Hey! It's called "CIVILIZATION" not "LEADER"!!!

[Zegangani]

The Civilization Games (I reffer here only to Civ 5 and Civ VI, because I don't know about the older Versions) are more Leader than Civilization based. I mean sure, all the Civilizations have their unique Traits, but the Gameplay is more based on Leader Traits and especially the Leader "Agendas".

I mean, it feels odd to have the same Agenda Trait for the whole Game. i.e Qin always going for Wonders and Science, liking Civs with less Wonders than him and disliking those with more, and that for the whole Game (It would be better if at least the Leader Agendas only lasted for one Era). So the AI acts according to this Agenda. And all the diplomatic relationships are based on the Leader Agendas. So Civs end up with same relationships with other Civs for the whole Game. Man, that's a real dilemma !!

Hey! It's called "CIVILIZATION" not "LEADER"!!

Shouldn't Civilizations evolve with Time and change their Traits and Charachteristics accordingly? Like starting the Game with no Traits at all, and depending on all the Actions happened during an Era (Wars, Diplomacy, Infrastructure, Yields, Pop Happines, Growth...etc) and how the Civ acted upon them, the next Era will grant a Civ a Trait based on the Experience of the last one. But keeping a Civ Unique Trait (like a secondary Trait beside the obtained one) for a specific Era (depends on the Civilization).

Same thing goes to Leaders. I mean, people can convince each other of a point of view, so why not also the Leaders each other? Like convincing Gorgo to throw the Spear and starting milking Cows . Or activating certain Agendas only during certain Times (With sheelds or on it, only during War or Raid).

I would love it if Civ 7 Goes exactly this way. And it would be an alternative to the Humankind Approach with having the Ability to choose a (Civ) Culture each Era (or keep the current one).

What do you think of this? and would you like it if Civ 7 adopted this Concept?

PS: I think I will start a Mod for Civ VI that does exactly this (only the Traits, altering the Agendas Mechanism isn't possible). Everyone who wants to help is welcome!

 

[Henri Christophe]

Bring me to your leader

 

[Zegangani]

Bring me to your leader

how am I to understand that?

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

That's why leaders should change every now and again. You could swap them like you do governments.
Civ 4 had multiple leaders for a few civilizations, just like France has two now, but they could not do it for every civilization.
It would have been interesting to see this for every civilization. Even if they had to get creative with some. Like one of the Great People. Like Martin Luther leading Germany or something like that...

 

[Zegangani]

That's why leaders should change every now and again. You could swap them like you do governments.
Civ 4 had multiple leaders for a few civilizations, just like France has two now, but they could not do it for every civilization.
It would have been interesting to see this for every civilization. Even if they had to get creative with some. Like one of the Great People. Like Martin Luther leading Germany or something like that...

I understand why they're only making 1(or 2) Leader per Civilization, I think that's just Ok. If they decided to add, say, up to 3 Leaders per Civ, the Game would have a massive file size, and the Memory/Performance of the Game may also suffer from that.

But that is not the problem that I want to address here. The Problem is that all the Behavior of the Civilization is based on the Leader not the Civilization. I mean Leaders should honor the culture of their ancestors (not all the Leaders have to do that), and sometimes heed the opinion of their Citizens. And not always behaving as selfish and arrogant Snobs, that rule with an Approach that stays that way throughout the whole Game.

 

[Maximus_Prince]

This is an interesting coincidence because I was actually thinking of the same thing yesterday.

Civilization has a potentially new worthy competitor with Amplitude's Humankind. While I can't say I really like the idea of switching cultures or civilizations every era I liked the idea that there is no defined leader for every culture. I feel like Civilization has deterred from realism and historical accuracy and Humankind seems to be doing better with that. And really, it doesn't make sense to be playing an avatar of a leader for centuries. There should be events in game where a leader dies or is killed and it has real impact on gameplay. Just like in real life when leaders died suddenly or were assassinated and various outcomes came about.

So yes, I agree it should be about your civilization, the culture. Not defined necessarily by an avatar represented by a historic leader with certain traits.

I also think it would be a solution to avoid controversial leaders (Stalin) and allow more cultures in game with no real defined leader.

 

[Civinator]

Hey! It's called "CIVILIZATION" not "LEADER"!!

I completely agree. The story about the "immortal leader" in my eyes is the biggest nonsense in the civ series. Since a longer time, I have different eraspecific leaders in a game of my Civ 3 CCM mod.

 

[Zegangani]

This is an interesting coincidence because I was actually thinking of the same thing yesterday.

Civilization has a potentially new worthy competitor with Amplitude's Humankind. While I can't say I really like the idea of switching cultures or civilizations every era I liked the idea that there is no defined leader for every culture. I feel like Civilization has deterred from realism and historical accuracy and Humankind seems to be doing better with that. And really, it doesn't make sense to be playing an avatar of a leader for centuries. There should be events in game where a leader dies or is killed and it has real impact on gameplay. Just like in real life when leaders died suddenly or were assassinated and various outcomes came about.

So yes, I agree it should be about your civilization, the culture. Not defined necessarily by an avatar represented by a historic leader with certain traits.

I also think it would be a solution to avoid controversial leaders (Stalin) and allow more cultures in game with no real defined leader.

The good thing about being able to switch Cultures every era in Humankind, is that you can CHOOSE which Culture you want. Although it's not a good Approach as it does not stay faithful to History, It still makes the GamePlay more dynamic, especially if they made the AI to choose Cultures based on their past Experiences in the Game (Wars, diplomatic Relationships, Economie...), Needs and Flaws...etc. And the Leaders in Humankind have 3 (from what I saw) realistic Character Traits (that are nothing like Agendas, that are merely Opinions and Judgements), that can also fit their Civilizations.

I would welcome it if they (the Civ Devs) make the Leaders just useful for their Unique Traits (Bonuses and Uniques), and as the Civilizations representative for diplomatic Relationships, but not as Rulers. And they should only have the Upper part of their Boddy/Heads Visible (like the Governors), so they won't take too much (file) size and Memory, so that they (the Devs) can make more Leaders per Civ, optimal one for every Era (or one for every 2 Eras).

I completely agree. The story about the "immortal leader" in my eyes is the biggest nonsense in the civ series. Since a longer time, I have different eraspecific leaders in a game of my Civ 3 CCM mod.

Nice Mod! Unfortunately, this isn't moddable in Civ VI .

 

[PiR]

I like your point. However I don't agree the impact of the agendas is so high on the relationships you have with other civs. You can easily counterbalance those.
Look here Pedro doesn't like me because of 2/3 agendas, and yet I have kept peace, sent a trade route, not made much effort and he's a peaceful neighbor. I'll absorb him during his dark age.

The good thing about being able to switch Cultures every era in Humankind, is that you can CHOOSE which Culture you want.

When you enter a dark/golden age, you "kind of" chose a goal for you age.

 

[Zegangani]

I like your point. However I don't agree the impact of the agendas is so high on the relationships you have with other civs. You can easily counterbalance those.
Look here Pedro doesn't like me because of 2/3 agendas, and yet I have kept peace, sent a trade route, not made much effort and he's a peaceful neighbor. I'll absorb him during his dark age.

Yes, one can truly counterbalance this. But that's only a Gameplay impact, I'm speaking more of a realistical Approach to Relationships. I like the Agendas as they are (makes the Leaders more dynamic, beside their Uniques), but it would be better if they would have a bit less effect on Relationships (Pedro: -12 because you have more GP that him? compared to the +5 for having an Embassy in his Civ (and the tiny +2 for having traderoutes between each other, which should have more influence, since you can benefit from it compared to GPs) feels just too much). Civilization "Agendas" would make more sense here (with more impact than Leader Agendas), since the Culture/(War)History/Agriculture/Economy/Science...etc have a massive impact of a Civ's Actions and way of behaving.

When you enter a dark/golden age, you "kind of" chose a goal for you age.

A little consolation. Since it's not Culture based. But it could be way better, if properly re-worked to fit that (Like every Era you get to choose which way you wanna focus on, Science, Culture, Growth, Economy, Military...etc (the bonuses differ from Age to Age Type)).