This dicussion will consider the following, to make the game more interesting.

Should we allow citizen named units creating a Great Leader to let the citizen naming the unit decide what the Great Leader should be used for?

This will allow the individual citizens to get their say in case their pet unit strikes a legendary blow in a battle, and is as fair as any, as the RNG gods favor is the only thing that counts. Again, the new naming laws has deprived the average citizen (now numbering 69, still rising) the right to name cities, as in practicality
13 cities are pre booked by elects each term. Given the 35 elected citizens throughtout DGV, and adding two more ranks DG6, we would see that virtually no citizens past City 40 (all of which will be heavily corrupted) would get their named city. I hope there is some support for this.

One problem is that the citizen does not respond to this right, then we could have a rule saying they got 48 hours to decide, and then let it be a External Consul and/or Commander decision to spend that Military Great Leader.

I stand nothing to gain on this personally, but this would add a new dimension to the use of named and adopted military units by citizens.

Let the RNG gods and citizens be heard!

I would be opposed to any move to assign via lottery the responsibility for in-game decisions of any variety. It flies in the face of the democratic principles on which this game is founded.

In theory, this runs counter to the idea of strategic planning. The use of any potential great leader would already be planned and would not need to stop a turn set.

The change I would like to see in regards to Military Units is to reverse the elitism. Use the Citizen registry in Reverse order. This would allow the newest citizens to get "their" units right away and may help foster participation in the game.

I also think that we should name Workers. We should name settlers using the same order as the City Name list.

I'm totally against the idea as well. Naming units is fine, but leaving decisions that are so important to random unelected citizens is crazy. :crazyeye:

Great leaders are rare enough that their use must be very carefully evaluated.

Well, we should reinvestigate the City Naming once again, too many positions will exclude
good citizens signing up late. With regards to elitism, military units is not the issue, we will produce 100s of units throughout the game, so reversing military units does not make sense at all, especially as city registry is a running process.

However, on a scarcity good as city names, we need to rediscuss and repoll a new City Naming Law, that allows all citizens to be covered.

Settlers should not be renamed anything but name of the city the settler should found.
Workers should be named according to working group, as invented by SD3.

I brought up the great leader debate in order to provoke a debate to the advantage to the citizens. If the great leader is public domain, maybe some honoration of the citizen unit could be in place, possibly a governorship or a mayorship ?

By the way, that is a gap in our legislation what do with Great Leaders.
I suggest we let the Domestic Consul carry that debate and polling.

Perhaps we should have a poll to agree what we should do with the Military Leader once we obtained it. Here are a couple of options.

1. Make an Army so that we can build heroic epic and get more leaders.
2. Help quick build small wonders. (Conquest limits military leader to quick build anything but Great Wonders.)

One compromise could be to the patron citizen of the Military Leader to name the Army or to decide which city to rush the wonder in.

Great Leader's are a national resource, and should be utilized as such - through a full discussion run by the President over how we should use the Leader. All aspects of the use of the GL should be covered by this discussion.

-- Ravensfire

Using a GL is a major decision, which should be discussed and polled.

BTW, I discovered last night that having one SGL does not stop the RNG from giving another SGL. I had two simultaneously.

GLs belong to the public, not just one person. It needs to be discussed and polled.

Great Leaders are such a rare and important resource that their use should be a national decision.

I do applaud the sentiment of elevating the citizens, but I am still an advocate of getting the citizens the most information possible in the forums leading to good discussions as the most effective way of accomplishing that.

As far as the city naming goes, regardless of victory condition there will have to be some "additions" made to territory beyond the original level of expansion and settling, and you can rename cities, right? So I doubt we'd run out of cities for elected officials, even if they might not get cities named until a term or two afterwards. And as I've said before, there are some things that are best left to decide after we see the start position and know what civ we'll be playing.

As far as the proposed leader decision goes, this is almost going as far as to say that if a citizen's named unit dies, they'd have to be out of action until a new unit could be created/named, or something to that extent--basically unneccesarily tying the person's unit to their forum alias.

And I'm not entirely familiar with how Leaders work in Conquests, but can't you only use a military-born leader to make an army?

I'm totally against the idea as well. Naming units is fine, but leaving decisions that are so important to random unelected citizens is crazy. :crazyeye:

Great leaders are rare enough that their use must be very carefully evaluated.

Usually they are rare, but the demogame has had a long past of getting 5-7 Great leaders per game.

In Conquest, there are two types of Great Leaders. Military Leaders which can create an army and Science Leader that can start an Age of Discovery. Science Leaders are gained if we research a tech and obtain it first before anyone else for the first time. That can happen anytime in the game.

So, if Military Leaders can only create armies, what exactly is there to decide to do, exactly?

Military leaders can also rush small wonders (FP for example) and improvements.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. (I have a LOT of stuff to learn about Conquests in the next week.)

Science Leader that can start an Age of Discovery.
They can also do something that actually does something, they can rush great wonders.

The Age of Discovery actually doesn't do anything that I can detect.

The Age of Discovery actually doesn't do anything that I can detect.

It increases your research rate, pretty useless in the earlier stages of the game, but later on it can make a huge differance.

Do the Age of Discovery in the Modern Age is HUGE while in the Ancient Age it only gives maybe 2 or 3 turns advantage.

Also I suggest using the Science Leader on Wonders that do not expire...

As a modification to the original suggestion, how about this:
A citizen whose unit produces a great leader is given the honour of naming the next city, or renaming the currently/next captured city, or given such honourary rights as a gesture of appreciation. In effect, the game as such would not be affected, but there would be some appreciation for being the 'general' of the unit.
While we're at it: do citizens have any say where their unit is to be stationed/used? With certain limitations, this could be possible (e.g. if your unit is defensive, move the guy to your home city, replacing another unit there). This would probably be limited to specifying the home city, so that if it doesn't interfere with the National Plan, the unit would garrison the citizen's home city.

Indeed.

We should give a unique privilege to the citizen with the Great Leader unit, such as deciding where to rush the Wonder, but allowing the nation do discuss and poll what.
Well, this is a lottery of sorts, but remember, this is not a professional sport, but a game where we are to have fun, and not to present ourselves as some legal wizards mocking the entertainment crowd as inept and so on.

Provolution,
MGL's cannot rush Great Wonders. Most Small Wonders have practical limits on where they should be placed. The MGL's are really almost earmarked in this way to building first an Army and the laters any available Small Wonder or another Army.

Yeah true, so we rename the Armies after the citizen, and when it is question about small wonders, the citizen get to chose where.

I have no problem with a random citizen getting to name an army. But placement of a wonder can be almost as important as which wonder to build. I think all aspects of wonder building/rushing need to be discussed.

or we can allow that citizen to lead the discussions and polls. That would be fair enough.
We need a way to let citizens be involved in the government more.

ok, what about this.

Military Leader created by a unit.

Army creation: Army named after Military Hero Units Citizen Owner
Army created based on the selection of three units chosen by the Hero Citizen.
Hero Citizen bestowed a noble title and a Mayorship in one of the Core Province cities.
Hero citizen allowed to rename a major geographical feature outside a province
Hero Citizen receving an Honor commendation thread made by the President


Minor Wonder or Great Wonder rush, discussions to be lead and polled by Hero Citizen
otherwise, same as Army.

lol sorry democrats, since I got first post in the Citizen registry, our first warrior will be called "George Dubyah Bush" :lol:
it just occured to me that i would name the first unit...