Well, that is true LzPrst, and I am not arguing against that premise at all.
But the reason we added extra leaders (at least initially) was to give civs with one leader a second leader. The purpose to do that was to give them different traits so people would select civs for diplogames that normally don't get chosen (Zulu for example). That wast the original purpose behind it. So a lot of the third and fourth leaders you are seeing were just added for fun. Which is why for civs that originally had one leader (like Spain) will have another leader whose traits may not necessarily fit them historically (or would be better suited with different traits). They aren't all going to be historically accurate is the point.
But the reason we added extra leaders (at least initially) was to give civs with one leader a second leader. The purpose to do that was to give them different traits so people would select civs for diplogames that normally don't get chosen (Zulu for example). That wast the original purpose behind it. So a lot of the third and fourth leaders you are seeing were just added for fun. Which is why for civs that originally had one leader (like Spain) will have another leader whose traits may not necessarily fit them historically (or would be better suited with different traits). They aren't all going to be historically accurate is the point.
Comment