Different Leader Options?

[tempshemps]

What do you guys think about the idea of having multiple options for leaders to play as for each given situation? Like being able to play as Kennedy in addition to Washington when playing America, for example. Or being able to play as Hitler when playing Germany, as an alternative to Bismarck. Or being able to play as Stalin when playing Russia, as opposed to Catharine. Or Mussolini for Italy. Or being able to select such personalities as foes.

And I realize a lot of you are going to say "Firaxis will never do that because having Hitler in the game would be too controversial." - And that may or may not be true, but adding Hitler doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my suggestion. I'm more just interested in having more variety in leaders and bonuses for Civilizations... if you know of some others that would also work, that would also make me happy... so it doesn't necessarily NEED to be someone controversial or anything. I'm just interested in having more options, and more variety in my games in terms of diplomacy personalities, and having some new faces and stuff in the game..

I kinda like this idea because when I'm playing, I often like to select appropriate Civilizations that match a certain "region" or time period... as best as possible, anyways. So, if I want to play as the Americans, I might put Civs like Britain and France in there. Or if I want to play as a Native American civ, I might include nations like Britain, France, Spain, etc... as a sort of "New World"-style game.

I think having new options to choose from for leaders could be useful to this end.. so you could choose from a selection of leaders to select ones that more appropriately match a certain time period you are interested in playing in (perhaps not perfectly, but at least giving you more options, anyways).

It could also just be nice to add more variety... different leaders to try diplomacy with... different people in your games and stuff. It might also be an interesting idea to have different leaders provide different bonuses. For example, playing as Kennedy, maybe you could get some kind of science bonus or something because of the Apollo Program. Or, if Roosevelt were added, maybe the bonus could be a production bonus from the "New Deal." And, maybe if you select Bismarck, you get some specialty relating to his time. Maybe if Hitler is selected as Germany, you get V2 rockets.

What do you guys think?

[Shiav]

Despite the very obviously biased question, yes it would be nice to see someone other than a busty ☺☺☺☺☺ running my country.

Feel free to give that a warning if you like, but its the truth.

[Veneke]

The poll options are skewed when really they don't have to be at all. Of course I'd like a few more options - do I want those options at the expense of other features? Not really. That's where the real issue lies. Dev time is limited and if it comes down between more rulers and better balancing/implementation then it's an easy answer.

I'd even prefer an attempt at better balancing/implementation over actually implementing the different rulers option.

[Martinoguy]

It's not like I can even see myself or who I am playing. The units don't even say phrases in Spanish or Latin or Russian or whatever I'm playing. I would much rather have more civs than more leaders for the same countries.

[tempshemps]

It's not like I can even see myself or who I am playing. The units don't even say phrases in Spanish or Latin or Russian or whatever I'm playing. I would much rather have more civs than more leaders for the same countries.

Having different leaders for existing countries could in many ways be similar to having additional Civs, since the bonuses to be had from different leaders would effectively add more variety. Playing the United States as Washington would have different bonuses (perhaps minutemen, and something else), while playing as FDR might provide the B17 or whatever, and playing as Kennedy might have science bonuses from the Apollo Program.

And that said, I would also agree that it would be nice to have more Civilizations as well, but that doesn't seem like it has to mean we couldn't also have more leader-options as well.

[tejon]

Shiav: is it wrong that I'm terribly curious whether the censor blocked out alliteration or assonance?

[PachaMinnie]

I hate Catherine and will never play as Russia. It feels like Catherine and Wu Zetian where forced in there, just for a more sexually equal game. I mean I think that they picked up on the lack of female leaders and forced those two into the game. Don't get me wrong they where great leaders, but it feels like there are better ones.

[tfordp]

PachaMinnie, they're just figureheads, it has nothing to do with the way Russia and China play in-game.

[PachaMinnie]

PachaMinnie, they're just figureheads, it has nothing to do with the way Russia and China play in-game.

Perhaps, perhaps. It just bugs me.

[istry555]

You're poll, and intent, are kinda biased. Just look how you worded it: it'll make things more interesting vs. playing with the same 10 people or so over and over again. More neutral phrasing, which could have been accomplished with the question and yes and no, would have yielded fairer results (as weasel words do actualy impact the outcome of a poll).

Also, while multiple leaders worked for systems such as Civ IV's traits, where you had to use all the different combinations which were not unique per civ, there's really no need for them with the UA system of Civ V. The resources spent would be better directed to just making a new civ entirely.

[porky]

I can't really vote on this as neither option really depicts my stance. (or both do?) That's my bullheaded opinion's fault, not the poster of this polls fault.

As it is right now I think the Civ Traits are SO different from each other that I can just switch up Civs and get a different play experience each time. I much prefer this system, where each CIV has a unique trait, to the old Civ IV system where each leader had 2 different traits. A lot of times you could get the same 2 traits for different leaders of different civs and playing the two civs then seemed almost identical, with the exception of each Civ's UU and/or UBs. So I am perfectly fine with this setup.

More leaders with the same exact Civ trait seems redundant and pointless to me. <sarcasm> (Yay! I can play with George or Sarah Palin but they are one in the same?!) </sarcasm> However, if the developers wanted to throw in another leader for each civ each with their OWN Trait , so you could feasibly play the same civ with two different strategies, I would be ok with that, probably would actually encourage it! Of course I don't know if all the civs COULD have 2 leaders? (When it comes to history I am pretty ignorant.) I'm thinking of someone like the Mongols, was there ever another leader of the mongols besides Genghis Khan? You could throw in Khaaaaaaaan from the Star Trek series tho I don't think that would fit real well.

So all in all I prefer this "trait" system as opposed to Civ IV's. Adding extra leaders with the same traits would be redundant, much like my summary paragraph here , but adding leaders with new traits I could see being quite awesome!

So I guess you can put me down for a Yo!

[tempshemps]

I can't really vote on this as neither option really depicts my stance. (or both do?) That's my bullheaded opinion's fault, not the poster of this polls fault.

As it is right now I think the Civ Traits are SO different from each other that I can just switch up Civs and get a different play experience each time. I much prefer this system, where each CIV has a unique trait, to the old Civ IV system where each leader had 2 different traits. A lot of times you could get the same 2 traits for different leaders of different civs and playing the two civs then seemed almost identical, with the exception of each Civ's UU and/or UBs. So I am perfectly fine with this setup.

More leaders with the same exact Civ trait seems redundant and pointless to me. <sarcasm> (Yay! I can play with George or Sarah Palin but they are one in the same?!) </sarcasm> However, if the developers wanted to throw in another leader for each civ each with their OWN Trait , so you could feasibly play the same civ with two different strategies, I would be ok with that, probably would actually encourage it!

I think that was the idea... I wasn't suggesting adding leaders solely to get someone different to talk with in the diplomacy window, although I think that's a legitimate reason as well. I think I explicitly mention in my post that each leader should have unique bonuses to bring to the table, even if they are from the same nation.

Of course I don't know if all the civs COULD have 2 leaders?

You could also just have some with more than one leader, and others with one.

[VicRatlhead51]

It'd make it a little more interesting to be able to choose from a couple leaders but I'll be honest back when they did this in Civ 4 I tended to pick a favorite from whatever civ I played so the multiple leaders didn't seem to add much in 4. America is the one I remember best because I thought FDR just had better traits so when it came down to it I pretty much always chose him. 5 might be different since the leader traits are so different rather than a combination of 2 traits from a pool shared by everyone. I'm pretty sure if I had a better UA for the Mongols or England I probably would never pick Liz or Genghis since theirs are crap.

To be honest though if they were to add new UUs or UBs I'd rather just see new Civs altogether and leave em with one apiece.

Oh BTW, Kubalai Kahn (not sure if the spelling is right) would be a good second choice for the Mongols.

[zephyrtr]

Since there are 18 Civs in Vanilla, 7 for DLC, 9 in the expansion -- making for 34 total -- it's hardly the same 10 faces. Since making animated leader screens is one of the more time-consuming parts of making a new Civ, there's kinda little incentive for them to put in so much work for such a small nugget of extra content. They may as well just make more civs.

Maybe when they've really exhausted the list of civilizations they can include in the game, they'll consider doing this for one more profit-making DLC... but it seems doubtful.

[Martinoguy]

Having different leaders for existing countries could in many ways be similar to having additional Civs, since the bonuses to be had from different leaders would effectively add more variety. Playing the United States as Washington would have different bonuses (perhaps minutemen, and something else), while playing as FDR might provide the B17 or whatever, and playing as Kennedy might have science bonuses from the Apollo Program.

And that said, I would also agree that it would be nice to have more Civilizations as well, but that doesn't seem like it has to mean we couldn't also have more leader-options as well.

Why would I want more variety in the same boring civilizations when I can have new and exciting civs also with new and exciting leaders and new and exciting units.

[istry555]

The civs in V are much more focused on a specific style of gameplay than past civilizations, with the UA, UB and UU all usually working towards that goal (civs even have start biases now). It doesn't really make sense to add a second leader just to offer a new direction for that specific civilization. If one doesn't match your play style, then choose another civilization. Yes, if you have a favorite civ and you don't like the direction it went in V, then that sucks, but that's a personal gripe and not really worth the development necessary for additional leaders (as choosing a civ with a play style you do like is only an aesthetic difference). A much easier way to address this would be to add the mix and match civs and leaders option that was in IV. The same for personalities. V already has a random personality option (though, it would be good if you could set this on a civ by civ basis instead of an all inclusive option).

[PRAILE]

I think that we shouldn't ask for more Civilizations,,
We should Ask for a scenario for each Civilization, So that we can feel the history of it, and live it's highness

[PachaMinnie]

I think that we shouldn't ask for more Civilizations,,
We should Ask for a scenario for each Civilization, So that we can feel the history of it, and live it's highness

I never even play scenarios and when I do it's only to get a brief feel for the Civ and I never finish.

[tempshemps]

I liked some of the scenarios... like Wonders of the Ancient World, and also the New World scenario.

[Shiav]

PachaMinnie, they're just figureheads, it has nothing to do with the way Russia and China play in-game.

It kind of does actually, all Russian abilities and UX's are from Catherine's era

[tempshemps]

Why would I want more variety in the same boring civilizations when I can have new and exciting civs also with new and exciting leaders and new and exciting units.

Let me quote steveg700**:

[...] this forum isn't representative of Civ gamers as a whole, and while there are plenty of people here who promote obscure civ's at every opportunity, it may well be that playing with Churchill or Lincoln or Mao is more compelling (and marketable) than playing, say, Majapahit ("Majapawho?"). Many folks may have been disappointed with the current incarnation of a civ, and would look to see another stab taken at them (I would for England, for instance). You only get a UA and two more uniques, and many civ's could offer up so much more.

**Source: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...t=majapawho%3F

[Mythdracon]

Worst comes to worst, they can always pick interesting new leaders for Civ VI, like Lady Six Sky (warrior-queen of the Mayans, who defeated two neighboring city-states), or Queen Seondeok (?), a famous ancient Korean queen. They definitely need to bring back Qin Shi Huangdi for China. Pericles for Greece (PLEASE). Maybe a modern president for the US, like FDR.

Also, they need to make Catherine appear more regal and less "candyland princess" in the next Civ.

[luciferkid]

If such idea(different leaders options) is profitable enough,then I think it'd be interesting if it come as a dlc and as the last dlc of Civ5,since this change is merely aesthetic and don't influence the UA of the civilization,who,usually,is built over the history of this civilization,rather on the leader's history .

[SlickSlicer]

They definitely need to bring back Qin Shi Huangdi for China.

No, please don't. He was one of the worst leaders in Chinese history. Mao Zedong was awful too.

[Mythdracon]

Well, who would you suggest then? Qin Shi Huangdi unified China and made many of its wonders. Yes, he was a despot, but an interesting despot.

[SirMaru]

I'd like to see an option for blank leaders and cultures where we can name our own leaders, cultures, cities and select our own specialized units.

The religion allows for this customization. It shouldn't be too hard to allow this for the AI players as well.

[stethnorun]

I'd like to see an option for blank leaders and cultures where we can name our own leaders, cultures, cities and select our own specialized units.

The religion allows for this customization. It shouldn't be too hard to allow this for the AI players as well.

"It shouldn't be too hard"???? Are you serious? So you want Firaxis to come up with fully rendered leader screens, independent of any known leaders (just generic "people") so that random things can be assigned to them? Do you realize how much art that would be?

[Arkciv]

Most defiantly MORE! There are so many interesting figure to play or play against that 30 wouldn’t even be a drop in a bucket.