Choose Our Own Advisors! (and policy)

[Beloyar]

Before I begin the game, I'd like to be able to choose my own advisors from a list. I remember this was allowed in other games, like Imperium Gallactica or Alpha Centauri or something.

• Advisors have different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, which will influence how your country will be run and which policies will get priorities.

• Maybe with each Age you can change your advisors.

• And maybe each civ will have a different list of advisors to choose from.

• Advisors could be both male and female, and even of different races (optional).

 

[warpstorm]

Maybe even toss in loyalty.

 

[Loaf Warden]

What, like advisors who hate you and deliberately give you bad advice? Now that would be an interesting twist.

 

[warpstorm]

I was thinking even worse, like skimming cash, working for your enemies etc.

 

[Beloyar]

That's kind of weird. Why would they do that?

 

[warpstorm]

Because they aren't loyal to you.

 

[Loaf Warden]

A better question would be: Why would you want them to do that? In terms of gameplay, I mean. It seems like such a hassle for no potential return (that I can think of).

 

[Beloyar]

You both are way off. Leaders don't usually appoint as advisors people they don't fully trust. Candidates for these posts are thoroughly screened and studied. Such people almost always dedicate their entire life to the service of their country. Candidates are usually found in the ranks of gov't officials who have already served in a gov't agency for many years and have a record of loyalty and good service.

At other times kings would appoint their relatives, princes and church leaders to these posts. Only the most trustworthy.

I know desertion happened before, but very, very, rarely, and without much impact on the former country. In terms of gameplay it would only add tedious micromanagement and not really anything of substance.

Anyway, the topic here is Choosing Our Own Advisors, and how this could change the way our civ develops.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Leaders don't usually appoint as advisors people they don't fully trust.

Yes, but people, even leaders, don't always put their trust in the right people. If it were only possible to trust those who were deserving of trust, then treachery would never happen. Countless thousands of people in history have been betrayed because they put their trust in the wrong person. It could happen to me, it could happen to you, and it could happen to the emperor of a grand and powerful nation.

(I'm not saying I want that in Civ. I'm just defending the notion that advisors aren't always trustworthy.)

 

[Ryth]

I'd like a bit more clarification, please? Do you mean you would choose to have domestic and military advisors only; is it a limit-by-number (only have three advisors) thing;or will you still have the standard six, but there'll be four for each to choose from?
Sorry if its obvious to everyone else.
I really like the idea tho!

 

[warpstorm]

Loaf Warden has it right. treachery happens. There are double agents in the world. The old Koei games used this mechanism well. You appointed provincial governors, generals, and councilors. Sometimes the best person for the job based on the bonuses he would provide would be a person who you knew wasn't particularly loyal and might rebel or switch sides. Managing these people was an important sub-game in it's own right. So was lowering the loyalty of rival teams' people.

 

[Theoden]

It sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't help people like me very much though because I never listen to my advisors anyway.

 

[Beloyar]

Loaf Warden, warpstorm
You guys just don't get it. The discussion is about something else here.

But just in case, I propose choosing from among trustworthy candidates for advisors. No defections or treason. These things are almost completely unrealistic, highly unlikely, and could be optional, but I don't care to discuss them.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Hmm... well, I think adding treachery would be fairly realistic, but if advisors were to be able to desert, then they would first need to have POWER, otherwise it wouldn't make an ounce of difference if they ran off. This power would, of course have to be taken from the player, which makes it a very bad idea. Anyways, the ADVISORS themselves are useless, it's just that they're like that bloody paperclip in Microsoft Word- it's the Advisor screens that are important, the advisors are just talking heads. As for choosing your own... good idea, on paper, but it would only be tedious and shallow in practice.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I don't know, how would they influence the game play? How would you catagorize them?
Would they give you different advice based on the fact if they're militaristic or something? Or should that depend on your government type instead? Seems interesting, perhaps you can elaborate further

 

[Beloyar]

You'll have all six advisors, as before, or at least, you'll still have your six "advisor screens." I don't know where you got the limit idea. You choose from a list of 12 or so and get around 6 advisors.

Some advisors are:
good at negotiating trade deals
good at negotiating peace deals
good at exploration
good in military tactics
good in diplomacy in general
good in spying
good in commercial and financial affairs
good in dealing with popular religions and people's moods
good in domestic development
good in science research
good in nothing in particular, but a hot babe

etc.

The qualities listed above would benefit your civ

If you're not happy with the performance of some advisor, you can exchange him/her for another from the list. Every new Age, the list will get new faces in it, each with new qualifications. They will of course all be dressed with the times.
The qualifications of your candidates and how many of them you'll have depends on how many universities you have, and other stuff like that.

 

[Loaf Warden]

The old Koei games used this mechanism well. You appointed provincial governors, generals, and councilors. Sometimes the best person for the job based on the bonuses he would provide would be a person who you knew wasn't particularly loyal and might rebel or switch sides. Managing these people was an important sub-game in it's own right. So was lowering the loyalty of rival teams' people.

Yeah. I remember doing all this in "Genghis Khan II" for the SNES. It was pretty interesting in that game. But that game had a much narrower scope and a much more specific purpose than the Civ series. I'm not sure having potentially treacherous advisors in Civ would be a very good idea.

No defections or treason. These things are almost completely unrealistic,

I disagree. Treason may be more difficult to pull off in today's world, but history is infested with it. Nevertheless, I'm still not advocating its inclusion in Civ IV. I'm not convinced it would be practical in a game this large to make us worry about which advisors might betray us. I think it would distract from the game itself too much, if you see what I'm saying.



"Treachery and treason,
There's always an excuse for it.
And when I find the reason,
I still can't get used to it."

 

[Beloyar]

...Sometimes the best person for the job based on the bonuses he would provide would be a person who you knew wasn't particularly loyal and might rebel or switch sides.

If you want to base your ideas about the real world on a game, you'll be very lost, very fast. A game specifically does that to make it more challenging to play. In real life, people with questionable loyalty would be considered traitors before even being considered for any position, s.a. in the Middle Ages.

... I disagree. Treason may be more difficult to pull off in today's world, but history is infested with it. Nevertheless, I'm still not advocating its inclusion in Civ IV. I'm not convinced it would be practical in a game this large to make us worry about which advisors might betray us. I think it would distract from the game itself too much, if you see what I'm saying.

Can you cite some examples please. From history.

This is silly, but even though everyone agrees that treason and defection would not add any fun to the game, they continue to discuss it, instead of discussing the aspect of choosing our own advisors.

 

[Quentin]

Maybe if you chose a more motivated military advisor he would actively try to find out military information on your enemies instead of just sitting around complaining that we have no information on them?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Mojotronica]

You'll have all six advisors, as before, or at least, you'll still have your six "advisor screens." I don't know where you got the limit idea. You choose from a list of 12 or so and get around 6 advisors.

Some advisors are:
good at negotiating trade deals
good at negotiating peace deals
good at exploration
good in military tactics
good in diplomacy in general
good in spying
good in commercial and financial affairs
good in dealing with popular religions and people's moods
good in domestic development
good in science research
good in nothing in particular, but a hot babe

etc.

The qualities listed above would benefit your civ

It seems like that aspect of the game is covered by Civ traits -- the Greeks Scientific and Commercial advantages can be accounted for as their having better advisors in those fields.

So if you want an advisor advantage, play a Civ with the traits you want to emphasize.