Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

Do you like this idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Yes, with some changes

    Votes: 6 20.0%
  • Not at all

    Votes: 20 66.7%

  • Total voters
    30
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.

3 seems like already quite a big number for changing leaders for one game for me, it's hard to keep track of all of them for multiple civs, no?

As for your "I kinda disagree", can you give a reasoning why you feel like that. Otherwise it's kinda hard to answer. ;-)
 
3 seems like already quite a big number for changing leaders for one game for me, it's hard to keep track of all of them for multiple civs, no?

As for your "I kinda disagree", can you give a reasoning why you feel like that. Otherwise it's kinda hard to answer. ;-)
3 is a perfect number, not to much, not to few. If fireaxis think 3 is a big number, better don't have alternate leaders for all
 
3 is a perfect number, not to much, not to few. If fireaxis think 3 is a big number, better don't have alternate leaders for all
Yeah, best to not have any alternate leaders and just leave it to a game mode where any leader not currently in the game is randomly selected as someone you can choose to lead with in the next era and you can rename the leader and civ each era. Or modding.

Alternatively, do what civ4 A New Dawn’s team did to get over 100 leaders in a modpack: Use already existing leader models with slight modifications and new voicelines to represent new leaders in a “Twin Leaders” DLC. Want Bismarck? Make Teddy Roosevelt have grey hair and give him an Iron Cross (funny actually, given they both were targeted for assassination and humiliated their would be killers). Want Napoleon? Remove Peter The Great’s moustache and give him black hair. You get the idea.

“But Doodles, no one would buy this crap! It would look so cheap!”

… Are you sure? You think people wouldn’t want to get officially supported Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Meiji, Napoleon, etc. and all their abilities and uniques just because the models and animations are similar to other leaders? …

I’d be very surprised. 5$ for me to get a Napoleon who could stack two Armies together? An English leader who could declare a blockade and attack any trade routes from a neutral party heading to an enemy I’m fighting, and take the wealth? A Bismarck who can do a once a game annexation of all city-state allies? A Khruschev who can give Nuclear Weapons to city-state allies (actually everyone should be able to do that)? And 17 others? These abilities I just listed might be ridiculous but you get the idea.

Super Smash Bros Ultimate already did this with Echo Fighters and far as I know, it worked out just fine. No one called them lazy over it, and it didn’t ruin the game.
Just to be certain though, they could check the sales of a tiny version of this with like 5 leaders.

If it works they do a bigger one, if it fails then I was wrong and most civvers apparently actually care enough about leaderhead model uniqueness to not spend 5$ to get the ability to give nuclear frickin weapons to frickin city states with sharks with fricking lazer beams attached to their heads!
 
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).


I liked this effect, also let you know what era they were in
 
I liked this effect, also let you know what era they were in
Ugh! The Civ3 effect! A nice idea, on paper, but done very poorly, in practice.
 
Ugh! The Civ3 effect! A nice idea, on paper, but done very poorly, in practice.
I agree with you, it was poorly design. Because change clothes per era make a understand of history as a linear one, where every one end with smoke suits.
If we just have alt leaders we don't will have this linear evolution issue, because each leader just represent a period of each civ, is not an anacronic concept of how Gilgamesh should be wearing in XX century.

Back to the Germany issue, this alt leader can help to consolided the notion of the German nation, as the German civ can be lead at same time by Barbarrosa, Frederick the Great and Bismarck.
 
Leaders should be replaced: in a game where there are depths of economics, politics, military, what does a leader need for centuries? When there are parliaments, banks, coups, fixed leaders are not needed! It was fine in civ 1 but in modern game with a high and useless i hope ai. I repeat with better dynamics leaders are outdated
 
Personally, I like a single leader per game. I also feel at this point, the one leader through the ages is a little to ingrained in the the Civ brand to dismantle(more important for casual player buying the game)?

If we wanted to add parliament and other government bodies to change how the later eras gameplay works that could be cool.
 
Personally, I like a single leader per game. I also feel at this point, the one leader through the ages is a little to ingrained in the the Civ brand to dismantle(more important for casual player buying the game)?

If we wanted to add parliament and other government bodies to change how the later eras gameplay works that could be cool.
leader for each civilization makes no sense if the game has internal and external depth : economic and political , the leaders then represent a precise historical period Louis xiv represents 1600 Napoleon 1700 Louis x 1800 each and the product of an era put them in a different era it would be anachronistic
 
I mean for one thing that list of leaders make no sense - Napoléon ruled from 1799-1815 so why would he represent the 1700?

But more broadly, the game you describe, Luca, is not civilization. It might be a good game, but overhauling every aspect of civ as completely as you suggest would only serve to alienate massive stretches of the people who like what civ is, to appeal to an uncertain userbase that wants the kind of game you suggest.
 
I mean for one thing that list of leaders make no sense - Napoléon ruled from 1799-1815 so why would he represent the 1700?

But more broadly, the game you describe, Luca, is not civilization. It might be a good game, but overhauling every aspect of civ as completely as you suggest would only serve to alienate massive stretches of the people who like what civ is, to appeal to an uncertain userbase that wants the kind of game you suggest.
Games change over time! the first civ and of 1991 which base are you talking about ? A base that doesn't want to change? Their problems maybe you weren't born but in 1991 the games and graphics were very different a change after 30 years and necessary and desirable
 
Games change over time! the first civ and of 1991 which base are you talking about ? A base that doesn't want to change? Their problems maybe you weren't born but in 1991 the games and graphics were very different a change after 30 years and necessary and desirable
Yes, games change over time, but they also maintain trademark and iconic features. Age of Empires and, I believe, Humankind do not have specific, "leaders," of their civilizations in a meaningful way. Civ does. That is one way these games distinguish themselves from each other. Very few Civ players are saying that the whole idea of leaders as an iconic game institution should be dropped.
 
Patine summed it up well. Has civ changed a lot over that time? Yes. Have the fundamentals of the game - including the god-emperor leader - remained the same throughout, and in fact been *reinforced* by more recent games, indicating that they're central to what the game is? Also, yes. Leaders have changed for the past thirty years - but in the exact opposite of the direction you want, in a franchise that centers them more with each new version,

"A change after thirty years is necessary and desirable" - certainly not necessary. Desirable? I don't see any benefit to having one leader per century or any other time period. Potentially harmful? Most certainly so, if it involves changing one of the most iconic aspects of the franchise.

And I was, in fact, alive in 1991 and in fact already playing video games (though civ only came up on my radar a couple years later), so maybe keep snide comments about people's age to yourself.
 
Patine summed it up well. Has civ changed a lot over that time? Yes. Have the fundamentals of the game - including the god-emperor leader - remained the same throughout, and in fact been *reinforced* by more recent games, indicating that they're central to what the game is? Also, yes. Leaders have changed for the past thirty years - but in the exact opposite of the direction you want, in a franchise that centers them more with each new version,

"A change after thirty years is necessary and desirable" - certainly not necessary. Desirable? I don't see any benefit to having one leader per century or any other time period. Potentially harmful? Most certainly so, if it involves changing one of the most iconic aspects of the franchise.

And I was, in fact, alive in 1991 and in fact already playing video games (though civ only came up on my radar a couple years later), so maybe keep snide comments about people's age to your
leaders are outdated each leader represents the era in which napoleon and son of the french revolution were born. alexander the great of the macedonian empire history is much more complex than this and broader, what makes sense to have a lenin tsar, a fascist stalin, a militarist gandhi if they are children of their time like everyone else, try to think without limitations outside the box
 
leaders are outdated each leader represents the era in which napoleon and son of the french revolution were born. alexander the great of the macedonian empire history is much more complex than this and broader, what makes sense to have a lenin tsar, a fascist stalin, a militarist gandhi if they are children of their time like everyone else, try to think without limitations outside the box
Graphics are outdated. Let's just remove them entirely and play Civ7 in Excel. :rolleyes:
 
If leaders are so outdated, why do people keep coming back to a game where they are more and more central?

You don't like the concept, that's fair, but that doesn't make the concept objectively bad. It just makes it a concept for a different game than the one you want to play.

It's certainly not "necessary" for civ to become the game you think you want.
 
Graphics are outdated. Let's just remove them entirely and play Civ7 in Excel. :rolleyes:
I don't will mind if civ7 was just 2D sprite of each civ leader, it can be well done and save memory to do multiple leaders for each civilization.
And I like very much this idea of multiple leaders per civilization because it's open a lot of possibility of combination and interpretation what a nation is and was.
For example. Who can start leading Brazilian civilization? Maybe Cunhambebe leaders of Tupinambá can be it first leader. Understanding brazilian heritage as a native one. Maybe just start Brazilian with Mem de Sá, the colonial governor. Understanding Brazil as just 500 years old as the old books of Portuguese America teach. Maybe we need to go strict on independence day and choice Pedro I as the first leader, because just him lead a free Brazil.
Also can be thinked to USA. Who should be it's first leader? Maybe Hiawatha and bloob in the civ US and Native atributes. Or just start it with George Washigton, because he is a founding father.
And maybe each leader can have it's own unique unit, making possible cover all eras of the game with unique leaders and unique units making everthing felling more historical accurate.
 
I don't will mind if civ7 was just 2D sprite of each civ leader, it can be well done and save memory to do multiple leaders for each civilization.
And I like very much this idea of multiple leaders per civilization because it's open a lot of possibility of combination and interpretation what a nation is and was.
For example. Who can start leading Brazilian civilization? Maybe Cunhambebe leaders of Tupinambá can be it first leader. Understanding brazilian heritage as a native one. Maybe just start Brazilian with Mem de Sá, the colonial governor. Understanding Brazil as just 500 years old as the old books of Portuguese America teach. Maybe we need to go strict on independence day and choice Pedro I as the first leader, because just him lead a free Brazil.
Also can be thinked to USA. Who should be it's first leader? Maybe Hiawatha and bloob in the civ US and Native atributes. Or just start it with George Washigton, because he is a founding father.
And maybe each leader can have it's own unique unit, making possible cover all eras of the game with unique leaders and unique units making everthing felling more historical accurate.
I don't think this would fly or sell.
 
I don't think this would fly or sell.
Civilization series are so big they can do anything and will still fly and sell.
They can even make wrong history as puting Nzinga leading the Kongo and the players still buying.
 
No, modern gamers are incredibly fat on this idea of production values. They will literally say "it's bad because graphics" or "not worth $x because graphics", explicitly arguing that price is somehow based on (their ignorant prediction of what was) cost or difficulty, and also explicitly saying the gameplay was there and they like it but graphics. They say a price tag is bad (or even morally repugnant) if it seems to them the game was easy to make, without of course having ever made anything themselves.
 
Top Bottom