Kings should be more useful...

Wouldn't it be interesting if Kings actually existed for a reason other than to get killed and have his civilization destroyed?

The first other purpose that comes to mind, for me, is to allow Kings to lower corruption as they travel around. Not only would it create new strategies in reducing corruption, it might be an incentive for the AI to actually move the king around, reducing the predictability of where the king is (generally in the capital). Obviously, in reality, no leader ever stay in the same place forever, and they DO move around "inspecting" or paying visits to places. This could be stretched, I suppose, in allowing Kings even to visit other countries or capitals, maybe there could be diplomatic considerations...many possibilities exist. But basically, I think Kings are an underdeveloped feature that could introduce new facets into the game.

All comments and questions are encouraged.

I have seen at least two other threads that discussed (at least a portion of) this topic (kings being a kind of mobile palace).

Nothing wrong bringing it up again - I think it would be cool too. It seems to be an obvious next step. It only makes me wonder why they didn't include it from the get go...

I briefly looked at those threads and I did not see any mention of this idea.

Namely, giving the 'King' or 'Princess' a movement of 1 all terrain the same and the 'radar' ability so when present during land or sea battles they exert an 25% boost to their units, as well can 'see' farther.

I am also playing 'domination' victory conditions so 'Princess' unit is a created unit with cost of 'one' shield, so essentially one turn by any city. They are easy targets however when not protected or stacked.

This adds an easy and effective dynamic and AI's 'love' going after them.

I saw an idea where instead of your civ going caput when you lose your king you just revolt. Then you can use it without fear of, "oops I lost a king so goes the game."

Please have a look at this thread

Thanks, Commander Bello, now I don't have to toot my own horn

You could mod the main game to be like the Sengoku game where kings can become your most potent units over time and upgrades.

I read that threat you started, Qpdaj. Quite interesting, and pretty much what I was thinking!

But would it not also be interesting for kings to have diplomatic abilities? As in, for example, the king could travel around (like you mentioned about Medieval Europe) and pay "state visits" that might improve AI attitudes or something. Or maybe he can physically negotiate agreements somewhere (for example, the Treaty of Paris or the Yalta conference), to increase the probability of it being accepted, perhaps? Actually that could even be expanded to having a whole "diplomatic corps" of envoy units on the map, and they are sent to negotiate deals, establish embassies, act as mediators, whatever. The king, I supppose, could basically be a more powerful version of a diplomat.

As you also mentioned, maybe kings could also decrease unhappiness. This is a good idea; in many cases a leader can discourage revolts simply by virtue of proximity to the trouble spot (as Machiavelli points out in The Prince). Leaders also usually perform ceremonial state functions or attend the opening ceremonies of major buildings, which might be represented as happiness effects. Just a few thoughts.

Any questions or comments are encouraged!

Phwew, diplomatic missions, too? That's an awful lot of responsibility and work for our pampered royalty; think we might be asking a bit much? But really, when we start talking about diplomacy, it gets into the whole discussion (brought up many times before) about how diplomacy could be so improved. But king unit diplomatic missions isn't a bad idea.

Like I hinted at before, it seems like the king units are a half-baked idea; like some of the developers intended to do a lot more with them, but for whatever reason, we only got what we got.

Speaking of living with what we have, anyone know whether killing a king unit is worth more victory points than any other unit? I don't pay close enough attention to have figured that out yet...

We aren't really asking more of leaders than they should do--instead, we are simply expecting more than we could ever get!

Yes, kings are a half-baked idea, and when the next Civ rolls around kings will hopefully be full-loaved and golden brown.

I happen to rarely pay attention to victory points or downright turn them off, if possible, so my guess is as good as yours...

Yes, kings are a half-baked idea, and when the next Civ rolls around kings will hopefully be full-loaved and golden brown.

Click to expand...

Yes, just like the much improved UN in this version... (couldn't resist).


Very cool thread - liked the diplomatic mission idea - except that the king would be too vulnerable (unless def is jacked up while in enemy territory - or an escort is allowed under a rolling ROP - units with the king couldn't attack unless they were willing to take the downside of a ROP violation).

Speaking of the UN, I have a thread I started some time ago discussing potential improvements here . If you want, you can also discuss economic changes in a thread I started here . See if you can find the connections between my ideas for the UN, kings, and economics!

Anyway, I guess one could go even crazier and expand the kings idea to include other important officials--maybe a prime minister, defense minister, interior minister, whatever. They could then confer special advantages depending on their role. Maybe the interior minister could boost production of structures, the defense minister could boost production of units, the prime minister boost production of anything...and so forth. Perhaps the number of officials in high office could also depend upon government-- another way to make governments more distinct. Just a few thoughts.

As for kings' "state visits," I do think there should be some kind of escort allowed, perhaps a special unit with that exclusive purpose, because it would obviously be very unrealistic to have the king go by himself. Sorry to get into politics, but you must recall the security Bush had when he made a "state visit" to Iraq on Thanksgiving.

I really like the idea of the King unit to become something like a "FP on wheels".

What I don't like is to make him act as an embassador. As far as I see it, this would be fun for the first time and thereafter, it just would become a constant hassle.
Better, to improve the diplomacy screen to make it useful...

i like the ideas of the king having some effects with troops and cities, but don't like the diplomacy idea... i like the current method of diplomacy on the screen (just wish it would be improved some)... if you did the "state visits" thing, it really wouldn't be worth it if the game ended when he died... just seems like an risk not worth taking.

but i do also like the idea of different gov'ts getting so many "ministers" (or cabinet members as we americans would call them ;-))

Namely, giving the 'King' or 'Princess' a movement of 1 all terrain the same and the 'radar' ability so when present during land or sea battles they exert an 25% boost to their units, as well can 'see' farther.

Click to expand...

This 25% boost -- is that inherent in giving any unit the "Radar" ability?

i king could work like a mobile barracks that makes elite not vetreans

Certainly I think rhere should be more to it when a King unit gets captured, instead of just being ransomed. Perhaps, like in the 100 years war when the king was captured, he could be ransomed (Although would that be too similar to princesses? I never once played a Capture the Princess game). The King would require a specific role to make it worth ransoming though, and there's undoubtedly a multitude of fine ideas for that.

i like the king unit the way it is. i play mass regicide so i can explore the land and plot my city placement, it's not cheating but its taking advatange of a feature the AI doesnt (though crap for them i say)

but considering we can mod the game to suit our tastes, my opinion is moot.

i just like em the way they are. i dont mod my games, so i guess my opninion is based on a purist's standpoint.

Yes, "state visits" would require some massive benefit to justify such a risk, so that should probably be left out (even though that is what kings are primarily for!).

Therefore, the king's role should be a reduction in corruption (perhaps like a mobile palace) and increasing happiness/quelling disorder. Other ministers might provide production bonuses depending on their department.