Second Leaders? The Final Solution

[Virdrago]

I voted for Japan, Incas, Ottomans, and Greeks.

Incas - Pachacuti is considered the Alexander of the Americas (too Warlords-like?)

The other three would bring more trading and building to their civs, and less warmongering:

Japan - Meiji
Ottomans - Suleiman (left out of both Civ3 and 4?)
Greeks - Pericles

I could see the Arabs (Abu Bakr) and Persians (Darius I) with a second leader, though.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Xorbon
I'm pretty sure the leaders listed were just examples. The question on the poll says: "Which Civs TRULY need a 2nd Leader?", not "Which leaders should be in the game?"

Alright then, the option for "None of these Civs TRULY needs a 2nd Leader," a.k.a. "Banana Civ," was missing.

[CarnalCanaan]

I'm glad to see Meiji is getting well voted.

The Japanese need a not-so-militaristic representative like they did for the Germans.

[padillah]

Originally posted by LordShiva Alright then, the option for "None of these Civs TRULY needs a 2nd Leader," a.k.a. "Banana Civ," was missing.

He's right, you know? A "None" would truely give a look at how many feel leaders are done to death.

Thanks... we appreciate the effort... we love what you've done so far... but you can stop now.

More expansive game mechanics (like the "Vassel State" thing) would be great for the next XP. Maybe find a way to deal with spies. more UU's and UB's.

But I could do without more leaders.
Tom P.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Alright then, the option for "None of these Civs TRULY needs a 2nd Leader," a.k.a. "Banana Civ," was missing.

Now that's a legitimate complaint!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Xorbon

I'm pretty sure the leaders listed were just examples. The question on the poll says: "Which Civs TRULY need a 2nd Leader?", not "Which leaders should be in the game?"

Indeed you are correct. I provided examples so that people unfamiliar with certain civs might have options to consider/look up on wikipedia.

As this thread is "the final solution" to get consensus to avoid leader spam and to reduce the bulk of my Omega thread, I avoided the familiar "banana" option in order to reduce spamming and to only provide viable options.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by padillah
more UU's and UB's.
But I could do without more leaders.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but how do you have more UUs and UBs without new civs???

[Martinus]

If I were to choose one, then it's definitely Pericles for Greeks - Alexander may be one of the greatest conquerors of all time, but he does not really capture the true "spirit" of ancient Greece and actually represents its decline.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by padillah

He's right, you know? A "None" would truely give a look at how many feel leaders are done to death.
Thanks... we appreciate the effort... we love what you've done so far... but you can stop now.
But I could do without more leaders.
Tom P.

My purpose in making this thread was to simply collect data to find out once and for all which civs fans would prefer to have a 2nd leader out of all the civs we have so far.

Since I'm already aware that several people don't like leaders, I didn't feel I needed to find out again. That was not the purpose of this thread. My point was simply to resolve the issue -- "the final solution."

By finding out a consensus, hopefully further discussion on which out of the civs really deserve a 2nd leader will now be moot. And if any further discussion does arise, you can link them here instead.

Respectfully,
Alexander

[Adagio]

IMHO all civs with only one leader needs a second leader, personally I don't care about which leader they get, they just need a second leader

Originally posted by LordShiva
Alright then, the option for "None of these Civs TRULY needs a 2nd Leader," a.k.a. "Banana Civ," was missing.

[johnmcd]

More UU and UBs through giving each civ a couple maybe, a modern unit and an ancient unit? Or throw in some general ones which are the preserve of the first person to research the tech - first person to Priesthood gets warrior monks, first person to Militrary Tradition gets lancers as well as cavalry. Or make the more modern units specific to a civilisation and let the ancient ones be given out by goodie huts.

[One_more_turn]

Persians definitely need a second leader. Their civilizations had multiple boom and bust cycles, and each boom cycle generated someone worth mentioning.

Arabs could use OBL as a leader. - Just kidding.
But the Caliph who beat up the Byzantine and the Sassanian Empires deserves to make an appearance.

Japan's Meiji is a good candidate too.


But I think Philip II sucked big times: he had the mightiest fleet in the world annihilated by a bunch of terrorists.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by johnmcd
first person to Militrary Tradition gets lancers

First person to "Spam" gets Lancer.

[monkspider]

More leaders and Civs

[padillah]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Maybe I'm missing your point, but how do you have more UUs and UBs without new civs???

Thanks johnmcd, and here's even more examples. They may not be perfect but they're just examples.

UU's and UB's don't have to be attached to a civ, they could be attached to a technology... or to each other (if the Romans build a Delphic Oracle they can then build Trojan Swordsman).

Or what about Unique Civics? First person to Feudalism gets a refined type of Vassalage. Or start combining things: If you are running Police State and Nationhood the units you draft will have +2XP...

There are hundreds of ways to add game mechanics without adding Civs. Add technologies and make them dependent on the tech. Add civics and make them dependent on the civic (can you imagine the implications of only being able to produce Praets under Vassalage?).

More game mechanics, not more civs. That's the path to replayability.

Tom P.