Should civs have 3 leaders?

[Will9]

I think having 3 leaders is okay once all other civs have 2 leaders. I thought the original idea of having 2 leaders for 1 civ was so you wouldn't have to have the same traits every time as a certian civ. When England and Russia got a 3rd leader, I was quite angry that Firaxis wasn't focusing on giving 2 leaders to all civs.

[Jaybe]

Should some civs have leaders that are of more (or is that "less"?) than dubious quality? Should a leader be created totally from imagination, without any historical basis (applicable where historical sources are not available)?

If not, then civs should not be required to have equal number of leaders -- and I should have voted "Yes" instead of "banana".

[Alexander I]

I think the 3 leader thing works for civs with widely different aspects to represent, so for Russia, America, England, it's all good as long as it doesn't detract from the others.

I don't think every civ needs two leaders. I think it's perfectly fine for Carthage, the Aztecs, and Mali to each only have one leader. We're expecting these civs to only behave a certain way.

With others, there needs to be diversity. That's actually one thing I like about Civ4: some civs have only 1 leader, some have 3. Much better than making people up for Civ2 (Nazca, Shakala, anyone?).

[patcon]

The question is moot since BtS is going to allow you to assign any leader, thus any (allowed) combination of traits, to any civ. So you can have Mao as leader of the USA, if you wanted.

[Adagio]

IMHO it's better to have som civs with questionable leaders than to have some civs with 3 leaders and some with only 1 leader

Originally posted by patcon
The question is moot since BtS is going to allow you to assign any leader, thus any (allowed) combination of traits, to any civ. So you can have Mao as leader of the USA, if you wanted.

That doesn't change my opinion on this, as I don't want to Moa to be the leader of USA or Lincoln to be the leader of Mali

[Onagan]

instead of 3 leaders, get more civs.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Onagan
instead of 3 leaders, get more civs.

It's a much bigger design effort to add a civ than to add a second or third leaderhead to an existing civ.

It's probably closer to the mark to say, "instead of two extra leaderheads for other civs, add a new civ".

And that's where it breaks down for me... Yeah I'd love more civs. Having not all but some civs with extra leaderheads seems like a good compromise of design effort and gives us the most gameplay for the buck.

Wodan

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Adagio
IMHO it's better to have som civs with questionable leaders than to have some civs with 3 leaders and some with only 1 leader

I disagree. England has a 1000 year-old history, so has Russia. America has 250, China has 5000 years. If China has three leaders (yes, I know it doesn't), and Zululand's 70 years of existence or the Aztecs 120 (+/- a few) produce one each, that's fine with me.

[LordShiva]

India should have a third leader. We have the longest period of history between our two leaders, and nobody in between

[Will9]

I say we should take Gandhi out and replace him someone earlier.

[joncha]

Queen Victoria.

[LordShiva]

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva

How would you feel about Akbar the Great?

[dregor]

IT'S A TRAP!

Wait..

[Pinchak]

Voted no.

Some civs simply didn't have 3 noteworthy leaders (think Incas, Vikings, etc...)

I would hate to see no-name leaders in the game just to ensure all civs have 3.