SupremacyKing2
Deity
My idea would be to have the civ leaders as actual units on the map. Each leader would give domestic bonuses when they are in a city and military bonuses when they are stacked with military unit(s) as well as one negative effect. So in the early game, you could send your leader off to battle just like in history. I feel this would be more epic to actually see your leader fighting with your military units. And in peace time, you could keep your leader unit in the capital and get domestic bonuses. Leaders would die from natural causes after x turns but could also be assassinated by enemy spies, killed in battle or by coups if a city revolts from unhappiness. This would allow other players to try to disrupt your empire by killing your leader, causing a few turns of anarchy and forcing you into different leader bonuses. When leaders die, there would be a period of short anarchy (depending on government type and how the leader died) and then the player would get a new leader. This would create an interesting dynamic where the player would get different bonuses throughout the game. I feel this would help shake things up.
Governments would also affect leaders in two ways. First, governments would affect the kind of bonuses the leaders would get. So democracies would give stronger domestic bonuses and different military bonuses (bonus to production instead of bonus to combat strength for example). Second, governments would affect the duration of leaders' lifespan and how the next leader is picked. For example, monarchy would give the longest duration for leaders (to represent that kings rule for life) so the player would get the bonuses for longer periods of time. The downside would be that the players would not get to choose the next leader (to reflect that the next king is usually the child that is born into the role). Democracies would have shorter durations for leaders to reflect periodic elections that are much shorter than a lifespan. The upside is that the player would get to pick the next leader from a pool to reflect that the people get to pick the next leader.
I feel this system would make the whole game feel more alive and interesting.
Governments would also affect leaders in two ways. First, governments would affect the kind of bonuses the leaders would get. So democracies would give stronger domestic bonuses and different military bonuses (bonus to production instead of bonus to combat strength for example). Second, governments would affect the duration of leaders' lifespan and how the next leader is picked. For example, monarchy would give the longest duration for leaders (to represent that kings rule for life) so the player would get the bonuses for longer periods of time. The downside would be that the players would not get to choose the next leader (to reflect that the next king is usually the child that is born into the role). Democracies would have shorter durations for leaders to reflect periodic elections that are much shorter than a lifespan. The upside is that the player would get to pick the next leader from a pool to reflect that the people get to pick the next leader.
I feel this system would make the whole game feel more alive and interesting.
