Poll, New Civs vs Alternate Leaders in First Expansion

[Zaarin]

I'd like mostly new civs with some new leaders, but heaven forbid we continue to balkanize Greece. Three Greek leaders is two more than we need and three more than I care about.

I like new (or returning) civs better, more diversity, but some alternate leaders would be nice.
Personally, I'd like to see Hiawatha and Shaka return with their civs, but even above that, I'd like to see Abraham Lincoln return for America. I'd love to see and hear him in the style of Civ 6.

There are too many Native American cultures worth including to keep featuring the same ones every time, but if the Iroquois must return there is absolutely no reason to resort to legendary leaders when one could use someone like Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant).

 

[Manifold]

I'd like mostly new civs with some new leaders, but heaven forbid we continue to balkanize Greece. Three Greek leaders is two more than we need and three more than I care about.

I'm glad you did not decide

Unfortunately, neither do I, because otherwise there would be all the urgently needed and in human history so important other Greek Civs in game as well as a lot of second leaders for the main Civs

 

[kaspergm]

While I'd love to vote for the first option, extra leaders seem inevitable, so I had to settle for the second one

Pretty much this. Also, the poll is hard to answer unless we make some assumptions about numbers. For instance, if we assume numbers are the same - i.e. either 8 new civs, 4 new civs + 4 new leaders, or 8 new leaders - obviously, I'd go with only new civs. However, that assumption does not seem reasonable because after all, making new leaders for existing civs is less work. So the question is, really, what is the conversion rate. If rate is less than 1 new civs equals 2 alternative leaders, I'll put all my ballots in the new civ basket. But if we're talking, say, 8 new civs vs. 6 new civs and 6 alt leaders, I'd favor the latter.

 

[conorbebe]

Like others here, I'd rather see new civilisations than alternative leaders. I hope Civ VI doesn't end up having less official civs than Civ V as a result.

However, I find myself wanting alternative leaders when France is stuck with Catherine.

 

[Guandao]

Like others here, I'd rather see new civilisations than alternative leaders. I hope Civ VI doesn't end up having less official civs than Civ V as a result.

However, I find myself wanting alternative leaders when France is stuck with Catherine.

Yeah, for a few vanilla Civs, a second leader is in high demand. For example, India, Egypt, and France. I can see Firaxis giving them an alternate leader.

 

[SMcM]

three more than I care about.

I think adding Catherine the great as an alt for Russia would be nice. I'd like to see France get an alt leader also. Besides that I think the expansion should mostly add new civs.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, for a few vanilla Civs, a second leader is in high demand. For example, India, Egypt, and France. I can see Firaxis giving them an alternate leader.

I just dread that we're going to get stuck with Napoleon. Again.

 

[Leyrann]

@SMcM Considering it's kinda on-topic anyways, regarding your signature, who is Frederick Henry? I'm Dutch myself, but that name doesn't ring a bell at all.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see he was the half-brother of Maurits. Still, I'd argue that William the Silent, Maurits, Johann van Oldebarneveldt, and king William I would all be better leaders.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

I just dread that we're going to get stuck with Napoleon. Again.

France already has the Garde Imperiale and I could be wrong but I think that's enough of a nod to Napoleon to justify his exclusion this time.

 

[Zaarin]

France already has the Garde Imperiale and I could be wrong but I think that's enough of a nod to Napoleon to justify his exclusion this time.

I hope you're right. I'm aware he was a brilliant ruler, but he's represented France enough times. I'd rather see Louis XIV or Francis I or even Louis IX.

 

[Manifold]

France already has the Garde Imperiale and I could be wrong but I think that's enough of a nod to Napoleon to justify his exclusion this time.

That is an interesting point. You can be right but also not all leaders need a UU.

 

[SMcM]

@SMcM Considering it's kinda on-topic anyways, regarding your signature, who is Frederick Henry? I'm Dutch myself, but that name doesn't ring a bell at all.

I'll change that then. I just went with him because he is someone different. Thing is, ideally I would want someone tied to the Dutch Golden Age, but the only person I could find was Johan de Witt, who was ultimately not a very successful leader from the sounds of things. If you have any better ideas for Dutch leaders connected to the Dutch Golden Age I would be interested to hear.

In terms of notable figures I'm aware of, obviously there is Michiel de Ruyter, but he's not exactly leader material is he (and I presume he is already a great admiral, can't remember though). Then there's colonists like Peter Stuyvesant, but they wouldn't really make sense as leaders for the Netherlands either in my view. I don't know anything about Cornelis de Graeff- would he be a viable leader?

 

[Vahnstad]

8/7 new civs - 2/3 alternates - 3 expansions at least (new world, old world, diplomacy overhaul).