Do we need leaders?

[Melnerag]

It has occured to me that I strongly dislike leaders. I recall playing 'Rise of Mandkind' mod where instead of Leader's name at score-table, nation's name was displayed and for an odd reason it felt more natural.

First of all, leaders in Civ IV (and Civ 3 to much lesser extent) are a disgusting anachronism. When talking to Egypt in the modern age, we still see Ramses in his pharaonic crown. Civilization 3 had a nice feature of the leaders 'updating' to fit the currect age.

Secondly, having leaders so vividly presented in the game gives me a feeling of a chess-game rather than a clash of civilizations lasting from 4000bc to near future.

Thirdly, I disagree with the choice of leaders in many cases. Although most are disagreable to me, some just make me want to spit! No more needed to be said.

Personally I would prefer good iconography for nations based on the current age and dynamic nation-names based on civics and power (Tribe, Fiefdom, City-State, Kingdom, Empire, Republic etc etc) Save the used by Leader-portraits to give Age and Culture specific advisors I am sure an Asiatic scientific advisor in middle ages should look differently from european modern-age scientific advisor.

Also, treat this thread not as a suggestion (too late for that!), but as a discussion. So how do you feel about the leaders? Do you feel they improve the feel of the game, or disimprove it?

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I like leaders. Without them, it would feel wierd. To me, they're Izzy's people, or Stalin's guys, not Russian or Spanish.

 

[Chalks]

One thing that drove me absolutely up the wall was the inconsistency between whether or not the interface displayed the leader name or the civilization name.

For example, in a massive game with max civs, many civilizations end up using rather similar colours. If you find some territory, mouse over it and you see the name of the civilization. Look at the score chart on the right to see how powerful they are... and who knows! Three civs use pretty much that same colour, and they don't list the civ names there so you have to mess about working out who is who and learning leader names for each civ.

I think leaders add some nice flavour from the game, but I think they should steer away from saying things like "Elizabeth discovers Metal Working" - it was England that did it, not her. Just keep the actual leaders for diplomatic relations - and even then, "Elizabeth of England" wouldn't go amiss.

Although I guess one leader per civ should help to reduce the confusion somewhat.

 

[_hero_]

It has occured to me that I strongly dislike leaders. I recall playing 'Rise of Mandkind' mod where instead of Leader's name at score-table, nation's name was displayed and for an odd reason it felt more natural.

First of all, leaders in Civ IV (and Civ 3 to much lesser extent) are a disgusting anachronism. When talking to Egypt in the modern age, we still see Ramses in his pharaonic crown. Civilization 3 had a nice feature of the leaders 'updating' to fit the currect age.

Secondly, having leaders so vividly presented in the game gives me a feeling of a chess-game rather than a clash of civilizations lasting from 4000bc to near future.

Thirdly, I disagree with the choice of leaders in many cases. Although most are disagreable to me, some just make me want to spit! No more needed to be said.

Personally I would prefer good iconography for nations based on the current age and dynamic nation-names based on civics and power (Tribe, Fiefdom, City-State, Kingdom, Empire, Republic etc etc) Save the used by Leader-portraits to give Age and Culture specific advisors I am sure an Asiatic scientific advisor in middle ages should look differently from european modern-age scientific advisor.

Also, treat this thread not as a suggestion (too late for that!), but as a discussion. So how do you feel about the leaders? Do you feel they improve the feel of the game, or disimprove it?

Supposedly this feature will be, not only returning but improving in Civ V.

As for the other points, in many ways I agree it would be more natural if we were going up against nations rather than leaders. But on the other hand then that makes it appear as though all nations are leaderless which doesn't feel natural at all. If you are going up against a civ that's got Monarchy as it's government type and has no monarch that certain can create odd situations for diplomacy.

I personally think civs should have leaders, but that the AI leaders should change through time, and perhaps with government changes as well.

 

[Set]

I like leaders. Without them, it would feel wierd. To me, they're Izzy's people, or Stalin's guys, not Russian or Spanish.

I'm with you on all accounts and I much more enjoy clicking on my country and seeing a leader i know about than clicking on that country and seeing some randomly generated dude in a science outfit

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Leaders is ok, but the emphasis on them in civ4 was too great. I get the feeling they're reversing this to civ5 with one leader/nation and flavors for the leaders acting more like personalities. I hope the civs will have unique features attached to them other than the UUs.

Otoh, they might want to avoid sticking traits and vices to actual civilisations, it's less controversial with leaders.

 

[The_J]

I don't want to play just against england or the US.
I want somebody to fight and to negotiate, i want these civs to have their own playstyles, and for this we sure need leaders.
If they abandon this "feature", it will not be Civ anymore.

Three civs use pretty much that same colour, and they don't list the civ names there so you have to mess about working out who is who and learning leader names for each civ.

Looking at the current list of civs: How many connections do you have to learn o_O?

 

[Warlord Sam]

I definitely agreed with the OP's viewpoint, but I also recognize that I play Civ4 more as a historical simulator where I can enjoy indulging in creating entire worlds. Anything that makes it less realistic and more like a game annoys me. This includes silly speech, immortal leaders, and so on. I also recognize that I'm in a minority in this regard.

 

[Melnerag]

I recognize that Civ is not a historic stimulator (modded Total War games are better-suited for that...), however the leaders and their speeches break any sort of the spell of immersion I have.

 

[Willem]

One thing that drove me absolutely up the wall was the inconsistency between whether or not the interface displayed the leader name or the civilization name.

Get the BUG mod. It gives you the choice of displaying the civ's name, the leader's name or both.

 

[Chalks]

Looking at the current list of civs: How many connections do you have to learn o_O?

Yeah, it's not so much of an issue with the initial instalment, especially since there is only one leader per civ in 5 as I noted. But once you get like 2 or 3 expansions scraping the bottom of the historical obscurity barrel (or at very least, far beyond the extent of my knowledge) I'm going to have trouble remembering the leaders of, for example, the aboriginal tribes without having to look it up 5 or 6 times.

Get the BUG mod. It gives you the choice of displaying the civ's name, the leader's name or both.

Yeah, I now have my game modded to the eyeballs, but still - complete confusion is not a terribly good starting point and I hope they fix it by default for Civ 5.

 

[Set]

Yeah, it's not so much of an issue with the initial instalment, especially since there is only one leader per civ in 5 as I noted. But once you get like 2 or 3 expansions scraping the bottom of the historical obscurity barrel (or at very least, far beyond the extent of my knowledge) I'm going to have trouble remembering the leaders of, for example, the aboriginal tribes without having to look it up 5 or 6 times.

How hard can it be to learn an aborigial leader's name. I didn't know surryvarman existed until civ 4 yet I knew which civilazation he led from the first time I met him. It's not that hard.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Civ 2 had the leaders pushed behind the scenes, and when in diplomacy screen u barely saw the leader for a lot of graphics and that jester-kidof-guy... That was actually the only thing I missed from Civ1, the Huge pictures of the leaders giving each country a personality and a face. I was very happy when this returned in Civ3 and continued to do so in Civ4.

I say go all the way! I want leaders and I want them colourful and vivid! (in a non cartoonic way

 

[Mango Elephant]

Civ 2 had the leaders pushed behind the scenes, and when in diplomacy screen u barely saw the leader for a lot of graphics and that jester-kidof-guy... That was actually the only thing I missed from Civ1, the Huge pictures of the leaders giving each country a personality and a face. I was very happy when this returned in Civ3 and continued to do so in Civ4.

I say go all the way! I want leaders and I want them colourful and vivid! (in a non cartoonic way

I agree, but I don't want the game to focus too much of the leaders instead of the civs themselves. I liked how in Civ Rev the leaders did nothing except smile and look nice, but the civs had unique characteristics besides UU that gave the civ more flavor and made you feel like you were actually playing as 'Mongolia' and not 'Gengis Khan'.

BTW - I love your name

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Immortal leader with "real" emotions and diplomatic abilities of 5 years old - no thank you very much.
I would rather prefer the ruling family of my civilization to merry if in hereditary rule insted being slapped by Catherin for not joining her war when I am already fighting five others...but thats asking to much I guess.

 

[Eddogegr3]

I am 100% for leaders. It feels soooo much personal when Montezuma DOW on me--not just the "Aztecs".

However, I always had an idea that many never discuss. Make two or three leaders per Civ and led it changer of time in one game. Maybe one is assinated and then we have to deal with a different style? or one usurbs powers and then the original takes it back. Look at Iraq.

US had no relations with Saddam of Iraq; within one war they changed everything and now Iraq is considered an "ally". Or maybe it work's the other way? Gorby to Yeltson to... gasp... Putin!

 

[Ahriman]

and now Iraq is considered an "ally"

.... news to me. By whom?

 

[Mango Elephant]

However, I always had an idea that many never discuss. Make two or three leaders per Civ and led it changer of time in one game. Maybe one is assinated and then we have to deal with a different style? or one usurbs powers and then the original takes it back.

I've considered it (and I know many have also) but it would just be too confusing. The only way I could see it work would be if the leaders had no traits at all. Also, with how the leaders focus on one thing in ciV it would be very fickle to have, say, Louis IX replaced by Napoleon and have their entire game plan changed, and having all of Louis IX works towards his victory go to waste because Napoleon wants a different victory.

 

[civ_king]

I am 100% for leaders. It feels soooo much personal when Montezuma DOW on me--not just the "Aztecs".

However, I always had an idea that many never discuss. Make two or three leaders per Civ and led it changer of time in one game. Maybe one is assinated and then we have to deal with a different style? or one usurbs powers and then the original takes it back. Look at Iraq.

US had no relations with Saddam of Iraq; within one war they changed everything and now Iraq is considered an "ally". Or maybe it work's the other way? Gorby to Yeltson to... gasp... Putin!

you are kidding right? Saddam was an ally to the us and one war changed everything to unhappy (Kuwait)

 

[King Flevance]

What would be cool is a customize leaderhead ability like on mass effect charactor creation. With all the leaders in the game a preset combination or premade charactor. The you could make yourself and friends or others as leaders. Pointless but would be fun.