Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[AntSou]

No to forced changing leaders per era, but I've supported a system where you're able to replace leaders throughout a playthrough at certain points during the game.

E.g. Each Civ in any given playthrough would have a "deck" of three leaders (you may have more in total, either official or via mods, but for each game you could only pick three, either selected or randomized).

You'd not choose which leader to activate immediately but after unlocking the first Civic. This gives the player enough time to judge the environment and immediate neighbours. You'd then pick one of the three leaders (E.g. Washington, Roosevelt, Lincoln) based on what you deemed more appropriate for the current start. You'd then be able to switch leader upon entering a new era, or every two eras.

Three seems like the sweet spot. Along with such a system, I would also make Civ and Leader abilities less complicated/overspecialised.

But the AI would probably make a mess of it...

 

[Henri Christophe]

No to forced changing leaders per era, but I've supported a system where you're able to replace leaders throughout a playthrough at certain points during the game.

E.g. Each Civ in any given playthrough would have a "deck" of three leaders (you may have more in total, either official or via mods, but for each game you could only pick three, either selected or randomized).

You'd not choose which leader to activate immediately but after unlocking the first Civic. This gives the player enough time to judge the environment and immediate neighbours. You'd then pick one of the three leaders (E.g. Washington, Roosevelt, Lincoln) based on what you deemed more appropriate for the current start. You'd then be able to switch leader upon entering a new era, or every two eras.

Three seems like the sweet spot. Along with such a system, I would also make Civ and Leader abilities less complicated/overspecialised.

But the AI would probably make a mess of it...

Great ideia, maybe less leaders make it more feasible.
And the idea of choice leaders is similar what Alexander's say early in this thread. Maybe it is also a better option.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Great ideia, maybe less leaders make it more feasible.
And the idea of choice leaders is similar what Alexander's say early in this thread. Maybe it is also a better option.

Not even 2 leaders for each civ is feasible unless you want to reduce the number of playable civs in a huge amount or turn back the quality of leaders to CIV4 detail. Each leader mean huge investment in audiovisuals and gameplay design, if they add a lot of them that would burn out the slots for others civs, look to CIV6 all we got are a total of 4 alternative leaders for few of the most famous civs (max of 1 alternate by civ).

So if you want at least 3 leaders for each civs do no expect more than 9 civs at release and 20 civs in total after all the DLCs, for sure Haiti would not be one of those 20 civs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Not even 2 leaders for each civ is feasible unless you want to reduce the number of playable civs in a huge amount or turn back the quality of leaders to CIV4 detail. Each leader mean huge investment in audiovisuals and gameplay design, if they add a lot of them that would burn out the slots for others civs, look to CIV6 all we got are a total of 4 alternative leaders for few of the most famous civs (max of 1 alternate by civ).

So if you want at least 3 leaders for each civs do no expect more than 9 civs at release and 20 civs in total after all the DLCs, for sure Haiti would not be one of those 20 civs.

I don't want to reduce the numbers of civs in Civ7. But I don't mind if Fireaxis reduces the quality, maybe make something more cartoonish. Maybe use fotos rather then animated leaders also can be a solution, if we remove the speak part of each leader, maybe we can add some requested civs as the Olmecs (as far I know, they aren't in the game because have an unknown language).

And I really hope Haiti be added in Civ7, even if civ7 have reduced amount of civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not even 2 leaders for each civ is feasible unless you want to reduce the number of playable civs in a huge amount or turn back the quality of leaders to CIV4 detail. Each leader mean huge investment in audiovisuals and gameplay design, if they add a lot of them that would burn out the slots for others civs, look to CIV6 all we got are a total of 4 alternative leaders for few of the most famous civs (max of 1 alternate by civ).

I'd think to make it feasible you'd have to be able to make a toggleable option to where you could also mix and match leaders with different civs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd think to make it feasible you'd have to be able to make a toggleable option to where you could also mix and match leaders with different civs.

What do you mean with mix leaders with different civs?
Is that possible? To start as Rome and finish as Turkey? The same civ be lead by Júlio César and Suleiman?
Or better, the same civ be lead by Hiawatha and George Washington?
Or the same civ be lead by Gengis Khan and Akbar?
Because, if I understood well, you said that. Or I'm wrong?

If you said that, it's no problem for me, because it is my original idea. (I just try to change it to fit better in community aproval)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What do you mean with mix leaders with different civs?
Is that possible? To start as Rome and finish as Turkey? The same civ be lead by Júlio César and Suleiman?
Or better, the same civ be lead by Hiawatha and George Washington?
Or the same civ be lead by Gengis Khan and Akbar?
Because, if I understood well, you said that. Or I'm wrong?

If you said that, it's no problem for me, because it is my original idea. (I just try to change it to fit better in community aproval)

They've had it in past games to where you can switch around leaders with civs, like Elizabeth leading the Zulu, or Shaka leading England. If this was a mod however, and not official, someone please clarify as I may be mistaken.
I'm in no way implying that the Iroquois and America, or Rome and the Ottomans are the same, however.

 

[Henri Christophe]

They've had it in past games to where you can switch around leaders with civs, like Elizabeth leading the Zulu, or Shaka leading England. If this was a mod however, and not official, someone please clarify as I may be mistaken.
I'm in no way implying that the Iroquois and America, or Rome and the Ottomans are the same, however.

I don't have problem if the Queen Victoria leads the Zulu, since she was the ruler when England conquer the Zululand.
But Shaka leading England should be a great plot twist in human history.

But I liked this plot twist, it's not historical accurate, but should be fun to play with. And for a game just need to be fun, and nothing more.

 

[AntSou]

or turn back the quality of leaders to CIV4 detail.

Yes, this is exactly what I want. They'd certainly look better than Civ 4, but the animations would be MUCH more simple than anything in Civ 6. I've suggested animated portraits before, such as the one below, but people don't seem to like that idea .



I don't think complex animations are necessary, at all.

 

[Patine]

At least Romulus was undoubted a Roman, he is the dude who founded the city of Rome.


The end of the Roman Empire is not so easy to apoint a date or a leader of the last emperor of the Roman Empire.
Maybe the West part of the empire ended with Romulus Augustulus, as you said, but it was revived by Charlemagne as the Holly Roman Emperor.

And this revived West Roman Empire, called him self the Holly Roman Empire, just fall down in Napoleonic wars when the Holly Roman Emperor Francis II decided to end it's empire because he lost the war against Napoleon.

The other half of Roman Empire maybe fall with Constantine XI, as you said, but the Turkish proclaimed they self Roman emperor by the right of conquest. Let's remember at the time the Austrian proclaimed it self as the Holly Roman Emperors too.
And it also has the third Roman is Moscow, who proclaimed it self Romans as the right of religion (they follow the faith of Constantinople).

And for last, the Mussoline also proclaimed it self the Roman Emperor. (he was an emperor in Rome). So that can be understood the Roman Empire just fell in 1945 when Mussoline lost the second world war.

And since the Roman Empire still in our imagination, it can rise again someday in the future (I just hope it's not happens agains).



About the animation budget, Fireaxis can make the animations less hard to do, something more cartoonish should be able to do more leader per civ.

Fireaxis already try to do something similar in Civilization 3, where the leaders trade his clothes per era. But I don't like this way to do it, I think is better changing leaders (in order to they change their behavior when be controled by AI).

The legacy of the Roman Empire has been used as a justification of legitimacy by Medieval Germans, Serbians, Bulgarians, and Greek-speakers, Early Modern Russians, Ottomans, and (again) Germans, as well as Mussolini's National Fascist Union and (proxy of Byzantine and Ottoman claims) supporters of the Megali Idea and Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanism, and the Roman Catholic Church. None of these peoples ARE Romans, per se, or ruling a, "Roman Empire," - it is just a label and pretense to legitimize latter-day Imperial ambitions, and that's it.

 

[Patine]

I don't have problem if the Queen Victoria leads the Zulu, since she was the ruler when England conquer the Zululand.
But Shaka leading England should be a great plot twist in human history.

But I liked this plot twist, it's not historical accurate, but should be fun to play with. And for a game just need to be fun, and nothing more.

Please, no!

 

[Henri Christophe]

The legacy of the Roman Empire has been used as a justification of legitimacy by Medieval Germans, Serbians, Bulgarians, and Greek-speakers, Early Modern Russians, Ottomans, and (again) Germans, as well as Mussolini's National Fascist Union and (proxy of Byzantine and Ottoman claims) supporters of the Megali Idea and Erdogan's Neo-Ottomanism, and the Roman Catholic Church. None of these peoples ARE Romans, per se, or ruling a, "Roman Empire," - it is just a label and pretense to legitimize latter-day Imperial ambitions, and that's it.

Now think it as a game concept, you start in pre-historic age with Romulus leading Rome, and through the eras will change the leaders and the name of the civilization to fit Julius Cesar, Charles Magnus, Constantine, Suleiman the magnificent, Maria Theresa from Austria and finish as Mussoline of Italy. Will be for sure an unexpected experience.

 

[Patine]

Now think it as a game concept, you start in pre-historic age with Romulus leading Rome, and through the eras will change the leaders and the name of the civilization to fit Julius Cesar, Charles Magnus, Constantine, Suleiman the magnificent, Maria Theresa from Austria and finish as Mussoline of Italy. Will be for sure an unexpected experience.

A game concept around pretense, legitimizing unrelated Imperialism and institutions, and claimed irredentism? Not in the Civ series, please...

 

[Rurudyne]

I was thinking, why each Civilization just have one leader? Is it a dictatorship?
And my propose is, for each civilization change it leaders in each era of the game. Changing it's personality and behaviour for each leader.

If Civilization was divided in 5 main eras:
Ancient age
Classical age
Middle ages
Modern ages
Contemporany age.

it means each Civilization should have at least 5 leaders. (if you disagre with that ages, go here)

Some problems and solutions for this idea:

There is two big problems with this idea, some nations are too old and not arrive in contemporany ages and others are so new and don't have leaders of ancient age.

My solution for this issue is intermixing some civilization who have some kind of historical or geographycal links.
For example: Babylon
It can be lead by Nebuchadnezzar in ancient age and be lead by Saddam Hussein in Contemporany age.

maybe changing the name of the Civilization too when change the leader. (or not)

Other example: The Aztecs.
It can starts with Tenoch in ancient age, have Montezuma in classical age. But when it arrives in contemporany age have some president of Mexico as Benito Juárez

Other example: Brazil
It can starts with some native american leader as Cunhambebe in ancient age, goes to some colonial governor of Brazil in Classical age as Mem de Sá, after have our beloved Pedro II in middle ages. In modern age Brazil can have some president as Getúlio Vargas and finish it in contemporany age with Juscelino Kubitschek.

Other example: USA
It also can starts with some native american leader as Hiawatha (of Iroquois) in ancient age. After have George Washington in classical age and Abraham Lincon in middle ages.

Other example: The Zulus
It can start with Mnguni in ancient age, goes to Zulu kaMalandela in classical age, after have our beloved Shaka Zulu in middle ages and finish it in contemporany age with some South Africa president as Mandela or Jacob Zuma. Or instead of it have a South African president, the Zulu can still with Zulu kings in contemporany age as Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu.

Other example: Rome
It can have a leader as Júlio César in classical age and goes for Italians leaders in modern age as Garibaldi.


Just to note here, it is not necessary for an ancient leader to live in ancient time, but just need to be the first leader of this nation (or at least be older than the others leaders)

With a non-historical world for Civ6 civilizations you could avoid issues with changing nations in the same land. Also, why not have each list of leaders include possibly some of the turkeys, the proverbial Leonard the Lames that were more common in history? Maybe have getting a dodgy era leader, or a really good one, coincide with the old truism about hard times making strong men, strong men making good times, good times making weak men, weak men causing hard times by making the odds of getting a turkey better after a golden age and, conversely, getting someone brilliant after a dark age be more likely?

 

[mdl5000]

I had this idea, too. Your civ would have a permanent major bonus, and different leaders can offer a minor bonus that you could switch between. This:
1) tries to make everyone happy by including several leaders for one civ. including or modding in more leaders would be easier.
2) is a tad more realistic as dynasties change in a nation from time to time.

The problem is not all civilizations have a sizable handful of leaders to do it. I imagine you would have to get creative by including "Great People", or some sort of ruling class, as leaders in some instances.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The problem is not all civilizations have a sizable handful of leaders to do it. I imagine you would have to get creative by including "Great People", or some sort of ruling class, as leaders in some instances.

I guess if the number was short as just 3. It is possible because even small civs as the Zulus had more then 3 leaders. As you can see in this thread https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/zulu-alternative-leader.675851/

 

[reddishrecue]

I see what you're trying to say. Sort of like a change of dynasty where you can choose a different leader after an era in a civilization. That would be awesome for all civilizations because I remember it was weird to have the same leader be chosen and stay throughout the whole history of the civilization. I mean there are different government types that can be chosen and change the strategy which can be challenging to adapt to still. If you go back to civilization 1, you will see that if you make a revolution to a different government, the game won't be as easy as staying despot throughout the whole game.

 

[mitsho]

I don't think every civ should have the same amount of leaders. It's a very easy way to make a distinction between "bigger" civs like Rome and "smaller" ones like Mapuche after all. What if the benefit of the "original 18" is that they can easier change their set-up (leader) in the middle of the game according to their needs. While Babylon is stuck with Hammurabi. And yes, make some of them shared: Charlemagne can go to France, Germany or the Dutch. Will be weird if they face off each other, but hey, civ has done weirder things

 

[Henri Christophe]

I don't think every civ should have the same amount of leaders.

I kind of disagree, if we have multiple leaders, all civs should to have the same amount of civ leaders! That is the why the number should be small as for example 3 leaders. I'm sure we can find 3 great Mapuche names to be leaders.

 

[reddishrecue]

Or if they end up making leaders with roman numerals sort of like King Louis of France.