- and ub-art, models etc.), they could cash in for a full civilization.

 

I for one would like to have multiple leaders for existing civs, rather than completely new civs (with a few exceptions). There are very few civs left that I can imagine would work as well as the existing ones for the game anyway. New leaders could reinvigorate the current selection to give a little more versatility to each of the civs. Civs could have a fixed UA, and alternative leaders could compliment this in different ways - England could get its extra two movements and extra spy, and Elizabeth could buff this with faster experience for navies, whilst Victoria would grant faster production for naval units, as just an example. Just because leaders and their respective civilisations appear to be interchangeable in their effect on the game, doesn't mean it has to be so.

Of course, depending upon whether alternative leaders would involve alternative UU/B/Is, an extra leader might not compare to a new civ, and the work involved in these leaders might not make it so viable unless as a part of another expansion. Failing that, I'm not sure what new civilisations could be added in a second expansion, assuming Portugal and the Zulu will indeed be DLC.

 

There are plenty of options of civilizations for a second expansion . Some of them could fit for dlc as well:

Majapahit
Brazil
Kongo
Sioux(or other Northwest American tribe)
Poland
Chacapoya
Vietnam
Serbia
Maurya Empire(or other Civilization from the Indian subcontinent that isn't directly represented by Modern India)
etc .

 

Frankly, I can't imagine that many of those civs would work as well as the civs currently in game. Honestly, I expect another NAmerican civ. But there are reasons for why most of these civs have never been in a game before, and that is obscurity, or a less than complimentary image. If, as commercial hints suggest, there is a second expansion, and it involves more with the modern era, then I can see Vietnam and Brazil coming into play. The rest-not so much.

Of course, I don't mean they wouldn't work well mechanically. I think some of them would actually offer unique playstyles that the current civs don't. I just can't see a regular consumer being enticed by half of those civs, and new civs is always a big selling point. Thus, perhaps it's time to consider new leaders instead (after the Portugal and Zulu DLC, of course, assuming they become such) - regardless of the inconceivability of it fitting in with the current system. At least that's my opinion anyway.

 

I'll be honest....I don't think most of those would be good Civs. No need to dig that deep while we are still missing Portugal, Sumeria, & Zulu.

Fact is, we already have plenty of civilizations. Multiple rulers with their own UAs (maybe even their own UUs!) would help spice it up without having to bring on too many B- and C-list Civ candidates (not meaning to sound harsh....just trying to look at it from a realistic developer/player perspective).

 

I don't ever see this happening, the UAs are based on civilizations, not leaders, furthermore, leaders take arguably the most time to develop so it would be counter-productive for them to, in the current model of DLC packs, start releasing additional leaders for existing civs.

 

Who said they had to be (or even should be!) DLCs?

I for one am very strongly against DLC....it is always hugely over-priced, in my opinion. Considering I paid 13 quid for GAK, why pay 3 quid for just ONE new civ!?

 

you can't see your character IIRC, so just imagine that you're Franz Joseph...Outside of them getting new abilities (which I sincerely doubt, and I'd prefer they made new civs instead of new leaders in that case), there just doesn't seem to be a reason for it.

 

I strongly disagree with you . You don't even know 10% of their history to tell that they can't be interesting Civs to play .

 

They always seem to ignore recent tyrants unfortunately so you never get to see Hitler or Stalin. Of course for the sake of Germany I do think Bismark was more influential than Hitler since he did unite the country.