Considering how underutilized multiple leaders have been, I don't think we'll see the feature return in Civ7 personally.
To the contrary, I think they won't be underutilized at all. I think the entire concept was intended to sell late-cycle DLC and expansions. I think, all told, we will likely have at least one alternate leader for Russia, Germany, Arabia, China, Egypt, and probably Rome. I think it entirely possible that China, India, France, and maybe Arabia could end up with three leaders when all is told, given that they have enough major polities that could support the idea (Yuan/Wu and Qing, Chola, Carolingian, Umayyad and Saudi).
Keep in mind that the devs have had three years plus for vetting and designing leaders, finding and recording voice actors, etc. The animation itself might take some time, but they could conceivably have dozens of potential leaders recorded on the cheap and waiting for the greenlight.
As for Civ VII, I couldn't begin to predict if they would use alternate leaders. I personally support the idea because it is an elegant way of including highly requested polities while maintaining high diversity of aesthetic and playstyles among the core roster. But it really depends on what VII's "vision" is, and it is conceivable that they could adopt a different model of representation. Highly unlikely, given that this "cultural" paradigm has vastly opened up the design space, but still possible.
I sure hope not. Alternate leaders are much less interesting than actual new civilizations, and this entire subforum shows that they're not going to run out of possibilities anytime soon.
Also, using i.e. when it should be e.g. is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I fixed that.
I have been quite happy with the three alternate leaders we have so far. And although I think that the devs could comfortably add another 20-ish civs, I would be legitimately surprised if we got, in addition to Morocco, Ethiopia, Denmark, and Maya: Ireland, Italy, Bulgaria/Romani, Armenia, Swahili, Gurkani, Burma, Vietnam, Noongar, Hawaii, Navajo, Inuit, Taino, and Mexico/Colombia, etc. etc. etc. My estimates point toward either one more expack with four returning civs plus some small DLC packs, or two more expacks with three returning civs each. That is a
lot of brand new content, and while the devs are clearly enjoying researching new civs, they can only do so much. I would be floored and forever in abject adoration and respect if we somehow got more than four new Asian/African/Austronesian civs.
So at some point I expect the devs to decide enough civs are enough, at which point that is what the alternate leader system exists for. To give them additional development options after the bulk of the development is over. If they want to throw out a couple leaders here and there for some extra cash, the devs have left themselves that option.
I think the thing we’re all a little nervous about is at what point is Firaxis/2k going to give up on Civ6. Every previous game was done at this point.
But, as Ed stated, Civ6 feels like it’s just reaching its prime. So I’m hopeful they’ve decided they can afford to release more content.
I just hope 2K appreciates that if Firaxis were permitted to release more content for this game, we would buy it!
I think the playerbase is still growing. And I think Firaxis will think twice before jumping ship yet again and leaving the playerbase fractured between V and VI and waiting another three years for VII to get good.
Personally, I love VI and its pluripotentiality. Although I expect the devs to come up short of truly filling out the map, I still retain hope that there will be another 16+ civs in the making. The platform is so robust that it would seem like such a waste to end it at 50 civs and 4 alt leaders. And frankly at this point I will pay full price for everything just to make it worth the devs while, because as far as I am concerned they are entitled to stable employment working on this thing for as long as they want. They have more than earned it.
