Second Leader DLC/Update?

[Bergerperson]

So I know this is bugging a lot of people, but is there going to be a second leader DLC or update soon? I find it very odd that the civilization's unique abilities are linked to the leader, not the civilization. One of my main convincing arguments is that in the advanced setup screen for making games, sleeking a leader has the leader name, then the civilization.

So do you guys think there will be a Victoria's England or De Gaulle's France, or a Kaiser's Germany update?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Nope.

Not unless it's going to be part of Civ 6.

However, an update is bound to be coming but there's been no news other than bizarre PR activity among Civ 5.

Reason why there'll be no alternate leaders is strictly because of the fact that Leaderscreens are probably the most expensive component in the game, it involves not only the rigging, animations, texturing, detail but also the voice acting everything else.

 

[soldier2975]

Nope.

Not unless it's going to be part of Civ 6.

However, an update is bound to be coming but there's been no news other than bizarre PR activity among Civ 5.

Reason why there'll be no alternate leaders is strictly because of the fact that Leaderscreens are probably the most expensive component in the game, it involves not only the rigging, animations, texturing, detail but also the voice acting everything else.

I'm sure we would have hated leader screens a lot more if we knew what we would be missing out because of it.

 

[Camikaze]

According to some interview in the run-up to BNW (IIRC), the production of leaderheads now is much more streamlined than it was when they started development. So the idea of one leader per civ was created in an environment in which there were many more constraints on the number of leaders that could be produced. But that was a design decision and it seems doubtful that they'd depart from it. If more resources were to be devoted to more DLC, it'd likely be completely new civs, rather than new leaders for existing civs.

 

[Teproc]

It's not going to happen.

Honestly I'd rather have more civs than more leaders. Both would be nice, but civs take priority for me.

 

[Bergerperson]

Aren't they one in the same, different civilizations and different leaders? Unique abilities and units are based on leaders, as are game tactics.

We know Boudicca is a religious extremist when it comes to her gameplay, but what if Vercingetorix would be the Celtic leader? He could possibly approach the game hostile, caring about conquest more than religion. It would be an entirely different game to the players if this happened. Different civilizations only mean different strategies when it comes to the game, adding more angles to the player.

Here's another one, we know Gandhi has nuclear wet dreams. Say we change the Indian leader to a Mogul Emperor or Sikh King, they may be more culture instead of hostile. Again, changing the dynamics of the game itself.

 

[Teproc]

Well, different leaders don't mean different UUs and UAs. Even if they do, a new civ means that as well + different color, different cities, different feel overall. I'd rather have an additional civ everytime.

 

[Camikaze]

UAs are based on leaders, but UUs on civs, so introducing a new leader would create balance issues; the UA would have to be precisely the same strength of the other leader's UA.

 

[joncnunn]

Not unless it's going to be part of Civ 6.

However, an update is bound to be coming but there's been no news other than bizarre PR activity among Civ 5.

That's one interp, but the most natural interp of debate by developers dealing with founding a city in place vs moving and founding the next turn is debate over should the SMAC option of either having the headquarters (read capital) already founded in place when you load the first save be brought back; which appears to be more of something for Civ VI.

I suppose they could do something weird like have a DLC whose civ has a UU replacement for the Settler with the ignore terrain promotion. (Giving that civ the ability to move by 1 tile onto rough terrain and still be able to found the same turn) it would also give a significant time savings to the other settlers it builds reaching their destinations.

 

[Tinker]

UAs are based on leaders, but UUs on civs, so introducing a new leader would create balance issues; the UA would have to be precisely the same strength of the other leader's UA.

What? Everything is on the civ, not the leader - a few leaders happen to coincide with some uniques, but that kind of figures if they're well-chosen for their historical strengths. Pedro, William, Bismarck, Wu, Maria I and Gustavus (amongst others) have very little to do with their UA. The game isn't really designed around having multiple leaders in any way.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

What? Everything is on the civ, not the leader - a few leaders happen to coincide with some uniques, but that kind of figures if they're well-chosen for their historical strengths. Pedro, William, Bismarck, Wu, Maria I and Gustavus (amongst others) have very little to do with their UA. The game isn't really designed around having multiple leaders in any way.

He was refering to how the game handles the Traits, Leaders, and Civiliations

Unique Units, Buildigns Improvement are tied to a Civilizatino.

i.e Civilization_UnitOverride Table

Whilst Traits are attached not to the Civilization but the Leaders

i.e Leader_Traits

A lot of the code seemed to have been carried over to Civ 4 (before expansion there were a lot of unused and dormant XML references including Apostolic Palace and UN Resolutions).

Point is, Traits are used by Leaders, Unique Units are tied to Civilizations.

 

[Tinker]

Oh right, that's pretty strange - still, the bonuses don't particularly seem centred around the leaders, so suddenly having that happen is unlikely.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Actually , it's possible that the devs planned on having multiplate leaders but scraped that idea once they realised how expensive they are.

For example the Civilopedia has space for more leaders in the Civilization area.

Further more, it can also be observed that there are left over traits that are similiar to those rom previous iterations (i.e Philosophical, Financial etc.)

 

[Camikaze]

I believe Firaxis have also outright stated that the UA is generally meant to be a characteristic of the leader rather than the civ. Otherwise the leader would be nothing other than artwork. Which I suppose would be fine, but not the most inspiring design when there's only one leader per civ.

 

[Teproc]

I'm sure they've stated it, but it's not always true.

Like, what does Napoléon have to do with Paris being the City of Light ? He has done many things, and sure that includes monuments in Paris (the Arc de Triomphe for example), but I wouldn't associate Paris' cultural status with Napoléon at all. And before that, it was Ancien Régime... Napoléon is definitely not an Ancien Régime guy (that's the name that revolutionaries gave to the monarchy).

Bismarck and Furor Teutonicus... what ?

Elizabeth and Sun Never Sets, nope. That would be Victoria.

Gustavus Adolphus and Nobel Prize ? LOL, that guy was a warmonger (Thirty-Years War, rings a bell ?)

Catherine and Siberian Riches ? I mean, sure, but Ivan the Terrible is the one associated with the conquest of Siberia.

Casimir and Solidarity ? A few centuries too early I fear.

I'm sure many others are similarly nonsensical, but let's just say the leader = UA thing does not really work thematically.

 

[Sagax]

I'm sure they've stated it, but it's not always true.

Like, what does Napoléon have to do with Paris being the City of Light ? He has done many things, and sure that includes monuments in Paris (the Arc de Triomphe for example), but I wouldn't associate Paris' cultural status with Napoléon at all. And before that, it was Ancien Régime... Napoléon is definitely not an Ancien Régime guy (that's the name that revolutionaries gave to the monarchy).

Bismarck and Furor Teutonicus... what ?

Elizabeth and Sun Never Sets, nope. That would be Victoria.

Gustavus Adolphus and Nobel Prize ? LOL, that guy was a warmonger (Thirty-Years War, rings a bell ?)

Catherine and Siberian Riches ? I mean, sure, but Ivan the Terrible is the one associated with the conquest of Siberia.

Casimir and Solidarity ? A few centuries too early I fear.

I'm sure many others are similarly nonsensical, but let's just say the leader = UA thing does not really work thematically.

Agreed. My two cents: Wu Zetian and Art of War makes no sense. Also Polynesia's wayfinding has nothing to do with Kamehameha, and Babylon's Ingenuity is just a stretch.

I don't think new leaders will be added in Civ5 - the game pretty much seems complete despite all its flaws, and something like "2 leaders per civ" would be like new mechanics suitable for a new game. Maybe Civ6? But then they better let those leader+UA combos make sense.

 

[joncnunn]

I'm sure they've stated it, but it's not always true.

Like, what does Napoléon have to do with Paris being the City of Light ? He has done many things, and sure that includes monuments in Paris (the Arc de Triomphe for example), but I wouldn't associate Paris' cultural status with Napoléon at all. And before that, it was Ancien Régime... Napoléon is definitely not an Ancien Régime guy (that's the name that revolutionaries gave to the monarchy).

Napoleon's relation to their UA was clear in Vanilla and BNW. Remember the quote for discovering Steam Power in both Civ IV & Civ V and who it is from; and what tech it is that caused your UA to STOP working

 

[Teproc]

Haha I didn't remember they used that quote, which is a pretty great one, I use it all the time against technophobes. Still, the words "Ancient Régime" don't make sense for Napoléon.

 

[DaNuke]

Or Dido with Phoenician Heritage...

 

[reddishrecue]

That sounds like Civ 6 already. How can I tell? Because most rumors here have shown Civilization 5 Deluxe has closed off any more work on Civ 5.