Eliminate leaders

[NYHunter]

I intend on writing this but mods can delete this because it was sent before it was ready. I'm really sorry for wasting anyones time.

 

[epicivfreak]

Eliminate Leaders they are useless eye-candy that artificially limits the number of civilizations I can play a game of civ with. Static leader heads - heck, just the national flag and some way to "read" the leaders feelings on any proposed treaty as you craft it would be perfectly fine.

There you go, I finished it for you.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I think he was more thinking about distinctive leader traits, which, now that we know about Civ V's apparent return to one-leader-per-civ, is a moot point.

As for leaders being mere eye candy: Well, kind of yes, but they are (1) highly entertaining (I mean, c'mon, Gandhi saying "my words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Getting slapped by Catherine? Montezuma's weird little dance?) and (2) they're Civ tradition. It just wouldn't be Civ without the leaderheads.

 

[epicivfreak]

...they are (1) highly entertaining (I mean, c'mon, Gandhi saying "my words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Getting slapped by Catherine? Montezuma's weird little dance?) and (2) they're Civ tradition. It just wouldn't be Civ without the leaderheads.

Ummm, I'll have to say no, I completely disagree with all of that.

 

[astrognash]

Come on! There's nothing more funny than having Gandhi tell you that he's "studied on killin' you".

 

[epicivfreak]

Sure there is. Hell, even the infinitely worthless Jim Gaffigan has had a few jokes that are funnier than that.

 

[astrognash]

Well, it's more satisfactory to me to be able to (mentally) gloat at Isabella when I nuke her and her fanatical rearend to Kingdom Come, than to just nuke a Spain without a personality and an image of a person I can associate with them.

Besides, eye candy can be a good thing. I'm sure that released pictures of the Boudica leaderhead helped Firaxis sell the expansion, thanks to her "tracts of land".

 

[settlervstank]

I think he was more thinking about distinctive leader traits, which, now that we know about Civ V's apparent return to one-leader-per-civ, is a moot point.

As for leaders being mere eye candy: Well, kind of yes, but they are (1) highly entertaining (I mean, c'mon, Gandhi saying "my words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Getting slapped by Catherine? Montezuma's weird little dance?) and (2) they're Civ tradition. It just wouldn't be Civ without the leaderheads.

You're partly right. Leaderheads aren't eye candy, they're essential! But you were right about it not being Civ without leaderheads. It's a ridiculous idea in my opinion.

 

[TheDS]

No, animated leaderheads are completely useless eye-candy. Having a picture, YES, I agree, it's very helpful to those of us who see things visually. Frex, I keep track of threads and posters more easily when everyone has a notable avatar. I think we all do. But they don't have to waste resources on animations. It slows the game down. Bogs it down on any computer that was bought by a regular Joe Schmoe who has no idea what constitutes a fast computer or how to get one. Computer resellers don't mass-produce game machines, they mass-produce email machines because that's what sells the most. Us gamers need something better than that, but we're not all computer scientist enough to know what we should be getting when we're on a budget.

I didn't get to see his original post, but if he's talking about getting rid of Leader traits, well, there's a reason why Civ5 only gives 1 leader per Civ: they've granted his wish!

In Civ4, we had different leaders with different skills; kinda like being able to hire on different managers to help complete some kind of task, a la Railroad Tycoon 2, except we don't get to fire our leader when he's no longer helping us out, we're stuck with him. I'd like to be able to change leaders as the needs of my empire change, but then that's what the civics are all about, so wish granted again.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

They could add an option that disabled leaderheads and makes them larger versions of the leader buttons.

 

[LyricalAssassin]

I think they should just do away with specific leader traits (agressive, philisophical, etc) and just assign a certain historical Civ power to them like in the "Rhyes and Fall of Civlilizations" mod. make it a lot better in my opinion. And while I'm at it, they should add a meter that judges your stability also, or at least have it as an option.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

I think they should just do away with specific leader traits (agressive, philisophical, etc) and just assign a certain historical Civ power to them like in the "Rhyes and Fall of Civlilizations" mod. make it a lot better in my opinion. And while I'm at it, they should add a meter that judges your stability also, or at least have it as an option.

They are already doing that. They announced it ages ago.

 

[spammikone]

They could add an option that disabled leaderheads and makes them larger versions of the leader buttons.

That would obviously remove the design team's workload on creating leaderheads and animations and other which currently constitutes 95% of the time required for researching and creating a completed civ... Instead of having hundreds of civ's, we are deliberately hampering ourselves with the need of having useless leaders.

If we would be talking about Alpha Centauri, I might have different tone since those guys have personality and are alive and are integral part of the story and the world, but in Civ's they all are same generic mass with only different visuals and since Civ 3 with some haha-funny-because-it-is-out-of-character jokes (OMG Gandhi is sooooooooooooooooooo angry! XD XDD DDDD XD).

 

[em jay]

That would obviously remove the design team's workload on creating leaderheads and animations and other which currently constitutes 95% of the time required for researching and creating a completed civ... Instead of having hundreds of civ's, we are deliberately hampering ourselves with the need of having useless leaders.

Do you really want a hundreds of civs? I'd much rather play a well polished world power, led by Napoleon or Alex the Great, rather than some faceless leader of a tiny archipeago from the middle of the pacific.

Civ doesn't have to be utilitarian, if you want it that way, there are the earlier incarnations of the game, with sprites for units and a wall of an embassy to conduct diplomacy. I for one like a bit of eye candy, even if it slows down my ancient comp.

 

[Earthling]

They're not only wasting resources on animations, last I heard they have plans to make the leaders talk (ie. spam audio, and I really hope there is a way to permanently turn this off)

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

You only just heard about that? They're even talking on the site, go look. (civilization5.com)

 

[Centurio]

Do you really want a hundreds of civs? I'd much rather play a well polished world power, led by Napoleon or Alex the Great, rather than some faceless leader of a tiny archipeago from the middle of the pacific.

Civ doesn't have to be utilitarian, if you want it that way, there are the earlier incarnations of the game, with sprites for units and a wall of an embassy to conduct diplomacy. I for one like a bit of eye candy, even if it slows down my ancient comp.

I agree with this. To me, Civilization has been about the greatest and most recognizable civilizations throughout history competing over randomized worlds. I want to see my civilization and those of other leaders come to life, because I really like history, and to see history come to life is one of the reasons I play this game in the first place. While I do not mean to discredit their work, I dislike mods like Civ Gold, because they add too many menial and honestly pointless, unrecognizable factions to the game: a conflict between Alexander the Great and Napoleon is far more interesting and thought provoking than a conflict between Alexander the Great and the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. Civilization is ought to be enjoyed and is ought to provoke thought and emotion as well as provide in-depth game play in terms of politics, infrastructure, economy and warfare. Now that they have the technology, it seems fitting that they should give us a more vivid and diverse portrayal of history's greatest civilizations.

While they have omitted some societies that should obviously be in the game like Spain, Mongolia and the Incas in addition to some ones that would be nice, but aren't imperative, like the Celts, Korea and the Byzantine Empire, I'd rather see those civilizations brought to life in the manner that the original eighteen are being brought to life in a (reasonably priced) expansion pack.

In short, I want my experience to be immersive and engaging; if I wanted a Spartan and austere game that resembled Risk, I would take out my old board game, or Install Civ2 again. Instead, I want a full and visually satisfying experience.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

Sure there is. Hell, even the infinitely worthless Dane Cook has had a few jokes that are funnier than that.

There I fixed your quote. Dane is more worthless then Jim Gaffigan

 

[da dick]

i frankly wished there were more leaderhead, that aren't "politically correct" like wu zetian. give me a XENU!!! leaderhead any day.

 

[epicivfreak]

There I fixed your quote. Dane is more worthless then Jim Gaffigan

I'd have to disagree, and say it's more like a close race between the two...