how to balance the player picking more effective governmental structures

[civilizationfanatic2000]

After the fall of Rome, it took thousands of years for Western european countries to make centralized kingdoms. They were decentralized feudal polities, the power of the state limited.

For thousands of years in China, the land was controlled by a centralized and powerful state with a massive and heavily efficient bureaucracy, paralleled only by modern nations.

following this, it should be available to the player to make a centralized state like China from a very early period through passing in game reforms and advancing in technology. if the player can make their state more powerful and more efficient than anyone else's through this method, why would they not do it? Why would they play a feudal European kingdom?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Feodal sounds much like Federal.

The european nations after the fall of Rome were lead by foreign barbarians, so I guess their legitimacy was reduced, hence the feodal system. By the time the nations to affirm themselves as such, they could go centralist again. At least that's my limited guess.

As to USA or EU, they are quite decentralized in a way no ? But obviously i'm not expert in politics. I don't even know how EU centralized part is earning its money. One thing is sure though : I wouldn't want EU to become a second USA. That's why I was for the "no" when asked in a referendum if we want a federal EU.

As to Civ I think there should be clear descriptions of what either do, although I have no clue of their content.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Going right to my suggestion for the way to deal with the administration of civs here is the example of my system of Ideologies.

> IDEOLOGIES, as the replacement of civics/policies into a system of tiers being many of them mutually exclusive (especially in higher tiers)
Now, those options should provide real differences that would serve different gameplay styles and victories. For example:
- The mutually exclusive Centralism and Federalism high tier ideologies provide the status of Province or State cities respectively. For the former your Capital city get huge bonus at the cost of lower provicial development and loyalty (also allow to assign Governorns), while the later gives every Statal city a modest yield and loyalty bonus (the Governorns are random but some can provide huge bonuses). Both Provinces and States share all the rest of their characteristics being the traditional cities dirtectly integrated into your empire.
- Similarly we can have Absolutism and Constitutionalism ideologies.
For the first, foreign cities can be turned into Vassals to whom Tribute of an specific kind (troops, money food, production, culture or science) can be requested. The loyalty of Vassal cities can be raised by Consorts (exclusive Monarchy envoys with some random trait that can trigger events). The Consorts can be also used to improve happiness of your own Warrior class (nobility marriage) or Clergy class (religious vows).
Meanwhile for the later foreign cities can be turned into Protectorates that provide huge trade route and corporation exclusiveness with extra bonus to resources from those cities. Also Constitutionalism increase the effectiveness of regular envoys making easier to turn a Nation (CS) into a Protectorate by pure diplomatic influence, turning this path into a Diplomatic and Economic victory wise.
- Another duo are Colonialism and Internationalism ideologies. For the initial case you get oversea Colony cities with huge immigration, Taxes(yield) and cultural conversion bonus at the cost of lower loyalty. For the final case you get Member states (cities) of your Commonwealth, this is the more autonomous and friendly form of imperial control, turning these "minor civs" into part of your sphere of influence, this include secured support to your goals in the World Congress and a pact of mutual defense. Internationalism itself gives diplomatic bonus making this a great way to achive Diplomatic victory.

The whole idea is to have less of a mindless accumulation of tons of progressively "superior" and contradictory policy cards. Instead the ideologies are less but they come from real events related to Denizens and their effects are more significative and flavorfull.

 

[luca 83]

Going right to my suggestion for the way to deal with the administration of civs here is the example of my system of Ideologies.

> IDEOLOGIES, as the replacement of civics/policies into a system of tiers being many of them mutually exclusive (especially in higher tiers)
Now, those options should provide real differences that would serve different gameplay styles and victories. For example:
- The mutually exclusive Centralism and Federalism high tier ideologies provide the status of Province or State cities respectively. For the former your Capital city get huge bonus at the cost of lower provicial development and loyalty (also allow to assign Governorns), while the later gives every Statal city a modest yield and loyalty bonus (the Governorns are random but some can provide huge bonuses). Both Provinces and States share all the rest of their characteristics being the traditional cities dirtectly integrated into your empire.
- Similarly we can have Absolutism and Constitutionalism ideologies.
For the first, foreign cities can be turned into Vassals to whom Tribute of an specific kind (troops, money food, production, culture or science) can be requested. The loyalty of Vassal cities can be raised by Consorts (exclusive Monarchy envoys with some random trait that can trigger events). The Consorts can be also used to improve happiness of your own Warrior class (nobility marriage) or Clergy class (religious vows).
Meanwhile for the later foreign cities can be turned into Protectorates that provide huge trade route and corporation exclusiveness with extra bonus to resources from those cities. Also Constitutionalism increase the effectiveness of regular envoys making easier to turn a Nation (CS) into a Protectorate by pure diplomatic influence, turning this path into a Diplomatic and Economic victory wise.
- Another duo are Colonialism and Internationalism ideologies. For the initial case you get oversea Colony cities with huge immigration, Taxes(yield) and cultural conversion bonus at the cost of lower loyalty. For the final case you get Member states (cities) of your Commonwealth, this is the more autonomous and friendly form of imperial control, turning these "minor civs" into part of your sphere of influence, this include secured support to your goals in the World Congress and a pact of mutual defense. Internationalism itself gives diplomatic bonus making this a great way to achive Diplomatic victory.

The whole idea is to have less of a mindless accumulation of tons of progressively "superior" and contradictory policy cards. Instead the ideologies are less but they come from real events related to Denizens and their effects are more significative and flavorfull.

To do this we would have to introduce the decadence of a civilization as I have already suggested and prime ministers and kings or republics like the Italian maritime ones and then the Renaissance ... However I said leaders are useless , they serve politics, ideology, revolutions , traumatic events, coups , creation and death of empires, more choice of governments

 

[BuchiTaton]

To do this we would have to introduce the decadence of a civilization as I have already suggested and prime ministers and kings or republics like the Italian maritime ones and then the Renaissance ... However I said leaders are useless , they serve politics, ideology, revolutions , traumatic events, coups , creation and death of empires, more choice of governments

It is not needed to have a decadence "meter", the ideological changes of your civilization comes from your actions but not directly and without any reason as currently is, they come from the management of your denizens.

The general concept from its basis:
> DENIZEN, population unit that represent an abstract amount of inhabitants. Each of these units would have three identity parameters; Heritage (ethnocultural), Belief (religion) and Class (social caste). These denizens occupy Districts and Villages (improvements) from both Empires (playable main civs) and Nations (non-playable minor civs), they can be relocated and migrate.
- Heritages are also related to exclusive Traditions that provide bonuses and uniques when those denizens integrate into your empire (X% of your population limited to Y number of slots).
Of course the diplomatic relations with other civs leaders, their and your populations would be greatly related to denizens Heritage and Belief, so for example persecute religions from other civs would generate animosity.
- Classes represent a few basic groups:

* Laborers; work in farms, plantations, mines, quarries, etc. Later can also work in factories.​

Help to gain Great Engeneers.​

* Artisans; work in workshops that produce manufactured luxury resources with cultural value like Textiles, Ceramics, Jewelry, etc. Later can also work in studios. Help to gain Great Artists.​

* Traders, work in trade and commerce buildings.​

Help to gaun Great Merchants.​

* Clergics; work in religion related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Prophets.​

* Scholars; work in science related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Scientists.​

* Warriors; work in army related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Generals.​

All these identity variables are essentials as populations sectors that can be benefited or harmed by your actions, decisions and of course your chosen ideologies.
Obviously basic necesities and amenities would help to keep happy everybody but also some specific buildings can appeal to certain groups.

>DECISION EVENTS that are linked to the whole ideologies mechanic. Similar to Beyond Earth missions and CIV6s inspiration, social and ideological changes (civics/goverment) could come from decision events like this:

When you defeat an enemy faction (either BC/CS/Civ) for the first time instead of get a militar oriented "Honor" branch you get a decision event like this:
"My leader our heroic warriors have emerged victorious, bringing glory to all our nation. Now only remains the question of how to retribute our troops"

a) "The blood of our heroes was shed for this land, the less we can do is to honor their legacy with titles and riches" > HONOR​

b) "This victory is without question a divine blessing. Call the warriors and all the people to reverence at the shrines." > DEVOTION​

c) "They have served well their leader. Organize some celebrations and then redistribute the troops wherever are needed." > AUTHORITY​

So from a kind of easy way to trigger events (a militar victory) you can select the decision that customize your society in the way you want. Still with some pros and cons, for example more privileges for Warrior class in a) and Clergics in b) and temporal global happinest boost from c). Turning civics/policies/ideologies to be more organic based on an action>event>decision system that provide different orientations with their own pros and cons.
These also add a lot to the narrative development of your civ, the ballance of diffent ways to victory and break the status quo in late game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

After the fall of Rome, it took thousands of years for Western european countries to make centralized kingdoms. They were decentralized feudal polities, the power of the state limited.

For thousands of years in China, the land was controlled by a centralized and powerful state with a massive and heavily efficient bureaucracy, paralleled only by modern nations.

following this, it should be available to the player to make a centralized state like China from a very early period through passing in game reforms and advancing in technology. if the player can make their state more powerful and more efficient than anyone else's through this method, why would they not do it? Why would they play a feudal European kingdom?

First of all, your basic premise is somewhat flawed.

It did not take 'thousands of years' after the fall of Rome for central states to (re)materialize: it took at most less than a thousand, because by 1500 states like France, Spain and England were rapidly centralizing all authority under the Divine Right monarchs. Furthermore, many of the Roman 'successor states' like the Vandals in Spain or Goths in Italy or Franks in Gaul attempted to maintain the Roman civics and bureaucratic systems for at least several hundred years after Rome 'fell', but simply could not do it for lack of a trained collection of bureaucrats.

And China was not continuously controlled by any central state or government. That's why China's history is littered with things like the Warring States period, Three Kingdoms period, Sixteen Kingdoms period, Northern Dynasties, Southern Dynasties, Ten Kingdoms - all periods, some lasting well over a century, in which there was little or no centralized authority but a whole constellation of authorities, all competing for supremacy. The Uniform Chinese State lasting throughout their history is a Myth, pure and simple.

More generally, what you are aiming at, I think, is a Rise and Fall mechanic (which I am thoroughly in favor of) but that runs into a fundamental problem in game design: gamers do not like Negatives. Anything in the game that impedes their uniform Success, when the game as Civ does now only rewards continuous success to some End Turn Achievement, will simply not be tolerated.

From that, unfortunately, we get the runaway victories so common, and the dull late game after victory is assured and you simply click to eventual victory.

I think the answer to that is what @BuchiTaton has been hinting at: every decision and/or game action/reaction should have both negative and positive potential outcomes. Entirely Negative simply will not be played, but a negative that has also a positive path but a different one will be - it may even be preferred if the eventual payback is positive enough.

So, for example, a Fuedal or decentralized state gives you much less control over your regions and provinces and possibly even over all of your Civ's units, but you also don't have to maintain or pay any of them. If you don't have access to a centralized, efficient Tax System (yet) that could be preferable to a centralized state that cannot access all of the state's assets for lack of the required organizational/government 'technology'.

Totalitarianism (Communist or Fascist) gives you complete control over the economic assets, but generate much less economic power than Capitalism - but under Capitalism you have less control over precisely what is being developed (tax credits and other incentives could be worked into the game, to at least give you Indirect Control, but it will never be as precise as simply ordering something done with the threat of instant arrest hanging over everyone).

Every development and decision should have Trade-Offs, so that while the general trend is Progress, the path will never be a precisely straight one - which would be as boring as the paths Civ VI gives us now.

 

[luca 83]

It is not needed to have a decadence "meter", the ideological changes of your civilization comes from your actions but not directly and without any reason as currently is, they come from the management of your denizens.

The general concept from its basis:
> DENIZEN, population unit that represent an abstract amount of inhabitants. Each of these units would have three identity parameters; Heritage (ethnocultural), Belief (religion) and Class (social caste). These denizens occupy Districts and Villages (improvements) from both Empires (playable main civs) and Nations (non-playable minor civs), they can be relocated and migrate.
- Heritages are also related to exclusive Traditions that provide bonuses and uniques when those denizens integrate into your empire (X% of your population limited to Y number of slots).
Of course the diplomatic relations with other civs leaders, their and your populations would be greatly related to denizens Heritage and Belief, so for example persecute religions from other civs would generate animosity.
- Classes represent a few basic groups:

* Laborers; work in farms, plantations, mines, quarries, etc. Later can also work in factories.​

Help to gain Great Engeneers.​

* Artisans; work in workshops that produce manufactured luxury resources with cultural value like Textiles, Ceramics, Jewelry, etc. Later can also work in studios. Help to gain Great Artists.​

* Traders, work in trade and commerce buildings.​

Help to gaun Great Merchants.​

* Clergics; work in religion related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Prophets.​

* Scholars; work in science related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Scientists.​

* Warriors; work in army related buildings.​

Help to gain Great Generals.​

All these identity variables are essentials as populations sectors that can be benefited or harmed by your actions, decisions and of course your chosen ideologies.
Obviously basic necesities and amenities would help to keep happy everybody but also some specific buildings can appeal to certain groups.

>DECISION EVENTS that are linked to the whole ideologies mechanic. Similar to Beyond Earth missions and CIV6s inspiration, social and ideological changes (civics/goverment) could come from decision events like this:

When you defeat an enemy faction (either BC/CS/Civ) for the first time instead of get a militar oriented "Honor" branch you get a decision event like this:
"My leader our heroic warriors have emerged victorious, bringing glory to all our nation. Now only remains the question of how to retribute our troops"

a) "The blood of our heroes was shed for this land, the less we can do is to honor their legacy with titles and riches" > HONOR​

b) "This victory is without question a divine blessing. Call the warriors and all the people to reverence at the shrines." > DEVOTION​

c) "They have served well their leader. Organize some celebrations and then redistribute the troops wherever are needed." > AUTHORITY​

So from a kind of easy way to trigger events (a militar victory) you can select the decision that customize your society in the way you want. Still with some pros and cons, for example more privileges for Warrior class in a) and Clergics in b) and temporal global happinest boost from c). Turning civics/policies/ideologies to be more organic based on an action>event>decision system that provide different orientations with their own pros and cons.
These also add a lot to the narrative development of your civ, the ballance of diffent ways to victory and break the status quo in late game.

And what about the Barbarian kingdoms after 476 ? And the fall of the Roman Empire was not sharp but gradual

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

First of all, your basic premise is somewhat flawed.

It did not take 'thousands of years' after the fall of Rome for central states to (re)materialize: it took at most less than a thousand, because by 1500 states like France, Spain and England were rapidly centralizing all authority under the Divine Right monarchs. Furthermore, many of the Roman 'successor states' like the Vandals in Spain or Goths in Italy or Franks in Gaul attempted to maintain the Roman civics and bureaucratic systems for at least several hundred years after Rome 'fell', but simply could not do it for lack of a trained collection of bureaucrats.

And China was not continuously controlled by any central state or government. That's why China's history is littered with things like the Warring States period, Three Kingdoms period, Sixteen Kingdoms period, Northern Dynasties, Southern Dynasties, Ten Kingdoms - all periods, some lasting well over a century, in which there was little or no centralized authority but a whole constellation of authorities, all competing for supremacy. The Uniform Chinese State lasting throughout their history is a Myth, pure and simple.

More generally, what you are aiming at, I think, is a Rise and Fall mechanic (which I am thoroughly in favor of) but that runs into a fundamental problem in game design: gamers do not like Negatives. Anything in the game that impedes their uniform Success, when the game as Civ does now only rewards continuous success to some End Turn Achievement, will simply not be tolerated.

From that, unfortunately, we get the runaway victories so common, and the dull late game after victory is assured and you simply click to eventual victory.

I think the answer to that is what @BuchiTaton has been hinting at: every decision and/or game action/reaction should have both negative and positive potential outcomes. Entirely Negative simply will not be played, but a negative that has also a positive path but a different one will be - it may even be preferred if the eventual payback is positive enough.

So, for example, a Fuedal or decentralized state gives you much less control over your regions and provinces and possibly even over all of your Civ's units, but you also don't have to maintain or pay any of them. If you don't have access to a centralized, efficient Tax System (yet) that could be preferable to a centralized state that cannot access all of the state's assets for lack of the required organizational/government 'technology'.

Totalitarianism (Communist or Fascist) gives you complete control over the economic assets, but generate much less economic power than Capitalism - but under Capitalism you have less control over precisely what is being developed (tax credits and other incentives could be worked into the game, to at least give you Indirect Control, but it will never be as precise as simply ordering something done with the threat of instant arrest hanging over everyone).

Every development and decision should have Trade-Offs, so that while the general trend is Progress, the path will never be a precisely straight one - which would be as boring as the paths Civ VI gives us now.

til! thank you for correcting me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

til! thank you for correcting me.

I was trying to put the whole premise into better perspective: almost every history and historian emphasizes the Fall of Rome and Dark Ages ensuing, and it just Ain't Necessarily So. If you read contemporary accounts from the 6th - 7th centuries, they didn't think they were living through a Dark Age at all - or at least, no darker than normal. Those folks over in the capital were messing things up as usual, but unless they were directly involved in long distance trade (which was being completely disrupted) things didn't look so bad locally. The regional and city magistrates might speak Latin with a Germanic accent, but they were still running the same old laws and rules and (most of) the infrastructure still worked.
Look at Rome itself, and the Fall looks catastrophic. Look at most of the other provinces, and it looks a lot more gradual, and doesn't seem to have impacted most people's daily lives much at all.

And some parts of the Civilization didn't see much of a Dark Age at all.
Technology kept on advancing: iron tools actually became more common amongst the ordinary workers than a the height of the Empire, because with the collapse of long distance trade (which requires concentrations of capital hat simply could no longer be concentrated) local blacksmiths were producing ironmongery for the local markets, and that meant primarily tools at local prices. Use of power, like wind and water mills, may have declined slightly, but within a couple of centuries there is ample evidence for watermills grinding grain, sawing timber, pounding felt and numerous other 'industrial' processes all over western Europe, and the Doomsday Book of the 11th century listed over 6000 mills in England alone - far more than ever existed when the island was 'Roman'.

All of which means that a Rise and Fall variation in the usual Civ Continuous Upward Progress doesn't have to be quite as drastic as most people assume. In game terms, even a complete collapse of border control and military and central government doesn't translate to immediate loss of any technology, or basic civics (the Gothic, Frankish and Vandal Kingdoms all continued to try to run things using Roman civic bureaucracy and rules, and the post-Roman British are frequently referred to in the 6th - 7th centuries as "Romano-British" because they tried to maintain so many Roman normalities). That means the game does not have to model Complete Collapse and Rebuild, except in extreme situations (like Conquest by a faction with vastly superior technology as happened in the Americas)

 

[luca 83]

I was trying to put the whole premise into better perspective: almost every history and historian emphasizes the Fall of Rome and Dark Ages ensuing, and it just Ain't Necessarily So. If you read contemporary accounts from the 6th - 7th centuries, they didn't think they were living through a Dark Age at all - or at least, no darker than normal. Those folks over in the capital were messing things up as usual, but unless they were directly involved in long distance trade (which was being completely disrupted) things didn't look so bad locally. The regional and city magistrates might speak Latin with a Germanic accent, but they were still running the same old laws and rules and (most of) the infrastructure still worked.
Look at Rome itself, and the Fall looks catastrophic. Look at most of the other provinces, and it looks a lot more gradual, and doesn't seem to have impacted most people's daily lives much at all.

And some parts of the Civilization didn't see much of a Dark Age at all.
Technology kept on advancing: iron tools actually became more common amongst the ordinary workers than a the height of the Empire, because with the collapse of long distance trade (which requires concentrations of capital hat simply could no longer be concentrated) local blacksmiths were producing ironmongery for the local markets, and that meant primarily tools at local prices. Use of power, like wind and water mills, may have declined slightly, but within a couple of centuries there is ample evidence for watermills grinding grain, sawing timber, pounding felt and numerous other 'industrial' processes all over western Europe, and the Doomsday Book of the 11th century listed over 6000 mills in England alone - far more than ever existed when the island was 'Roman'.

All of which means that a Rise and Fall variation in the usual Civ Continuous Upward Progress doesn't have to be quite as drastic as most people assume. In game terms, even a complete collapse of border control and military and central government doesn't translate to immediate loss of any technology, or basic civics (the Gothic, Frankish and Vandal Kingdoms all continued to try to run things using Roman civic bureaucracy and rules, and the post-Roman British are frequently referred to in the 6th - 7th centuries as "Romano-British" because they tried to maintain so many Roman normalities). That means the game does not have to model Complete Collapse and Rebuild, except in extreme situations (like Conquest by a faction with vastly superior technology as happened in the Americas)

the fall of the Roman Empire has been debated for years surely during the Middle Ages many things have been forgotten , for example mathematics , philosophical treatises , urban igene became very bad no larger buildings were built , such as baths , colossae . the stades became, less safe, and in a very bad state, and education worsened in England during the Saxon invasion we go back to the pre-Roman age this would go simulator

 

[BuchiTaton]

And what about the Barbarian kingdoms after 476 ? And the fall of the Roman Empire was not sharp but gradual

I am very interested in have more numerous, significative, complex and detailed "minor civs" (barbarian clans + city states).
The interaction of the empires (main playable civs) with these nations (minor non-playable civs) could be as interesting as is between empires. Then "barbarian invasions" can turn into a threat to deal (but NOT as something the player "must" fall to by design). For example some nations could raid and/or migrate to your territory, something that of course could be problematic, but is expected that an average good player would succeed to repel, negotiate or even integrate these peoples to your empire.
So we can have some empires that could fail against "barbarian invasions" but you as a player are supposed to resist these challenges (lose your capital to the barbarians would be end game for 99% of the players even if they have the option to keep playing, the average player want to prevail where Rome failed).

Now remember that many "barbarians" were historically used by empires as mercenaries, auxiliars and buffer states, whatever they were extortioners, allies, refugees or conquered, this bring us to the next aspect.
Under the model I propose of population taking a central role where the denizens (basic population unit) have three identity parameters; class (social caste), belief (religion) and heritage (ethno-cultural) any conquered (or immigrated) foreign population would keep their own identity parameters even under a ruling class of a different belief and/or heritage. So this would be the main source to possible resurgence of independent factions once a chance for revolution is reached.

Of course factors like how these populations of different identities are governed would affect their desire to uprise, the ruler(player) could pick inclusive ideologies and invest in keep them happy even at the point to integrate them as one of the main heritages and/or beliefs of their civ, a status that is limited by a number of slots from your ideologies (civics) and the need that those populations represent X percentage of your total population. As a reward from integrate a different heritage, each one come with an exclusive Tradition, that provide things like bonus or unique units, buildings, resources, etc. There would be also another way, deal with the problematic population with more oppressive ideologies included belief and heritage conversion.

 

[luca 83]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_dynasty.
Think for example the period of warring states in China born as a result of a civil war e. Dynastic crisis , not enough the simple scheme of barbarian invasions serves a refined ai and remove fixed leaders as a premise , and insert dynasties. As barbarians beyond the Huns also present in China , many Barbarian federations , Gepids , Vandals , Ostrogoths , Visigoths , Bavarians , Scythians , Saxons , Franks , Normans , must be managed, merge, like a Europa universalis but in a more intelligent, and interesting way

 

[BuchiTaton]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_dynasty.
Think for example the period of warring states in China born as a result of a civil war e. Dynastic crisis , not enough the simple scheme of barbarian invasions serves a refined ai and remove fixed leaders as a premise , and insert dynasties. As barbarians beyond the Huns also present in China , many Barbarian federations , Gepids , Vandals , Ostrogoths , Visigoths , Bavarians , Scythians , Saxons , Franks , Normans , must be managed, merge, like a Europa universalis but in a more intelligent, and interesting way

The different identity parameters of Heritage, Class and Beliefs would abstract most of the main traditional groups of power, different buildings, actions, decisions and ideologies would please or displease different of those groups, gaining bonus and mechanics from those you favored, but also you risk to gain negative effects and disastrous events from those you disavow.
Of course oppresed social classes, ethnic groups or religions would complain, emigrate, plot and rebel at certain point, with the chance of them taking over some cities and forcing a revolution.
But once again, do NOT expect a CIV game designed to play to inevitable social collapse and goverment failure, these are events that players must avoid, instead player could try to force other players into their collapse. Look at Paradox IronMan mode and youtube gameplays, when players fail a little they restart to not lose more time in that match, almost nobody like to play as a failed leader.

Also do NOT expect CIV to turn into something not even all the Paradox games could do (a mix of Imp+EU+Vic+CK+HoI+Stelaris), neither do TW games or even CIV like games as Humankind, ARA and Millennia. CIV literal face are its Leaders, is a classical and distintive element of the franchise, could be easier for you if think about them as Avatars of the CIV that happens to be some historical figure playing the game as you are playing a civ, so are you going to stop playing the game and let another person to play each couple of turns since some eras have turns that cover decades After all it is neither realist that the player can lead a nation for thousands of years