A new Yields Governor that has empire wide scope. Operates like the city governor but can also manage plot ownership.

[DeckerdJames]

It could be helpful if the city governors were connected to a new empire governor that could be used to maximize yields of your choice across the whole empire at once. You could still override that by choosing a plot, but while in the new empire governor view, clicking on tiles toggles them between being managed by the computer or being locked in by the player.

If the computer could automatically change which cities own the plots, then when choosing what yields you want a city to prioritize, it would only inform the empire governor which would use the settings of all the cities to balance which cities own the plots and which plots are being worked.

Some choices made by the governor could be factored into the balancing algorithm. If I had Pingala in a city, then perhaps that city could automatically take plots with culture and science because Pingala gives an additional 15% to both of those immediately.

If there was an empire governor, having empire wide scope, then it would make selecting an empire wide strategy easier.

 

[Patine]

It could be helpful if the city governors were connected to a new empire governor that could be used to maximize yields of your choice across the whole empire at once. You could still override that by choosing a plot, but while in the new empire governor view, clicking on tiles toggles them between being managed by the computer or being locked in by the player.

If the computer could automatically change which cities own the plots, then when choosing what yields you want a city to prioritize, it would only inform the empire governor which would use the settings of all the cities to balance which cities own the plots and which plots are being worked.

Some choices made by the governor could be factored into the balancing algorithm. If I had Pingala in a city, then perhaps that city could automatically take plots with culture and science because Pingala gives an additional 15% to both of those immediately.

If there was an empire governor, having empire wide scope, then it would make selecting an empire wide strategy easier.

You mean like a Finance Minister?

 

[luca 83]

It could be helpful if the city governors were connected to a new empire governor that could be used to maximize yields of your choice across the whole empire at once. You could still override that by choosing a plot, but while in the new empire governor view, clicking on tiles toggles them between being managed by the computer or being locked in by the player.

If the computer could automatically change which cities own the plots, then when choosing what yields you want a city to prioritize, it would only inform the empire governor which would use the settings of all the cities to balance which cities own the plots and which plots are being worked.

Some choices made by the governor could be factored into the balancing algorithm. If I had Pingala in a city, then perhaps that city could automatically take plots with culture and science because Pingala gives an additional 15% to both of those immediately.

If there was an empire governor, having empire wide scope, then it would make selecting an empire wide strategy easier.

at governor could also replace your government by attempting a coup d'état this answers my post thank you

 

[Patine]

at governor could also replace your government by attempting a coup d'état this answers my post thank you

Having a player's leadership arbitrarily overthrown does not work in Civ, as has been said to you many times.

 

[DeckerdJames]

You mean like a Finance Minister?

No, nothing like that. On the city management controls there are options to choose what yields you want the city to work. I am proposing to have controls that do the same thing for the whole empire. Would be helpful? I think it could be. Computers can be very accurate.

 

[DeckerdJames]

at governor could also replace your government by attempting a coup d'état this answers my post thank you

I don't know what problem you are solving. My suggestion is a set of controls that the player can use to control which plots the citizens are working and which cities own which plots. I am hoping for a new higher level of control. Especially in the next Civ. I doubt they would do it for this game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't know what problem you are solving. My suggestion is a set of controls that the player can use to control which plots the citizens are working and which cities own which plots. I am hoping for a new higher level of control. Especially in the next Civ. I doubt they would do it for this game.

If you just want 'empire-wide controls' for maximum yields in each city or switching between, say, Production, Gold, Religion or Cultural yields empire-wide, that could be done without invoking any 'governor' by having Empire/Civ controls for the gamer.

On the other hand, some time ago I suggested another type of Great Person, a Great Minister who could provide Empire/Civ-wide bonuses: a sort of governor for all or most of the cities instead of individual cities. There are numerous IRL examples of people who acted to expand on the ruler's wishes, like Oxenstierna in Sweden, Cromwell (Thomas, not Oliver) in England - this, in fact, would be the place for Richelieu or Mazarin in France, Ben Franklin or George Marshal in the USA, Tlacaelel of the Aztecs, etc.

This, I thought, would be more in line with Civ's 'personalizing' every mechanic they could with named Leaders, Great People, and Governors.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If you just want 'empire-wide controls' for maximum yields in each city or switching between, say, Production, Gold, Religion or Cultural yields empire-wide, that could be done without invoking any 'governor' by having Empire/Civ controls for the gamer.

On the other hand, some time ago I suggested another type of Great Person, a Great Minister who could provide Empire/Civ-wide bonuses: a sort of governor for all or most of the cities instead of individual cities. There are numerous IRL examples of people who acted to expand on the ruler's wishes, like Oxenstierna in Sweden, Cromwell (Thomas, not Oliver) in England - this, in fact, would be the place for Richelieu or Mazarin in France, Ben Franklin or George Marshal in the USA, Tlacaelel of the Aztecs, etc.

This, I thought, would be more in line with Civ's 'personalizing' every mechanic they could with named Leaders, Great People, and Governors.

Funny thing is that the more natural kind of great person that should have an empire wide effect is the leader itself!
That is quite ironic because is one of the things that are limited by the leader figure in CIV. Something that is not going to change for this franchise but where I can agree with @luca 83 about the lost potential of changing leaders.
Maybe someday other historical based 4x game franchise could have charismatic personifiacion of civs without be historical leaders, liberating the laters from that heavy role.

By the way, ARA have leaders but, can they be changed?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Funny thing is that the more natural kind of great person that should have an empire wide effect is the leader itself!
That is quite ironic because is one of the things that are limited by the leader figure in CIV. Something that is not going to change for this franchise but where I can agree with @luca 83 about the lost potential of changing leaders.
Maybe someday other historical based 4x game franchise could have charismatic personifiacion of civs without be historical leaders, liberating the laters from that heavy role.

By the way, ARA have leaders but, can they be changed?

The reason I suggested Great Ministers in he first place, long ago, was the Civ reality that Leaders are too expensive in graphics and other resources to have more than one per Civ, occasionally alternates but (so far) never more than one Leader per Civ per Game.

Sigh. I would dearly love for a Progressive Leader mechanic in Civ, but the amount of resources they demand for their leaders in graphics, voice acting, etc make that simply impossible.

I have not seen any indication of how the Leaders in ARA work except for some kind of Leader bonuses (largely unspecified so far). However, given how bland most of the Leader graphics look in that game, they might be trying for a less-resource-intensive leader set than Civ uses, and so be able to provide multiple Leaders per Civ - just no evidence of that so far, and it's so basic (and different) that one would think they would have advertised it already.

Interesting, though, is that the other In Development 4x historical, Millenia, has not mentioned Leaders at all as far as I know. I hope they have a mechanic that works better than Humankind's 'Avatars' linked to the gamer rather than the Civ/Faction, because that was a flat failure from an Immersion point of view.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This was brought up before but for Civ 7 governors could change into government ministers and provide empire wide bonuses instead of relegating them to one city.

By the way, ARA have leaders but, can they be changed?

I'm pretty sure that each faction has only one leader, and there is no switching like Humankind.

 

[Patine]

If you just want 'empire-wide controls' for maximum yields in each city or switching between, say, Production, Gold, Religion or Cultural yields empire-wide, that could be done without invoking any 'governor' by having Empire/Civ controls for the gamer.

On the other hand, some time ago I suggested another type of Great Person, a Great Minister who could provide Empire/Civ-wide bonuses: a sort of governor for all or most of the cities instead of individual cities. There are numerous IRL examples of people who acted to expand on the ruler's wishes, like Oxenstierna in Sweden, Cromwell (Thomas, not Oliver) in England - this, in fact, would be the place for Richelieu or Mazarin in France, Ben Franklin or George Marshal in the USA, Tlacaelel of the Aztecs, etc.

This, I thought, would be more in line with Civ's 'personalizing' every mechanic they could with named Leaders, Great People, and Governors.

This could also include Bismarck (or Metternich) of the Germans, too, some famous Chancellors or Great Excellencies of Chinese history.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This could also include Bismarck (or Metternich) of the Germans, too, some famous Chancellors or Great Excellencies of Chinese history.

I've got a list, partially compiled from suggestions given in a Thread over a year ago from the denizens/inmates of these Forums, that includes a sampling of names from all over, including classical Chinese, Southeast Asian and other non-European areas.
Many of them, like Bismarck, I have to list with a note that they can and have been used as Civ Leaders as well, either in the base games or Mods.

 

[luca 83]

Funny thing is that the more natural kind of great person that should have an empire wide effect is the leader itself!
That is quite ironic because is one of the things that are limited by the leader figure in CIV. Something that is not going to change for this franchise but where I can agree with @luca 83 about the lost potential of changing leaders.
Maybe someday other historical based 4x game franchise could have charismatic personifiacion of civs without be historical leaders, liberating the laters from that heavy role.

By the way, ARA have leaders but, can they be changed?

Without leaders, dynastic crises such as Roman military anarchy can be better simulated. Or lord of war in China in 1900

 

[luca 83]

Governors should act as people having interests and needs, as well as military generals if disgruntled ssi rebel, a reason for civil war

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t even want governors to return. I think abstracting them back out to policies or decisions or something is better.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don’t even want governors to return. I think abstracting them back out to policies or decisions or something is better.

Like it or not, I think Personalized Peoples instead of abstracted policies is the way Civ is going to go for the foreseeable future. For one thing, it distinctly sets Civ apart from Humankind, and apparently (from what we've seen so far) ARA and Millenia, the other Historical 4Xs out there.

On the other hand, I think it could be done better.
As in, Why have only one set of 'Governors' for every single Civ in the game, bar a couple of Uniques? At the very least, there should be more possibilities for Governors Unique to government types and interacting with Civ Uniques: why should we always, regardless of every other thing in our Civ, have the same set of Governors to choose from? And why have only one Governor available of each type? If I am in a general war, more than one militant Governor would be really handy. Likewise for a seaport/harbor/trade-enhancing Governor if I have 12 seaports with trade routes that all need Enhancing . . .

Go to war, or have War come to you, should be a trigger for a more 'militant' Governor to show up for hire.
Certain government types could have different Governor possibilities. Why should a Theocracy or Totalitarian government have the same Governors as a Republic or Democracy?
Get a string of Natural Disasters hit the same city, possibly trigger a more competent Disaster Relief Governor for that city.

In every case, similar effects might be obtained by having variable Promotion Prospects for Governors - a separate 'tree' of promotions for Disaster Relief or other 'special attributes' you require in a Governor.

 

[luca 83]

It is not a problem, in one type of government a person behaves one way and another,: they can change the qualities in a regime the governors will be more totalitarian, what is more important is that the governors can rebel and take power!

Like it or not, I think Personalized Peoples instead of abstracted policies is the way Civ is going to go for the foreseeable future. For one thing, it distinctly sets Civ apart from Humankind, and apparently (from what we've seen so far) ARA and Millenia, the other Historical 4Xs out there.

On the other hand, I think it could be done better.
As in, Why have only one set of 'Governors' for every single Civ in the game, bar a couple of Uniques? At the very least, there should be more possibilities for Governors Unique to government types and interacting with Civ Uniques: why should we always, regardless of every other thing in our Civ, have the same set of Governors to choose from? And why have only one Governor available of each type? If I am in a general war, more than one militant Governor would be really handy. Likewise for a seaport/harbor/trade-enhancing Governor if I have 12 seaports with trade routes that all need Enhancing . . .

Go to war, or have War come to you, should be a trigger for a more 'militant' Governor to show up for hire.
Certain government types could have different Governor possibilities. Why should a Theocracy or Totalitarian government have the same Governors as a Republic or Democracy?
Get a string of Natural Disasters hit the same city, possibly trigger a more competent Disaster Relief Governor for that city.

In every case, similar effects might be obtained by having variable Promotion Prospects for Governors - a separate 'tree' of promotions for Disaster Relief or other 'special attributes' you require in a Governor.

 

[vorlon_mi]

It could be helpful if the city governors were connected to a new empire governor that could be used to maximize yields of your choice across the whole empire at once. You could still override that by choosing a plot, but while in the new empire governor view, clicking on tiles toggles them between being managed by the computer or being locked in by the player.

If the computer could automatically change which cities own the plots, then when choosing what yields you want a city to prioritize, it would only inform the empire governor which would use the settings of all the cities to balance which cities own the plots and which plots are being worked.

Some choices made by the governor could be factored into the balancing algorithm. If I had Pingala in a city, then perhaps that city could automatically take plots with culture and science because Pingala gives an additional 15% to both of those immediately.

If there was an empire governor, having empire wide scope, then it would make selecting an empire wide strategy easier.

Civ3 and Civ4 had empire-wide sliders to manage the emphasis on culture, research, or cash/gold. That's another way of doing it; each of those had city-specific emphasis also: grow/don't grow, emphasize production or emphasize gold. Neither of those games had the other feature that you noted -- swapping tiles to be worked by neighboring cities. That sort of production tinkering became known as "micromanagement" or just "micro"; medium-difficulty players found it un-fun, while Deity-level players found it essential. Some elite Civ3 players visit the city screen of every city, every turn, to conduct the micro of tile management.
Why? Because Civ3, unlike Civ4 and later games, did not have overflow. Extra production was wasted, so elite players had an incentive.

I like the *idea* of an automated sweep through all my cities, especially when one has more than 10 or 15 cities (both self-founded and conquered) as one often has in Civ6. It would not be needed for the 4-city Tradition play in Civ5. It has the potential for getting a better value for gold-per-turn or production-per-turn than my manual process. I don't find micro very much fun. On the other hand, I often have secondary or tertiary goals for my cities, such as near a frontier where a war may soon start. I might find myself turning off the "empire efficiency minister" or "COO" if it didn't meet my regional goals.

 

[Patine]

Civ3 and Civ4 had empire-wide sliders to manage the emphasis on culture, research, or cash/gold. That's another way of doing it; each of those had city-specific emphasis also: grow/don't grow, emphasize production or emphasize gold. Neither of those games had the other feature that you noted -- swapping tiles to be worked by neighboring cities. That sort of production tinkering became known as "micromanagement" or just "micro"; medium-difficulty players found it un-fun, while Deity-level players found it essential. Some elite Civ3 players visit the city screen of every city, every turn, to conduct the micro of tile management.
Why? Because Civ3, unlike Civ4 and later games, did not have overflow. Extra production was wasted, so elite players had an incentive.

I like the *idea* of an automated sweep through all my cities, especially when one has more than 10 or 15 cities (both self-founded and conquered) as one often has in Civ6. It would not be needed for the 4-city Tradition play in Civ5. It has the potential for getting a better value for gold-per-turn or production-per-turn than my manual process. I don't find micro very much fun. On the other hand, I often have secondary or tertiary goals for my cities, such as near a frontier where a war may soon start. I might find myself turning off the "empire efficiency minister" or "COO" if it didn't meet my regional goals.

Civ2 had this previously, though it wasjust purely, "luxuries," instead of culture.