GEM: Leaders

I believe each leader should fundamentally change gameplay in some interesting and unique way. This is my main goal for leader design. For example, Suleiman starts with a melee ship, and his melee ships can capture other ships. This "ship capture" theme dramatically changes Ottoman gameplay.

Here are other things I believe are important for good leader design:

• Theme
  Does the leader have a coherent theme which adds new ways of playing the game?
  .
• History
  Do the bonuses represent the most important historical points of the civilization?
  .
• Complexity
  Intricate strategies are more fun than simple ones.
  .
• Active
  Active bonuses are more exciting than passive effects.
  .
• Uniqueness
  Are the bonuses different from other things we can get in the game?
  .
• Time
  How early does the bonus appear, and how long does it last?
  .
• Generality
  Leaders should be useful for a wide variety of strategies and map types.
  .
• Ease of implementation
  Most things require either hours to complete (creating new effects) or minutes to complete (copying & tweaking existing effects).

Here are the leaders, themes, and bonuses, with ideas for ways to improve the leaders marked with bold arrows. Should we change some themes? How can we improve the leader uniques to fit their theme? What does each bonus represent from history?

I agree with mystikx21's comment in the leaders first-draft thread that the Swedish bonuses do not work well together. The unique ability favors peaceful gameplay, while the units are very conquest-focused. The Swedes cannot effectively use all their bonuses in one game. I think this civ really needs work.

Ethiopia likely needs a broad overhaul as well. What if we focus them more on tall gameplay, since their ability gives them a combat bonus against wide empires?

The Byzantine and Carthaginian unique ships should probably be redesigned or replaced. Maybe replace them with unique Harbors and/or Lighthouses? What about a workboat that can create unlimited improvements?

Ethiopia UU gives a combat bonus against wide in some sense (by having a capital-centered combat boost). I would agree they seem fine as a tall-centric play style otherwise but not very interesting in how. Defending against other people doesn't offer any bonus to being tall per se.

For Sweden I'd start with changing or removing the Hakkas. If we can create some kind of diplomatic based building/unit to complement the UA (which I think is at least interesting and potentially powerful), a march boosted infantry unit is probably fine as an outlier to any synergies elsewhere. That bonus allows Sweden to fight wars in allies territory more effectively, among other advantages. The Hakka bonus is kind of odd, not very interesting, and feels like it would generally benefit human players most of the time if and where it does add any benefit at all. Presumably the Leader AI needs to be adapted too.

Carthage having a UA that (effectively) gives naval trade routes is probably fine rather than a new UB. Possibly they could have some other naval unit advantage if we moved the trade route effect off (speed, cost, bonus attack versus kinds/eras of naval units?), or if they have such a UB, it could offer some of these effects to units built there?

Byzantines with the changes to religion are much more interesting for the UA. I'd be fine with some kind of naval UB to replace their ship though. Possibly adding city defence value or garrison strength as some options alongside (maybe) food or faith?

I like to find the biggest aspect of history overlooked for a civilization when we replace things. The unmodded England had nothing to represent their historic role as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. This is why I added the Steam Mill. I'd like to do something like that for other leaders.

We could replace the Ethiopian Mehal Sefari with a unique economic building, representing the importance of Ethiopia's position on the trade routes between South Asia and the Mediterranean. The ancient Ethiopian kingdom of Aksum was one of the most powerful civilizations in the world in 300 CE as a direct result of controlling sea trade.



Likewise, a big part of Byzantine history overlooked by the game is its dominance of trade in the region. It was a vital hub in the trade networks connecting Asia with Europe. Dromons and Greek Fire were very unique to the Byzantine period, but Cataphracts were not, so we could replace Cataphracts with something else. Perhaps a unique Market or Harbor? I'd also like to add faith income to their unique ability. The most frustrating part of playing Byzantium is the extra belief ability forces us into a very narrow strategy of going all-out with faith buildings. I don't like how much that restricts gameplay. Giving them some inherent faith will open up the civ to more flexible strategic options.

I believe the Swedish Hakka bonus (supercharged by great generals) is more interesting than the Caroleon bonus (never needs to heal). I experimented with giving march to unique units last year, and found it made warfare less fun. I think this is because removing the need to heal makes war less complex, and complexity is fun. If we look at the guidelines, the Hakka bonus is more active, complex, and unique than a free march promotion. What part of Swedish history do the current bonuses overlook? The Viking era is one obvious answer. Both Denmark and Sweden had prominent viking cultures. The Swedish vikings were the ones who likely created the nation of Kievan Rus, the first empire in what is now Russia. Sweden was one of the early nations to adopt freedom of the press in 1766, and universal public education 1842. Sweden tried to remain largely neutral through both world wars and the cold war.

The Netherlands is another civ that doesn't have a unified theme. Their bonuses affect luxury resources, marshes, and naval warfare, three unconnected parts of the game. I don't really know what to do with them.

Carthage is difficult to analyze historically because all its primary historical sources were destroyed by the Romans, so all that remains is what enemies said about them (obviously an unreliable source). So let's look at how we could improve their gameplay. I'd like to do something with their sea economy. What if we replace either UU with a unique Harbor increasing gold? I don't think any other effect in the game increases sea gold, so this would be very unique, and definitely change gameplay by making ports fantastic. A more dramatic alternative is a unique building merging the Granary and Harbor into one structure with the bonuses of both, available with Pottery. That would be rather powerful, and very unique, since no one else has a building which merges two others.

Regarding the theme for Sweden: Since Denmark/Norway is already the designated Viking civ in Civ5, I suggest we leave them out of the Sweden/Finland civ completely, if only to keep the civs thematically distinct. Two civs with viking elements might end up making them feel same-y and boring. A civs theme doesn't necesserily have to represent all of its history, right?

It does bring up the question of why Firaxis thought it would be a good idea to add an extra scandinavian civ, but as a swede I don't mind it

One theme that would fit modern prejudices of Sweden is the Welfare Civ - a peaceful builder nation that prefers to remain neutral in conflicts, putting the happiness of its citizens first. This theme somewhat fits the existing Nobel prize ability.

One crazy implementation of the welfare theme would be to make "unemployed" citizens (those that don't work any tiles and aren't specialists) cost extra food/gold, but also give extra science/culture, representing publicly funded benefits. It might be tricky to balance, as there's no upper limit on how many unemployed citizens you can have, but it would at least be a unique bonus: giving Sweden a unique specialist type that doesn't generate any GP. And it would be more interesting than a UB giving extra yields directly.


The other theme that comes to mind would of course be to embrace Gustavus Adolphus and turn Sweden into a warring great power with a religious bent. But, at least in my mind, that would make Sweden *really* uninteresting.

I've played Carthago recently and their free harbour is a really interesting and powerful bonus as it is! Please be careful about changing it.

Not only that the building is free, you also get it before even researching any sea tech. Not enough, it gives you production from sea ressources very early. It fundamentaly changes your expansion, allowing small islands others wouldn't even consider before midgame to be really interesting spots for early expansion. It's strong in the lategame, too. Since many of your cities will be coastal, the railroad bonus kicks in immediately. Not to forget, without upkeep for the H. any water trade route will result in profit, no matter how small the city is, from the first turn after founding it.

Even if you merge the harbour with an early building, making it available much earlier, there's still a difference between cheap and free. There's just so many priorities early on, you might still not build it immediately, spoiling the unique carthaginian playstile.

I'd keep it as is, but instead change the quinquereme.
IMO, even if you have loads of coastal cities, triremes/quinqueremes are just too expensive to build if you're not planning a maritime invasion. The ranged city attack gets rid of barbarian ships well enough, and at least in vanilla (*) they don't pillage your sea ressources. Again, in the beginning you're usually so focused on your opening build order, there's just no production left for secondary/tertiary priorities like coastal scouting.

What I suggest is to make Quinqueremes dirt-cheap, so you're more likely to have an early fleet. Or you could get a free quinquereme as starting unit and then again for every lighthouse you build. Or getting none at start but one for every coastal city you found before the medieval era.

About the rest, the mountain crossing is very situational and rarely of much practical use IMO, but together with the elefants it adds a lot of historical flavour, so it's probably OK. I still prefer the faster horseman personally, or your modded chariot archers if the terrain is right.






(*) I have very little time for gaming, meaning the beginning of my last game dates back to a time where GEM wasn't in a very playable state.

Carthage currently gets a free trade connection in all coastal cities. It does this with a free lighthouse (harbor and lighthouse switched names in GEM). I think the free coastal building is interesting, and intend to keep it in some form. I'm going to replace one of the UUs.

For Sweden, since the nation adopted universal education earlier than most of the world, how about a unique Public School which makes all specialists in the city more powerful? This would combine well with the Great Person focused unique ability.

Wait, Chang Sueks/Naresuan's elephants are ranged? When did this happen? I'm assuming it's an error?

Regarding Siam:


As to the G&K civs:

One crazy implementation of the welfare theme would be to make "unemployed" citizens (those that don't work any tiles and aren't specialists) cost extra food/gold, but also give extra science/culture, representing publicly funded benefits. It might be tricky to balance, as there's no upper limit on how many unemployed citizens you can have, but it would at least be a unique bonus: giving Sweden a unique specialist type that doesn't generate any GP. And it would be more interesting than a UB giving extra yields directly.

Click to expand...

Sounds interesting, but would you have it as a effect given per city by a UB? A nationwide effect with a UNW? or a replacement of the current UA? (whose name I find really weird)

Ethiopia could have the UB modified or replaced for a more tall-oriented building.

The Dutch really are a economic oriented power. The polders are great at providing both food and gold on otherwise generally useless regions (and on flood plains are simply brilliant!), although it's usually none at all or polder spam. The Beggar is a mandatory UU like most of the other civs have. The main problem IMO is the UA which is generally of limited use (although the concept is nice). It is definitely in the right direction. Maybe double luxury resources from puppets and allied city states (to increase the usefulness of the Beggars? and highlight the nature of the company) and an extra 1 happiness for each unique luxury resource?

You are right, the Siamese elephant is melee. I have not played Siam in years so I'd forgotten.

Going to throw out some random thoughts (dear god no!)

Japan- After taking a city, 1 or 2 units (randomly picks a unit that attacked the city) gain a free promotion (Elite units) and this ends at a certain age.

Mongolia- After taking a city they get a random free civilian unit (worker, workboat) this lasts up until renaissance. Maybe after conquering a CS there is a random rare chance you get a great person (not generals or admirals) and this ends sooner then the other bonus.

England- We have Longbowmen, how about a upgrade unit "Elite Longbowmen" (can't think of a good name). They lasted up until 16th century. When war is declared receive a free naval unit and (pike) melee unit. England being organized at building up its forces. Only for Medieval and Renaissance.

Won't mind seeing some of the Expansionist also ally CS on the Personalities list.

The Dutch ability was better early in development, when it kept all happiness from traded luxuries. Now it's only 50%... I think the nerf was unnecessary.

The basic difference between what I call "diplomats" and "expansionists" is the former spend money on citystates, while the latter spend it on getting extra cities. In the past I considered changing the AI so every leader attempts to ally with at least 1 citystate, somewhat blending the diplomats with expansionists. I'd still like to do that if I ever have the time.

Two thing to throw in there about leaders that might help with Conqueror civs are:

- Have them focus on tall cities that focus on food and gold. Wide empires might generate a lot more money, but it is a tactical mess to defend 12 cities as opposed to 5. Besides, if their economy grows steadily over time and everyone they destroy is crippled or nonexistent, who's winning? Food is there to get a scientific lead, which is practical - if you're bringing swords to a stick fight...

- Conquerors ought to raze every city they take other than capitals. That might sound crazy, but the bottom line is if you take every city you siege you're going to be deluged by unhappiness, which puts a cap on your empire's long term success. Once happiness starts to get large on surplus, they can expand further out and found city number 6 and 7 on the ashes of the former neighbors or city-states nearby.

- Religion ought to be very important to Conquerors and to be specialized for military power. They want to spread their faith and use the bonus against fellow believers to crush resistance while almost instantly healing at their own cities. Have them demand tribute from every city-state they can or conquer them.

If these are implemented for them, then the AI will be smarter in trying to get a Domination Victory. Land area is not part of the victory conditions for Domination, so for gameplay purposes that would make sense for the civ in question to operate like that.

I'm not sure if it's what I think it is, but from what I'm guessing is in the XML, civs can reconsider their Grand Strategies. If so, they could use this setup to wipe out their enemies, then switch to settling, building Wonders, etc.

It's weird how genocide makes people happy in Civ 5. Capture a city, slaughter the inhabitants, and everyone gets happier... even the city we're massacring. It's the part of Civ 5 which breaks suspension of disbelief most for me. I'd like to change it when I figure out how. Killing population should obviously piss off the world with an accumulating diplomatic penalty, especially the leader whose former citizens we're massacring. Most of the diplomatic stuff is in the game core I'm unfamiliar with...

It's actually possible to make domination victory require a percentage of land area. Each city also increases our final score, so I almost always keep cities I capture. I can understand how it might help the AI, however.

Yeah a huge diplomatic penalty would certainly be appropriate for that much carnage.

There's another idea for that - if Conquerors prioritized happiness the most then they would, at least theoretically, make their conquests more sustainable. Like emphasizing happiness about three times higher than the other flavors.

That way every city they have would be purchasing or building if they have production a courthouse, colosseum, theatre, etc. as soon as possible and not have them swimming in fail lol

Conquerer AIs currently currently place high value on science, espionage, and religion, and low value on culture.

However, I once tried making a tall-conqueror AI (higher growth than expansion). It stagnated with 2 capital cities and a dozen units. Capitals can't be razed, and the AI is not programmed to use "avoid growth" in advance of future conquests. It grows the capitals, runs out of happiness, and gets stuck...

When I played with making expansion and growth equal and lower than happiness, the AI was making really good decisions about expansion.

The scenario you describe happened with Germany for a little while, but then after they started building Colosseums and Circus Maximus, they expanded a fair distance away on luxury resources and starting expanding like crazy after they puppeted out a couple of Russia's cities.

I'd be willing to try that out with coalition-builders (ally CS, attack civs). They are designed more tall-empire than conquerors (attack CS, attack civs).

Thalassicus said:

It's weird how genocide makes people happy in Civ 5. Capture a city, slaughter the inhabitants, and everyone gets happier... even the city we're massacring. It's the part of Civ 5 which breaks suspension of disbelief most for me.

Click to expand...

How I deal with it is I change the word happiness in my mind to "stability". Then it makes sense

Hmm... that's an interesting idea... I could replace the word everywhere in the files?

Unless we give the Byzantines a faith assault system they would probably benefit from being coalitional (religious CS)?. I would swap them and Carthage.