Leaders

How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.
 
How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.

But since our mod is starting in the present...wouldn't it be odd to have a "historical" playmode? I mean what events should we include that could happen? That would be more or less crystal ball gazing...no real difference to free play. Or am I misunderstanding you?
 
Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan. :lol:
 
By historical I mean things that are most definitely going to happen will happen like elections, where as in free play you just play like a regular game. So rather than a complicated democratic system we just, other than this year, randomly change leaders names and traits every four years so you have the illusion of a complicated democratic system. This will also prevent the US from doing something they won't do like become a police state (or would they :confused:).
 
chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.
 
bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.

Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan.

I have read up on everything you guys have so far and I like everything except this thread. If you don't want to alienate people I suggest leaving political bias at the door. Neither Bush nor Chavez are Imperialistic. zbelg makes my point for me.

Bush
Aggressive
Protective
He is fighting Islamic Extremism aggressively to protect the west. Some may agree or disagree if it is working but it is not an attempt to expand an empire. So Imperialistic is a poke at Bush and is not an accurate trait.

Chavez
Organized-
Protective-
He has beefed up the Venezuela military since he took office. So protective is a viable trait. Charismatic isn't a good trait for him IMO. Most of the
people in Venezuela are very poor and this number is rising. Giving him a +happy in each city just seems wrong. Organized fits him much better.

EDIT: I would change N. Korea to Agg/Imp. The only thing stopping them from invading and taking over S. Korea again is the US military.
 
Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.
 
Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.

There is so much wrong with what you just said that we would need a seperate thread to break it all down (which we can do if you want). I was simply suggesting we leave political bias and (since you've now added some) propaganda out of the creation of this game. I know people hate Bush, its easy to blame the worlds problems on one man and one country. Through this fog lets keep a since of realism. I just don't want people that would genuinely like this mod to be turned off if it takes an anti-american or anti-any other nation stance.
 
OK, these are serious accusations. :)
It's hard doing a mod that represents today's world and not getting political. Every way of looking at the world is influenced by each one's individual political preferences. I guess some North Koreans would cry out aloud if you call their leader Agg./Imp. It all depends on somebody's point of view. No-one is right or wrong. Of course you could remove all "negative sounding" leader traits from the game if you don't want anybody to be turned off. And I agree with you: Leader traits are something very subjective. Probably the most subjective aspect of the game. In vanilla this is less a problem because most times history has adjudicated on leaders of the past. But this here is especially tough because every living leader has his devotees who see something different than his opponents.
I wrote you a PM.
 
Yes there needs to be political discussion in a real time mod but that doesn't mean we have to use it as another way to vent our IBS (irritable bush syndrome). Hey I don't agree with alot of his decisions but he's doing what he thinks is right and I'll let history be the judge. As far as the Imperialistic trait there just aren't any empires in the world today so the Imperialistic trait is pretty outdated. I said N.Korea may fall under this because they are a military state and would be overtaking there neighbor if not for the US and S. Korean militaries holding down the line. As for the heated political discussion we'll have it via PM as not to clog up this thread with the normal talking points.
 
As far as Chavez I guess he would fit the Charismatic trait. He has the whole champion of the people image in Latin America. Like a new Castro but we all see how that turned out. Although there is no country that loves their leader more than N.Korea. They are of course brainwashed by the state and not just simply mislead like Chavez has done.
 
Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

But it would have been strange then cause if there's an election in for example the US and you are russia then the leaderhead won't change, or can you fix that? If so that would be awesome
 
I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.
He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.

And he is NOT Financial/Organised, otherwise this country would be in the middle of a boom and not a bust (wasn't it he who said "an end to boom and bust"...famous last words, anyone?). Knowing people who know him, Organised/Protective is more like it, Blair having been Charismatic/Aggressive. (David Cameron = Creative/Charismatic, but since I actually do know him, let me put it charitably that perhaps Creative/Stoned-half-the-time would be more like it. The time I role-played a civ game as him - well, OK, using Gilgamesh's Creative/Protective stats - it was the only single game in which I have lost the Apostolic Palace building).

I'll add my 0.02 :commerce: to the Civs thread, as the UK should be in as an independent civ. The EU is not a coherent global power, nor does it have its own army - take it from me as someone who knows these things intimately - and could not really be considered a civ. Particularly given the Treaty of Lisbon has failed, it really can't be organised into a single unit. If you are putting Kazakhstan (!) in, then the UK should be in on its own.
 
He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.
and ed balls is too loyal,the two alans too uncharismatic, the lefties dont have enough support ,and frankly, charles clarke is just lying to himself.
Okay, I get your point,but he did make his name being a successful chancellor, even though he hasnt been the best of PMs.:cool:but ok
 
My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.
 
My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

It wouldn't work. If you have the Queen as head of state for the UK, then she'd have to be the head of state for all the British Dominions/Commonwealth realms Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea which in turn would make little sense as she is the Queen of each country separately. You wouldn't be able to have the Queen of Australia declare war on herself as the Queen of Papua New Guinea.
 
And if you'd want the "Head of the State" as the leader for every country you'd have e.g. Horst Köhler for Germany instead of Angela Merkel and Giorgio Napolitano for Italy instead of Silvio Berlusconi. That would be no fun...
 
Top Bottom