Wow, ok I have to say firstly that William Wallace was a Celt, and an incredible leader - even if he was only a bit Noble - and he managed to beat the English back out of Scotland, and then invade England. He is my favourite choice for a Celtic leader!Originally Posted by Shamajotsi
I'll add your other ideas to the list...
It would require work to add alt leaders, just building civ's normally is. So what? We're talking about an expansion to the game. That something requires work to do isn't a deal-breaker. They did it before, they can do it again. It's really not as dramatic as you make it out to be.
I didn't really make it overly dramatic. The leaderhead is almost all the art assets and work that goes into making a civilization (the art for the uniques is nothing in comparison, plus leaderheads also need audio recording). Besides that there's balancing, in which case making a new UA is a big deal when working with already established units. Saying the leaderhead + UA is about 2/3 the work of making a civ is a fair estimate.
Considering that there are now 34 civs in the game (a lot more than Civ IV after it's first expansion, and actually equal to BTS), and that a second expansion would add even more civs on top of that (if the same as G&K, then 9 more, so 43). My point that it is an unrealistic expectation due to the amount of work involved for even half of those 43 civs getting a second leader is a fair one.
Saying they did it before is meaningless considering how much more involved leaderheads are in V than in past games (and the fact that V just has more civs). Also, they pointed out in interviews that one of the biggest challenges in making G&K was the tremendous amount of new art assets they had to make. Finally, the work could also be directed to increasing the number of raw civs which is a bigger selling point to the average consumer than saying some old civs get a second leader.
I never said it was a deal-breaker, but again it is an unrealistic expectation.
The reason why I feel like suggesting two leaders per civ is because it really adds a whole new spin to the game, where most of the unique units aren't in the modern/future eras, but yes, the nation-selection interface would have to be reworked. Plus, it would showcase more of the nations' historical accomplishments/policies/units/governments/etc, and maybe even some dark times in history like the cold war! Example: Abe Lincoln with a unique ICBM?
If they cough up about nine more, that would probably be enough to cover the more long-lived and well-known civ's. They seem to have pulled that off in G&K, and frankly they're just about out of top-drawer civ's to draw from. If not alt leaders, then it's going to be some obscure civ's that they're pouring all this tremendous effort into. Abraham Lincoln or Paraguay. Hmm....
I really don't see what the deal is with the notion that a static figure making a few hand gestures is a huge investment of effort. Not when you look at what other games are doing. And that includes small studios.
Last edited by steveg700; 04-20-2012 at 10:35 AM.
Civ 5 vanilla
America - Washington / Abraham Lincoln
Arabia - Harun al-Rashid / Saladin, or Abu Bakr
Aztec - Montezuma I / Naunhati
China - Empress Wu Zetian / Qin Shi Huang
Egypt - Ramesses II / Cleopatra, or Hatshepsut
England - Queen Elizabeth / Queen Victoria
France - Napoleon Bonaparte / Joan of Arc, or Louis XIV, or De Gaulle
Germany - Otto von Bismarck / Frederick II
Greece - Alexander the Great / Leonidas I
India - Mahatma Gandhi / Asoka
Iroquois - Hiawatha / Logan the Orator
Japan - Oda Nobunaga / Tokugawa Ieyasu, or Meiji
Ottoman - Suleiman / Osman I, or Mehmet II
Persia - Darius I / Cyrus the Great
Rome - Augustus Caesar / Julius Caesar, or Marcus Aurelius, or Constantine the Great
Russia - Catherine the Great / Peter the Great, or Lenin
Siam - Ramkhanhaeng / Mongkut
Songhai - Askia Muhammad I / Sonni Ali
DLCs
Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar II / Belshazzar
Denmark - Harald Bluetooth / Gorm the Old, or Margarethe I
Inca - Pachacuti / Mayta Capac, or Huayna Capac
Korea - Sejong / Gwanggaeto the Great
Mongolia - Genghis Khan / Kublai Khan
Polynesia - Kamehameha the Great / Wiremu Kingi
Spain - Isabella / Charles I
G&Ks
Austria - Maria Theresia / Franz Joseph I
Byzantium - Theodora / Justinian, or Basil II
Carthage - Dido / Hannibal
Celts - Boudicca / William Wallace, or Owain Glyndŵr
Ethiopia - Haile Selassie / Menelik II
Huns - Attila the Hun / Dengizich, or Rugila
Maya - Pacal / Yohl Ik'nal
Netherlands - Willem Van Oranje / Wilhelmina, or Johan Rudolph Thorbecke
Sweden - Gustav Adolphus / Karl XII
Last edited by Hawk; 04-22-2012 at 04:50 AM.
Nice list Hawk !
A couple suggestions:
Austria - Maria Theresia / Franz Joseph I
Ethiopia - Haile Selassie / Menelik II
Huns - Attila the Hun / Bleda (the brother of Attila the Hun)
England - Queen Elizabeth / Queen Victoria - Winston Churchill as more modern British leader would also be awesome.
Germany - Otto von Bismarck / Frederick II - Charlemagne could also possibly be a potential second leader for Germany.
I'll add Franz Joseph. I already have the second Ethiopian leader, but thanx anyway!
Not sure I want the brother of Attila...Can't we at least be a bit more imaginative? It seems too close.
Never adding Winston Churchill! He wasn't as nice as people make him out to be (ask the Irish), he just happened to be on the winning side of the Second World War.
Charlemagne is cool, but I'm not quite sure yet if I'd put him down for Germany...The HRE is hanging over my shoulder every time I consider it (not that I want the HRE, I think they are entirely unnecessary now).
Well they aren't that many choices. Perhaps Dengizich the son of Attila or Rugila the predecessor of Attila.
Fixed your post.
Yeah, given that Charlemagne is claimed as a leader by both France and Germany, having him down as leader for either Civ would be odd, to say the least. He would only really work for the HRE, which, I agree, is entirely unlikely now that Austria too have been included.
And if you want a Scottish male leader for the Celts, why William Wallace and not Robert the Bruce?
Sweden - Gustav Adolphus/Karl XII
Perhaps for Denmark, Margarethe I? Or Meiji for Japan? Something different. In any case I would very much enjoy a second leaderhead for each Civ, though it seems a lot of work.
Why would you? Because Civ 4 had it? Any other reason?
Agreed, is there really any point in a second leader? We get no bonuses from the current leaders. So why waste the extra money and time that they could be using on the next Expansion to add more beloved nations like the Zulu, Thrace, and the Seleucid Empire!!!
Wouldn't William Wallace be a better leader for Scotland? When they say Celts they refer to the Celtic tribes, not more medieval nations. Correct me if I am wrong.
Not to mention, Churchill was crazy. After WWII, he wanted to start WWIII against Russia. He would have given the Germans back their weapons and told them to march to Moscow. He was promptly kicked from office, with the entirety of the British Parliament against his plan.
Because I love the leaderhead screens. Call it superficial, but there's no other reason for it. I do agree that extra leaderheads are unnecessary, and would probably just inhibit the features of another expansion, but I don't realistically see another expansion in the future, so I don't see it as any harm to want extra leaders. I also do not like Ghandi as the leader of India.
I can sort of see your point, I'm all for variety. But if you want more leaders in the game, why not just wish for my civs in general to be added? I would rather have everyone from Luxembourg to Kenya in the game, rather than extra leaders of nations we already have.
Plenty of reasons, which have been stated throughout the thread. Wanting alts for well-known civ's is certainly no less viable than wanting obscure civ's represented. Just different directions.
The alternate leader would be a vehicle for introducing alternate uniques.
Last edited by steveg700; 04-21-2012 at 04:12 AM.
There is no gameplay rationale for extra leaders. If you get the same effect with simply adding new civs, all extra leaders would do is dilute the uniqueness of each civ. The only real reason someone could have for wanting this is favoritism towards one leader over another (eg. Lincoln over Washington). And I'm not sure that's a very good reason for anything.
I'm happy to provide assurance that it is indeed a good enough reason. And aside from that, I'll contend that you won't achieve the same effect by adding a new civ, because the uniques in question are in fact unique to the civ in question. There are certainly some civ's that could serve up more unique units or buildings. That doesn't dilute a civ's distinctiveness, it reinforces it.
On the other hand, as much as some folks harp on adding certain civ's to the game, when pressed to come up with some uniques, their response more often than not amounts to "I got nothin". And then they go right back to pushing their idea anyway, as if that were just a slight wrinkle to iron out.
Well, no it isn't a good enough reason. Personal favoritism is never a good reason for someone else to change their artistic creation, ever.
As to your second point, I don't see how you get to that. How would adding more leaders reinforce uniqueness? If France = Napoleon then what France means is pretty singular. When France = Napoleon AND/OR De Gaul, now France means two very different things (2 personalities, 2 eras, etc). Mathematically, you are just wrong.
But even as it is now, most civilizations do not represent some very specific part of their history. You give France as an example - well, look at them: their UA is called "Ancien Régime", their UU's are Musketeers and the Foreign Legion, and their leader is Napoleon. You can barely find a point in time when any two of those four "concepts" overlap. So what difference would the addition of, say, Jean of Ark or Charles de Gaule do? Nothing more than slightly stretching the historical period the France Civ will encompass in the game.
Where is the financial rationale for this? Because there are two ways this could be done - DLC or a patch. Now I can't see anyone, even the most diehard civ fan, paying for a few more pretty pictures. If it's in a patch, it's pointless. The devs have just spent a few thousand dollars for absolutely no return on their investment. This is not good business practice.
"Artistic creation"? What are you going on about? This game is a product for mass consumption, not someone's personal act of self-expression.
Alternate leaders simply add another venue for expanding the game.
Indeed. Many civ's have different "snapshots" that can be captured from their history. Alternate leaders are simply a reflection of that.
I can't speak for anyone else, but like I said, alt leaders would be a vehicle for new uniques. Essentially, with over thirty civ's, it becomes practical to introduce alternate leaders as another venue for injecting content.
You're not wrong, but given that the Celts in G&K have Edinburgh as their capital, it seems unlikely that a Scotland Civ is ever going to be added. I think the Celts are supposed to represent not just the Ancient/Classical Era tribes but also the medieval/modern nations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Regardless of whether you are talking about a pan-Celtic Civ or the just the Scots on their own, I don't think there's a valid argument for including William Wallace when you have alternatives like Robert the Bruce. There currently aren't any Civs that have a leader who wasn't the political leader of their nation (unlike Wallace, who was an entirely military figure who didn't actually lead the country's government at any point - not to mention the fact that he was executed horribly by the English). So I don't see why an exception should be made in this case when medieval Scotland has plenty of strong kings to choose from: Robert the Bruce and David I being two examples I can think of off the top of my head.
In terms of choosing an alternative leader from another Celtic nation, Owain Glyndŵr would be a good choice.
Please not another viking for Denmark. A better sugestion would be either Queen Margrethe I or perhaps Christian IV, albeit the latter's succes as a king was far less than his succes as building entrepreneur, for which much of his fame can be contributed.
Because I like to see leaders that I recognise. Start adding obscure or minor civs and their leaders don't inspire any sort of mystique.
Also, I'm not particularly interested in every single nation in the world. I don't care so much for diversity when it must grasp at straws. Having too many civs I might start to lose contact with the nations I have a fondness for, unless I predetermine all the civs I am going to meet before every game, and then it becomes tedious. Simply put, there are specific civs I like to play and to play against, beyond the reasons of gameplay mechanics. Too many civs would be cluttersome for me, and would just get in the way, because I'd likely never play them on principle, or because I prefer other civs far too much. Be that as it may, there are a lot of people who would rather more civs over leaders. If there was a choice to be made, it should be that these people should be satisfied. They are the ones who respect the game as a game, after all.
I do agree that more leaders wouldn't be a good thing for the gameplay, however. It would take away the feel of each civ as its own, and the game would just end up like CIV, where civs tend to feel the same. Too many civs might have the same effect, however, depending upon the creativity of the design team. Just because some civs have less than agreeable unique attributes, doesn't make the system as it stands inherently bad.
Considering the fact that many of these new civs would come by dlc,you can always have a choice of skipping them . In my case,I didn't like Korea,because of their UA,so I decided to skip them . And the only thing that would change with the second leader is the graphic of the background and the person who represents the nation . I don't think it would change the UA,because usually the Unique Ability of the civ is connected with the whole history of the nation,not with the history of the leader(there are few exceptions here,like Alexander from Greece);
New leaders wouldn't necessarily affect UAs, but there is an argument that new leaders would bring either new UAs, or additional benefits to a UA. If this were not the case new leaders would be purposeless, from a gaming perspective, and thus very unlikely.
Don't think of it as the ability stemming from the leader then, rather think of it as different interpretation of the civ.
The whole idea is being treated as far more tricky than it really is. It's basically just two mutually-exclusive civ's.
So, getting an alt leader for France doesn't just mean a different leaderhead, it means getting corsairs or dragoons or cavaliers or cuirassiers or grenadiers.
Last edited by steveg700; 04-21-2012 at 06:36 PM.
I'd love this idea. It would allow for a more modern Russia/China/India/etc. if they incorporated this through a second leader, all the better.
Hawk, Sweden-Gustavus. And can you change Peter to either Lenin or Stalin? What's the point of having a second tsar who's famous for the same thing as the one we have, expanding territory and trying to modernize? If you're adding a second leader it should be to represent an aspect of the civ that currently doesn't get enough attention. Thus the modern side, Lenin or Stalin. Or for England Churchill.
And Stalin didn't try to expand territory and modernise? Putin should be Russia's modern leader, but Lenin, though treacherous, would also be a good choice.
Also, why not Arthur Wellesley for England, as Churchill's obviously a no-go? Not that I'm not fine with Queen Victoria, but a Prime Minister would represent the modern side of the civ.
/friends off.
And Stalin isn't really comparable to Catherine/Peter. My obvious bias aside, the latter two are tsarist monarchs who inherited/married the throne and had a completely easy life. Russia does not like this. Russia hates these people. As opposed to Stalin, completely disliked by everyone, fight bite and fright his way through life, out manoeuvre and out compete Trotsky to become #1.
Also, Catherine/Peter are from the same era, would have the same UX's, and would still have my disdain. Lenin is a God among men, from the modern era, representing a completely different Russia.
The only relevant point is that Peter and Catherine would offer the same unique attributes. The game doesn't serve to validate the success or failure of the Monarchical or the Soviet governments. And God is a subjective concept, so Lenin's venerability is of little relevance to an American product. Washington toyed with the concept of Apotheosis himself.
/friends off.
And Stalin isn't really comparable to Catherine/Peter. My obvious bias aside, the latter two are tsarist monarchs who inherited/married the throne and had a completely easy life. Russia does not like this. Russia hates these people. As opposed to Stalin, completely disliked by everyone, fight bite and fright his way through life, out manoeuvre and out compete Trotsky to become #1.
Also, Catherine/Peter are from the same era, would have the same UX's, and would still have my disdain. Lenin is a God among men, from the modern era, representing a completely different Russia.
Your defence of Stalin is admirable, I'll say. A problem, IMO, with the West is that nobody accepts their place - generally speaking, of course - which I suppose is a symptom of Capitalism. Plus, Stalin had a great moustache. If it were up to me, I would have had Peter the Great instead of Catherine, and Stalin as an alternative. The former liked dwarves, and the latter liked Tarzan.
I'm sorry if my view of Lenin offended you. There are times when treachery is validated, so I meant that it be taken subjectively.
I won't be adding Stalin or Churchill to the list at all. The developers are well aware of these leaders anyway, and can always add them if they wish. If you wish to make a case for them you can, but they still are not going on the list.
At least I feel a bit better about these choices. Which would be the more ideal option though?
-We already have Caesar, don't we? Unless we are talking about different people, I just tried to win the Alexander achievement against him (and failed ;( ). How about Trajan? Under his rule, the Roman Empire reached its widest spread across the world, and the UA that the Romans have currently suits him better than Caesar, as far as I know.
-I am not sure whether Cleopatra is really worthy to be a leader. I am not good with history, but I am not sure what her merits are, besides being the last and probably the most famous pharaoh of Egypt. Maybe Hatshepsut?
Just saying although Trajan did indeed reign while the roman empire was at its greatest extent, the reason it was so large at that point was because of the efforts of previous emperors, of whom Julius Caesar is the most famous and greatest (trust me on this I spent 5 years addicted to studying the Roman empire and it's history) Thus he is the logical choice for a second leader ( not to mention he makes many appearances in previous Civs)
And with Hatshepsut vs Cleopatra I must again say that Cleopatra is the most widely known and admired, plus Hatsheputs only real claim to fame was the re-in statement of trade relations with other nations, so it only seems logical that Cleopatra would be the second leader for Egypt.
Of course all of this is simply academic if 2K decides not to put other leaders in the game in a new expansion or Civ VI ;D
Oh woops thought that was a quote at the top it was quoting Hawk I think.... Way back on the first page
Nice list. I, for one, would welcome the additions of new leaders for existing civs and would prefer them over obscure new civs. I think new leaders are a perfect way to give a slightly different flavour, both in UA and in personality, to existing civs and I think popular leaders might sell better (if combined with scenarios) than new civs besides the popular one (Zulus, Portugal).
I don't know if every civilization would need a second leader, though if they managed to pull that off, I would very much like it. But I think large or well-known civs should have some higher priority (France/Germany/Rome/China/Arabia etc).
And just my personal dislike of monarchies in the modern era kicking in: I would never choose Wilhelmina as a second leader for the Netherlands. There are better options I think. The Netherlands isn't really a high priority civ to begin with, but if I had to choose I would go for Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Maurice of Nassau or to get out of the Revolt/Golden Age period Thorbecke with this last one being a personal favorite for me. But again, the Netherlands probably won't see a second leader being added, even if they would start adding them to other civs.
Last edited by Lopendhoofd; 04-22-2012 at 04:55 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote