Current Leaders?
- Thread starter jjake101
- Start date
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Definitely NOT! on the underlined above, sorry. Dont know who the others are sorry.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
Me thinks there may be a Republican in the forum. Let's not have a political debate though...
Praetyre
King
None of these leaders would qualify as notable by current historical standards and I will be very surprised if any of them (with the exception of Obama, by virtue of his office's quasi-cult of personality combined with his own said cult) are remembered in 20 years. Even Obama will probably be remembered as a more visibly corrupt version of Jimmy Carter, with Dubya as Ford.
Also, I'd be willing to bet triple digit USD that there are less than a couple dozen rightists, much less Republicans, on this whole forum.
Also, I'd be willing to bet triple digit USD that there are less than a couple dozen rightists, much less Republicans, on this whole forum.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
It always seems wrong to me to have current world leaders in the game. Most of the leaders in history are not in the game for one very good reason - no one but historians have ever heard of them. Most leaders are nonentities to history. Even ones who conquered and united lands can be forgotten by history. In his time Athelstan was counted as the new Charlemagne of his time but who knows of him now?
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
pepper2000
King
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 899
It is possible that there are leaders today who will, in the future, be well-known and respected, but it is impossible to know that in advance. And if current leaders are included just for the sake of being current, it takes only a few versions for them to go out of date.
A rule of thumb used by historians is that it takes at least 25 years to develop the necessarily perspective needed to make a judgment. I would say that 50 years would be more appropriate, maybe even 100.
A rule of thumb used by historians is that it takes at least 25 years to develop the necessarily perspective needed to make a judgment. I would say that 50 years would be more appropriate, maybe even 100.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
The US government uses 50 years, even for their release of information act on sensitive items, they figure it this way because all of them should be DEAD by then, and no harm reading BAD stuff then about them, if you get my drift.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I personally feel that eventually we should have all known world leaders in the game and more. That's right.... ALL leaders that have EVER been documented. 
Praetyre
King
I'd be willing to bet that'd mean there would be at least 5000 leaders, and possibly three times that, especially if you bring in offline documentation.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'd be willing to bet that's a fairly reasonable goal based on the streamlining planned for leader definitions.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
If we ever did get that many leaders in the game, perhaps we could make it so that the "leader" (IE, the picture and possibly the name) changed every few turns (depending on game speed) to simulate leaders not actually being immortal. That has bugged me a bit now and then.
Praetyre
King
I forgot to mention that the addition of fully dynamic traits will make the whole issue practically moot anyway. Also, how do you handle cases where the head of state and head of government are simultaneously equally powerful, duumvirates and triumvirates (like Sparta or, for a time, Rome), puppet governments actually run by nominally second-tier or lesser officials or even cases like most of Western Europe where there is a powerless Monarch or President and a vastly more powerful Prime Minister-type role?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
That would be interesting if you changed leaders each time you reached a new era.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Never heard of them, sorry,![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
but i did find out that for the 1st time EVER, an Aussie won the Golf Championship, and i hate golf 
Thats about as bad as Lacrosse and Soccer
but i did find out that for the 1st time EVER, an Aussie won the Golf Championship, and i hate golf Thats about as bad as Lacrosse and Soccer
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
That's exactly what the plan amounts to that is calling for so many leader definitions yes. A big part of it anyhow... We'll even need a randomized leader generation system for it too. And as a part of that plan, leaders would also be represented by units on the field and a civ may have multiple leader TYPES as potential successors that could even vie to split your empire if you let them get too strong while another is still in power.
The addition of dynamic traits are a big part of the project plan. Leader personalities are the primary driving force in the AI's trait selections so its not an unguided or completely situation-reactive feature. The differences in the leader definitions themselves will still play a big role. Most players, as I once did, probably believe that the trait influences the leader personality, but its more that the personality is underneath the trait.
I wouldn't want it to be too frequent, no, but I'm planning for civics to determine that frequency. Obviously, a Representative Democracy such as the US has in place would replace leaders more frequently while a Dictatorship would take a long time to require a replacement (unless the leader were assassinated.)
Anyhow, lest anyone raise concerns, its all planned under options so nobody is forced into playing this way. I know some feel this is not something they want to see in Civ. But then there's those of us who REALLY want to see something like this in Civ!
Similar threads
