Multi-Leader Civilizations

[snarzberry]

If additional leaders are released for existent Civs, like Winston Churchill for England or Peter the Great for Russia etc, then how will the Unique Ability/Unit system allow for this to happen in a meaningful way?

Would the new leader have to have a new unique ability or a new unique unit of their own? The set-up we have for civ 5 is different to 4 so it will be a little strange as the UA/U's in the first generation have been tailored to represent the 'civilization' and not the specific individual leader.

That being said, I think it would be cool if, for example, Churchill was released as an alternate leader for England but instead of the Ship of the Line he gets the Spitfire or something relevant like that. But what about UA's?

Or does this iteration of Civ spell the end of multiple leaders for civilizations in the vanilla version?

[joshinda]

I think that's an awesome idea - loads of countries have experienced vastly different rulers and regimes. I reckon each leader should have a unique ability and each civ should have a selection of UU/UB, 2 of which can be chosen before the game.

[kamex]

This another one of my Civ v hates. Civ IV offered much more variety in regards to AI personalities and graphics (instead of being sick of the same old faces and voices).

To be honest, if theres only one leader per civ, whats the point of having a leader at all. Instead of calling a player Washington, just call it America

[Louis XXIV]

Civs 1 and 3 had one leader each and they were fine. Civ2 added a second leader, but it was to have gender equality and they frequently flat out made up leaders. Civ4 was the only one who used multiple leaders effectively. Essentially, for most of Civilization, leaders are to give personality to interactions and that's about it.

Anyway, Civ5's system is poorly set up for multiple leaders. UUs, UBs, UIs, and UAs are all tailored to the Civ, not to the leader. The biggest differences could be personality, but that's hardly worth the investment for.

Personally, I'd encourage modding alternate leaders for Civs for those who are interested, but I would prefer Firaxis work on other things.

[Thander]

I think the UA is really the thing that defines the Civ. New leaders could have their own UBs and UUs that still fit within the theme of that civ. I'm sure most cultures have more than one UB and UU historically that could be added with a new leader.

[Lyoncet]

I can see that possibly happening in an expansion, but that's it. The UUs, UBs, and UAs typically have nothing to do with the leader - they have to do with particular high points of the civilization's history. As such, you can't across the board say "well the UA/UU/UB has to do with the leader, so that's what should change with the leader." Bismarck was about half a century pre-panzers, a good half-millennium post-Landsknechts, and roughly one thousand years after the phrase Furor Teutonicus applied to the Germanic tribes. And unless I'm mistaken, while Washington was around during the early days of the Manifest Destiny and the minutemen, I don't think he ever oversaw the bombing of the English fleets, nor did Harun al-Rashid finance his regime with oil exports.

For that reason, you'd either need to 1) add something that each leader brings to the table, which means a new aspect/aspects unique to each civ, which probably means expansion, or 2) make it so that the leader only brings their AI personality to the table, which would be a really poor decision in my opinion because for us humans, there'd be no difference between picking Louis XIV and Napoleon. Which would be odd. And disappointing.

And I agree with Louis XXIV; one leader per civ is fine. Two would be nice, but making a huge deal out of it is silly IMO, as is trying to bring in other Civ games as examples. Especially when you say that CiV lacks compared to the others because there's not enough variation in the voices.

[Tavelon]

Ooh! I love this idea! I think it'd be best if each faction had one UU, but each Leader added his own UU or UB along with a UA. I actually have a list of a lot of the existing civs already.

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by kamex

This another one of my Civ v hates. Civ IV offered much more variety in regards to AI personalities and graphics (instead of being sick of the same old faces and voices).

To be honest, if theres only one leader per civ, whats the point of having a leader at all. Instead of calling a player Washington, just call it America

Civ IV offered much less variety. All its leaders were combinations of the basic traits. Just check Bibor's Leader chart to say how much more complex - and effectively unique - each Civ 5 leader is.

This makes it unlikely that they will have alternate leaders any time soon. They may as well invent a new civ, and make some more DLC money while they're at it.

The point of having one leader as opposed to none is that it's more fun. If you don't know what I mean, check out the Most Hated AI polls - it's all about inferred personality.

[awesome]

if there were more leaders per civ, they would probably just have different abilities.

[Save_Ferris]

The only way I could see it working out is having different UAs but the same UUs. Of course, not all civs would have second leaders so I'm against it. Why not new civs with different UAs and UUs?

[DaveMcW]

Originally Posted by Lyoncet

And unless I'm mistaken, while Washington was around during the early days of the Manifest Destiny and the minutemen, I don't think he ever oversaw the bombing of the English fleets.

George Washington died before there was any talk of expanding past the Mississippi.

[slobberinbear]

The UA should be leader-specific; the UU/UB should be generic to the civ. It looks to me like that was the design intent, too ... notice on many screens you get the leader mini-pic AND the civ icon ... so clearly they have designed it with multiple leaders in mind per civ.

I also agree that some of the UAs don't match the leader in question (e.g. Washington).

[Save_Ferris]

Originally Posted by slobberinbear

The UA should be leader-specific; the UU/UB should be generic to the civ. It looks to me like that was the design intent, too ... notice on many screens you get the leader mini-pic AND the civ icon ... so clearly they have designed it with multiple leaders in mind per civ.

I also agree that some of the UAs don't match the leader in question (e.g. Washington).

The worst UA/Leader combination I can think of is Napoleon and Ancien Regime, which he hated.

[Lyoncet]

Originally Posted by DaveMcW

George Washington died before there was any talk of expanding past the Mississippi.

Bah, you're right. It looks like he died 3-4 years before that vein of thought entered the American collective conscious.

Anyways, people who are saying that the UA should stick with the leader really need to explain how that would work. So many of the abilities don't actually match the leader (like I said, you'd have to go back 1500 years to get a German leader who coincided with Furor Teutonicus), and they'd really be limiting themselves if they had to work within the constraint of making a new leader to match the UA of a civ whose present leader was out of sync. Just off the top of my head, England, France, America (thanks DaveMcW), Arabia, Germany, China, Spain, and Babylon would all have to be given new leaders, and those new leaders would be constrained by matching up the ability. A few of them would be hard to fit in anyways. Who would you get to represent the Seven Cities of Gold, which came about not long after Isabella's death, or Manifest Destiny (you're not getting Lincoln or FDR out of that one). Which modern oil tycoon are you going to give Arabia's bonus to, especially when the Caliphate had ceased to exist long before the region started trading in petroleum? If they do multiple leaders (not sure it would be the greatest way to allocate their resources in the first place), I really don't see how they could differentiate them with just the existing tools.

[awesome]

Originally Posted by Lyoncet

A few of them would be hard to fit in anyways. Who would you get to represent...Manifest Destiny (you're not getting Lincoln or FDR out of that one).

monroe. but i agree with everything you've said.

[Louis XXIV]

Teddy has a bit of a frontiersman attitude, but he was born too late to take advantage of it. There's a lot of Presidents people are indifferent to, like Polk, who fit in exactly. Maybe Andrew Jackson, but he would be controversial for many.

[Lyoncet]

That's the problem. Not that Jackson's too controversial, but that if Firaxis were to add new leaders and make their distinction the UA, they'd really end up struggling with leader choices. Yeah, Monroe fits Manifest Destiny fine (he's actually the first one who came to my mind too), but why on earth would he be the USA's second leader over Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts? Plus, it would be odd to have two leaders in the same civ that came so close together chronologically. Which is the same problem that Spain would have; either you give Isabella a UA that has nothing to do with her whatsoever, or you give them the only leader that would fit the time frame: Joanna the Mad, who directly succeeded Isabella.

Yeah, not good choices.

[Tavelon]

Here's a list of potential multi-leader civs and their unique ability. What do you think?


America-
George Washington-Founding Fathers (25% more great people generation).
Abraham Lincoln-Emancipation (Workers have a 20% efficiency, 10% more citizen birth but Plantations cost 1+ more gold to upkeep).

Arabia-
Harun Al Rashid-Trade Caravans (As it is in game).
Saladin-Defense of the Holy City (Units receive a 33% combat increase when defending within two tiles of the capital).

Aztecs-I’d keep them as they are.

China-
Wu Zeitan-Art of War (As it is in game)
Mao Zedong-Great Leap Forward (Factories and manufactories have a 33% larger output).

Egypt-
Ramses-Monument Builders (As it is in game)
Cleopatra-Royal Charm (All new nations you meet begin with a friendly attitude).

England-
Elizabeth-Sun never sets (As it is in game)
Churchill-Finest Hour (Golden Ages now give units 25% combat strength bonus).

France-
Louis XIV-La Ancien Regime (As it is in game).
Napoleon Bonaparte-La Grande Armee (Units gain experience at 33% higher rate).

Germany-
Frederick the Great-Prussian Army Doctrine (Units receive +1 movement in their territory).
Bismarck-German Unification (City states are more likely to gift units).

Greece-
Pericles-Athenian Navy (Naval Units are 25% cheaper to make).
Alexander the Great-Hellenic League (As it is in game).

India-
Gandhi-Population Growth (As it is in game).
Other-Any thoughts?

Iroquois-
Hiawatha-Great Warpath (As it is in game).
Pontiac-Lightning Raids (Units can pillage and continue to move if they have movement points left OR, my other thought was earning 15 gold with each pillaging act).

Japan-Any thoughts?

Mongolia-Any thoughts?

Ottomans-Any thoughts?

Persia-
Darius-Archimededic Legacy (As it is in game).
Xerxes-Royal Highway (Roads add +1 movement).

Rome-
Augustus-Glory of Rome (As it is in game)
Julius Caesar-As the Romans do (50% less unhappiness in every annexed city).

Russia-
Catherine-Siberian Riches (As it is in game)
Stalin-Red October (Units are 15% quicker to build and 25% cheaper to buy).

Siam-Any thoughts?

Songhai-Any thoughts?

[Lyoncet]

Those are some good ideas. I'm personally against including Saladin (even though he was an awesome guy) since he wasn't so much a leader as a military man, but that's just me. Also some people think that since he was Kurdish he shouldn't represent Arabia, but I think that's a little picky.

For Japan, you could go with Meiji. The Japan he represents is pretty significantly different from Oda's, so you could get a nice contrast. As for the Ottomans, the problem with them isn't that they lack for good leaders (Mehmet II was a fine choice in CIV), but that you're never really going to find anyone who comes close to what he represents; the guy had just about everything going for him militarily, politically, and culturally. I was actually shocked that he wasn't included as the Ottoman leader in vanilla CIV.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally Posted by Tavelon

Egypt-
Ramses-Monument Builders (As it is in game)

While Ramesses was a decent builder, shouldn't this ability really be given to someone like Cheops?

England-
Elizabeth-Sun never sets (As it is in game)

Elizabeth predates the Empire where the sun never set. Someone like Victoria or Benjamin Disraeli maybe.

However, Elizabeth would work well with some kind of piracy ability to represent people like Sir Francis Drake.
ETA: English Sea Dogs. 20 gold for every ship killed, 2 gold per turn for every city blockaded.

Iroquois-
Pontiac-Lightning Raids (Units can pillage and continue to move if they have movement points left OR, my other thought was earning 15 gold with each pillaging act).

Pontiac wasn't Iroquois, he was Ottowa. If you want an interesting Iroquois leader, I'd recommend Decanosora. Essentially, he walked a diplomatic tightrope between France and England always maneuvering for an Iroquois benefit. He did so by acting as the protector of Indian tribes (standing up for Susquehanna and Delaware interests as well). When he was replaced, his successors worked with the British to crush the Delawares, but this led to their downfall as well (and dragged them into the Seven Years War).
Ability: Great Covenant Chain. Automatically friends with any City-State that is allied with a Civ you have a Declaration of Friendship with.

Japan-Any thoughts?

Although symbolic in the same sense Victoria was, Meiji would be the most logical.
Meiji Restoration would be the unique ability. Not sure what, though, maybe double great person points during a Golden Age.

Ottomans-Any thoughts?

Would it be appropriate to use the post-Ottoman Turks and have Attaturk as the leader?