I think you read a tad more into what I was posting than what I actually wrote.
Good luck with doing this with 6000 years oh mankind history fitting in less than 1500 turns.
1500 turns would be 15 leaders, give or take
if we used the lifespan idea.
Too sophisticated for Civ game. I mean, you would have to handle with so many exceptions they would be more of them than general rules. Elections in prehistorical/ancient society? Hell, kings at all before classical era?
Sort of went off the deep end here. I didn't say anything about elections in prehistoric society.
So the entire system would activate somewhere in medieval era. Oh, and de facto 'monarchy' is only in Tradition social tree
Ok, so other policy trees have Governors/whatever. But Governors/whatever cannot enter marriages so another problems with balance and stuff.
I used the term "governor" for lack of a better one. "Leader" would probably be more apt, or something else. OR, it could change with the era/social policy. No biggie. No problem with balance.
Espionage is activated in renaissance era.
Yes. And?
In industrial you have ideologies. Next problem with Autocracy (and to lesser extent with Order).
I fail to see how having a leader unit in any era would cause problems with the ideologies or social policies? There have been leaders since day one, so? I'm not sure what the issue here is other than you don't like the idea?
So basically you have a system which makes sense in medieval and renaissance era, not to mention it is unrealistic on another field - many of societies in Civ didn't have kings. Eurocentrism! And collides with social policy system as much as it can
There's no Eurocentrism here. Call the leader what you like; Czar, Emperor, Chieftan, President, Imam, doesn't matter -- they're still a leader.
FUNNY AS HELL
Yeah one leader per turn!
Hysterical. If that's what I suggested. Which it's not. :|
Micromanaging depending on the city the leader is from, marriages between leaders, next diplomatic rules with weird AI, everything depending on loyalty, randomly generated political views, exceptions and rules, colliding with social policies and stuff
Who said anything about micromanagement? I've found that when people don't like a new concept in these forums, they tend to throw the term "micromanagement" around a lot.
The simpler the game is, the better. This is not Europa Universalis (which introduces stuff like that but instead doesn't have many obvious features of Civilization - you can't have everything in one game).
I agree that simpler is often better, but it too often it ends up being severely dumbed down without a lot of depth to it. Which in turn leads to very predictable, and very boring games. I personally prefer something with a bit more flavor.
You don't like the idea. Cool. I'm not a modder, you are, so it's not going to happen anyway. However, I do think EU has some interesting ideas that would be fun to bring over to Civ to see how they'd work, instead of dismissing them out of hand.
