Should civs have 3 leaders?

[Onagan]

I did prefer to have a second Spanish and Japanese leader instead of Lincoln and De Gaulle

[Targonis]

In some cases, it might be due to a lack of historical information about a number of civs. If a civ never became a huge influence due to whatever reason, then whatever great leaders there may have been may very well have been lost to time.

Going forward 5000 years from now, it's possible that all records of current times will have been lost. If that is the case, even the current leaders in the game may end up being forgotten. This doesn't mean the civs of today would have been forgotten about, but the details may very well fade away. Cultures also shift a LOT over time, nations rise and fall, and with them the actions of their leaders. It may be that the USA will eventually fall apart(ok, I just opened a can of worms), and figures like George Washington and Abe Lincoln will eventually be forgotten about. The culture of the people could in theory live on, but the leaders will lose their importance.

So, looking at civs that only have one leader in Civ 4, it stands to reason that without a lot of different leaders with different leadership styles, there wouldn't be a reason to select one over another. There are many leaders from every nation out there that really never stood out, and as a result, never distinguished themselves as being anything different than other leaders. A dictator in a long line of dictators does NOT warrant his/her own leader-head in a game like Civilization unless he/she really changed the government and got wide-scale support of the people in doing so.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by joncha
Queen Victoria.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd like for most civs to have 2 leaders (as long as we have no BS leaders) and I'm happy with some civs having 3.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander I


How would you feel about Akbar the Great?

That would make sense.

[Xan9BHAAL]

Originally posted by 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.

Just to comment on the Vikings problem: IF Firaxis had made it the Scandinavians, 3 or even more leaders could be implemented without problems, as there could have been drawn lines all up to, (at least) the 17th century, and still have influental leaders of that civilisation. As we stick to Vikings, I would suggest Canute the Great, which in fact conquered much of England in the years around 1015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_the_Great

[Robert]

I don't see the problem that some civs have 1 leader and some have 4. It never bothered me at all.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by dregor
IT'S A TRAP!

[Croup]

As has been said before, I have no problem with Civs only having one leader if there aren't any other obvious choices.

However, I have a slight problem with France and America being given a 3rd leader each when Civs like Japan, who have plenty of other valid choices, are only left with their one option as leader.

[DanQ]

I voted "Once all civs have 2 leaders".