Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Henri Christophe]

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)

 

[Arcaian]

I think this suggestion can very easily buy into same dangerous, nationalistic ideas. Babylon is not in any meaningful way the same civilisation as Iraq, and the idea that it is has been used to fuel dangerous actions in the past. Similarly, the connection between the Iroquois and the United States is one of violent conquest, attempted genocide, and an ongoing marginalisation - they're not the same civilisation, and the suggestion that there's any continuity outside of geography is absurd. I know you said geographic links are all that is required for your suggestion, but this concept buys into a great deal of (very much harmful) nationalistic propaganda from around the world, and paints colonisers and the colonised as fundamentally the same people. I can't disagree with a suggestion much more than I do with this one.

 

[Henri Christophe]

the connection between the Iroquois and the United States

Okay, maybe the idea of mixing the civilizations isn't that good, so what if USA civ starts as George Washington in Ancient era and goes with just US presidents?

Babylon is not in any meaningful way the same civilisation as Iraq

And Babylon was straight with just babylonic kings to Contemporany era.

I can't disagree with a suggestion much more than I do with this one.

with those changes, the idea of multiple leader become it better?

 

[awesome]

Just play civ rev

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Okay, maybe the idea of mixing the civilizations isn't that good, so what if USA civ starts as George Washington in Ancient era and goes with just US presidents?

No to mixing civilizations. If you choose Babylon you can only choose between leaders such as Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar.
Why can you only start as George Washington? Why not have the option of starting as Abraham Lincoln and then upon changing to a new government type you can then go to Washington, Jefferson, or Roosevelt etc.?

I doubt this will happen though.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why can you only start as George Washington? Why not have the option of starting as Abraham Lincoln and then upon changing to a new government type you can then go to Washington, Jefferson, or Roosevelt etc.?

I tought to do it chronological, without the option to choice the leader, just going change the leaders through the eras.
But if you have a suggestion of better mechanic I would like to listen.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

What is benefit of this? Do each of leaders have unique LA?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civ Rev had a similar mechanic, where each new era you got some new sort of ability which I always liked

The biggest challenge would be finding leader names for each civ for each era, and then the animating and stuff

 

[Ryansinbela]

Also not every era having enough leaders per era

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Also not every era having enough leaders per era

What about civs with leaders we just don't know enough... like Sumner.

 

[Henri Christophe]

What is benefit of this? Do each of leaders have unique LA?

Each leader can have an unique behavior when used by AI, for example the Aztecs. When lead by Montezuma it should be very agressive and warmonger. But when be lead by Benito Juárez, it should be more pacific.

The biggest challenge would be finding leader names for each civ for each era, and then the animating and stuff

In order to do it feasible, I believe it is don't needed to fit leader with era so much, for example. USA can starts in ancient era with George Washington (despite George Washington never lived in ancient era). But I believe the change of leaders should follow some chronolical flow.

What about civs with leaders we just don't know enough... like Sumner.

If we share the eras in 5, as I said above, the civilization need to have at least 5 possible leaders to be a civ. If not, it's out.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I tought to do it chronological, without the option to choice the leader, just going change the leaders through the eras.
But if you have a suggestion of better mechanic I would like to listen.

My idea isn't changing leaders based on era, but having a choice to change when changing into a different government. Of course you still have a choice and it's not mandatory. I think your idea is too limiting. For example I'd love to start an England game as Victoria for quick expansion. Then mid-game I choose switch to Elizabeth to focus on a cultural victory after building up my empire. If we do it your way I'd have to start with Elizabeth first.

If we share the eras in 5, as I said above, the civilization need to have at least 5 possible leaders to be a civ. If not, it's out.

Having it to where a civ must have at least 5 leaders in a game is too much. At most I would want is 3, and even then I would not want it for every single civ in the game.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

. But when be lead by Benito Juárez, it should be more pacific.

But why would Aztecs be lead by Benito? Mexico=/=Aztec when Mexico is basically Aztec+Maya+Spanish colony. Like how USA isn't necessarily just Native American or Canada isn't just Cree.

 

[Henri Christophe]

My idea isn't changing leaders based on era, but having a choice to change when changing into a different government. Of course you still have a choice and it's not mandatory. I think your idea is too limiting. For example I'd love to start an England game as Victoria for quick expansion. Then mid-game I choose switch to Elizabeth to focus on a cultural victory after building up my empire. If we do it your way I'd have to start with Elizabeth first.

If we are able to choice leaders, it can lead to an intersting mechanic with Rome. Who starts with Romulus in ancient age but it can diverge latter with some leader from the West Roman Empire as Charlemagne or a leader from the East Roman Empire as Basil I. And, in the end. It can be lead by an Austrian king as Francis II (if the player choice the West Roman Empire) or lead by a Turkish king as Suleiman (if the player choice the East Roman Empire). Of course, if it's happens, should don't have Turkish or Austrian civ in the game. But will be fun to play with them as Romans emperors.

Other mechanic what should be fun to play with is the independence of countries. For example, if England settle in a farway land and it lost loyality, it can become the USA. The sames goes from Portugal and Brazil. That will make USA and Brazil just playable as AI and just if it happens to lost loyality to appear in the game.

Having it to where a civ must have at least 5 leaders in a game is too much. At most I would want is 3, and even then I would not want it for every single civ in the game.

Do you think 5 is too much? I was thinking it is too few. Just look here how many eras is possible to divide the time line, even you share it as 10 possibles eras:
1. Prehistoric Era
2. Ancient Era
3. Classical Era
4. Medieval Era
5. Early Modern Era
6. Industrial Era
7. Modern Era
8. Atomic Era
9. Information Era
10. Future Era
and have more leaders is a good oportunity to appear obscure leaders for nations, for example Brazil who should have leaders as Nilo Peçanha (our first black president) he never will appear in a game with just one leader, but if it have more leaders he can be a good candidate.

But why would Aztecs be lead by Benito? Mexico=/=Aztec when Mexico is basically Aztec+Maya+Spanish colony. Like how USA isn't necessarily just Native American or Canada isn't just Cree.

The Aztecs call they self as Mexica, and Mexico borrowed it's name from Aztecs.They also share the same capital city, the city of México Tenochtitlán.
I just feel it have a continuity who can be explored in this game.
My original idea is to begining the Americas states as indigenous in Ancient Age and become modern states in Modern age. For example USA can starts with the Iroquois, Canada starts with Cree, Brazil starts with Tupi-Guarani, Chile starts with Mapuche, Peru starts as Incas.

But, if community don't like this idea of mix civilizations, it can be redrawed as USA starting with George Washington in Ancient age and Aztecs have their last leader Cuauhtemoc in Contemporany age.
It's upon to you choice what is the best

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we are able to choice leaders, it can lead to an intersting mechanic with Rome. Who starts with Romulus in ancient age but it can diverge latter with some leader from the West Roman Empire as Charlemagne or a leader from the East Roman Empire as Basil I. And, in the end. It can be lead by an Austrian king as Francis II (if the player choice the West Roman Empire) or lead by a Turkish king as Suleiman (if the player choice the East Roman Empire). Of course, if it's happens, should don't have Turkish or Austrian civ in the game. But will be fun to play with them as Romans emperors.

It's amazing how you list Rome as the civilization but even fail to list one actual Roman leader in your list.

There is no chance that Charlemagne, Basil I, Francis II, or Suleiman will ever lead the same civilization, let alone that civilization being Rome.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

If we are able to choice leaders, it can lead to an intersting mechanic with Rome. Who starts with Romulus in ancient age but it can diverge latter with some leader from the West Roman Empire as Charlemagne or a leader from the East Roman Empire as Basil I. And, in the end. It can be lead by an Austrian king as Francis II (if the player choice the West Roman Empire) or lead by a Turkish king as Suleiman (if the player choice the East Roman Empire). Of course, if it's happens, should don't have Turkish or Austrian civ in the game. But will be fun to play with them as Romans emperors

why do you think they are Romans? Rome ended with Romulus Augustulus. And Constantine XI on the Eastern side. Charlemagne isn't Roman Empire. Francis II defently isn't and Turks are NOT Roman empire.

 

[Evie]

This will never happen because the sheer number of leaderheads required would destroy civ's animation budget. Plus, part of the charm of Civ is being able to have a given leader in any era (so leaders should not be era-limited).

The idea of swapping between leaders is not uninterestingto explore, but it requires a more flexible approach than simple "every civ has a different leader for each era".

 

[Henri Christophe]

It's amazing how you list Rome as the civilization but even fail to list one actual Roman leader in your list.

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

why do you think they are Romans? Rome ended with Romulus Augustulus. And Constantine XI on the Eastern side. Charlemagne isn't Roman Empire. Francis II defently isn't and Turks are NOT Roman empire.

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).

This will never happen because the sheer number of leaderheads required would destroy civ's animation budget.

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.

The idea of swapping between leaders is not uninterestingto explore, but it requires a more flexible approach than simple "every civ has a different leader for each era".

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).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

And he is the only one on the list whose accomplishments that we know of are probably not even real, let alone if he was even real or not.

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.

Either if you believe it ended when Rome fell in the West in 476, or the end of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire in 1453, those are the only dates in which the Roman Empire could have ended.

 

[aieeegrunt]

This will never happen because the sheer number of leaderheads required would destroy civ's animation budget. Plus, part of the charm of Civ is being able to have a given leader in any era (so leaders should not be era-limited).

The idea of swapping between leaders is not uninterestingto explore, but it requires a more flexible approach than simple "every civ has a different leader for each era".

Rather than changing leaders why not add or change a civ trait or ability every era like Civ Rev did

Here is Germany for example


Era Bonuses

The Germans begin the game with automatic upgrades for their elite units. Units promoted at least once will upgrade to the next relevant unit when the appropriate technology is researched (e.g. a Warriorwith Blitz will become a Legion with Blitz upon researching Iron Working).

Ancient: New Warriors become veterans

Medieval: +1 Production from forest

Industrial: 1/2 cost Barracks

Modern: 2% interest on gold reserves