In Civ V...

[thenooblet22]

Would you mind dumping the civilization leaderheads in place of a dynamic system of rulers? I know this is a core concept of the Civilization series, but change isn't necessarily a bad thing. I know Civilization game spans a great deal of time, but there could still be 'families' or 'dynasties' that could alternate. Looking at Europa Universalis 3 as an example, each 'ruler' would have different stats that would affect your empire (similar to the leader traits of now). Plus, it would open up new diplomatic options like royal marriages, claiming thrones, etc. So yay or nay?

EDIT: Just to clarify, instead of individual leaders, Civilization could use 'families' (for monarchies and heirachies) or 'parties' (for republics and democracies) that should last a good sum of turns.

 

[Uberfrog]

One problem is, to cover the huge timescale of the Civilization series, i.e from 4000BC-AD2050, you'd require a huge number of leaders. Adding into that the fact that, early on, even on Marathon speed, one turn covers around 50 years, you'd effectively be having to switch leaders every turn.

I agree that it's a nice touch, but the mechanics of making it work wouldn't be quite so simple as a game that only spans a few centuries.

 

[Diamondeye]

I like it as it is.
Period.

 

[puglover]

Cool idea, but too complicated for this kind of game. Besides, I always enjoyed watching Abe Lincoln rule from 4000 BC - 2010 AD

 

[Fjordson]

Id like a mod like this - you change leaders every X number of years and each leader has one trait differently than the one before
For example,

Julius Caesar - imp/org
Augustus - Imp/Ind
(any leader after augustus) - Fin/Ind
next leader - Fin/imp... etc

 

[Diamondeye]

Cool idea, but too complicated for this kind of game. Besides, I always enjoyed watching Abe Lincoln rule from 4000 BC - 2010 AD

...And then you kill him, right

 

[thenooblet22]

One problem is, to cover the huge timescale of the Civilization series, i.e from 4000BC-AD2050, you'd require a huge number of leaders. Adding into that the fact that, early on, even on Marathon speed, one turn covers around 50 years, you'd effectively be having to switch leaders every turn.

I agree that it's a nice touch, but the mechanics of making it work wouldn't be quite so simple as a game that only spans a few centuries.

Yeah, that's why I suggested instead of individual leaders, Civilization could use 'families' (for monarchies and heirachies) or 'parties' (for republics and democracies) that should last a good sum of turns.

 

[King Flevance]

I think using families would work out alright. It would still require many more lederheads than are already in but they don't have to be animated. That alone makes a leaderhead take much more time. You could probably make 5-10+ leaderheads in the time it takes someone to make 1 that is animated.

 

[dante alighieri]

Use the Civ II emissaries. You never saw another leader in Civ II (I never played civ I) just the messengers.

 

[thenooblet22]

Use the Civ II emissaries. You never saw another leader in Civ II (I never played civ I) just the messengers.

Hm, that's not really the same thing. I think replacing a single leadhead with a dynamic system of 'families' and 'parties' would open a new campaign of diplomacy, such as royal marriages and elections, unlike the limited previous games.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Do we know if there will even be traits in Civ 5?
I do kind of like this idea but I've also got this vision in my head of it being 2007AD and every 3 or 4 years you have yet another worthless leader

 

[3 EMS]

Do we know if there will even be traits in Civ 5?
I do kind of like this idea but I've also got this vision in my head of it being 2007AD and every 3 or 4 years you have yet another worthless leader

People complain about ruling with the ability of Dan Quayle. Maybe they will finally have Dan Quayle as a leader.

I don't think leaderheads do all that much now. Civs with multiple leaderheads allow a slight ability to be customised. This set of traits or that set. Other than that they add a bit of flavor. Gameplay is key here. Leaderheads are just eyecandy. Not even necessary.

 

[thenooblet22]

Do we know if there will even be traits in Civ 5?
I do kind of like this idea but I've also got this vision in my head of it being 2007AD and every 3 or 4 years you have yet another worthless leader

No, no. Because what I'm suggesting is 'families' and 'parties,' and political parties can last years and dominate for long periods of time (i.e. Mexico until 2000). Family dynasties are fairly similar if the civilization is stable* (that is if Firaxis adds a stability feature in Civilization, which they should)

People complain about ruling with the ability of Dan Quayle. Maybe they will finally have Dan Quayle as a leader.
I don't think leaderheads do all that much now. Civs with multiple leaderheads allow a slight ability to be customised. This set of traits or that set. Other than that they add a bit of flavor. Gameplay is key here. Leaderheads are just eyecandy. Not even necessary.

I agree they are just eye-candy. However, I know how people are attached to this feature as its been a core concept of the Civilization series. So far in the polls, it shows.

 

[Catharsis]

I like the leaderhead eyecandy too much to want it replaced. And please, no stability system... the Civ IV designers did a good job of decreasing the snowball effect, so let's not see it make a grand return.

 

[thenooblet22]

I like the leaderhead eyecandy too much to want it replaced. And please, no stability system... the Civ IV designers did a good job of decreasing the snowball effect, so let's not see it make a grand return.

I'm not sure what you're referencing. I was talking about a 'stability' system similar to Europa Universalis III (hopefully, even improving on it). But this is different topic for another thread.

As much as I am attached to the leaderheads, I don't see how they can expand on them. In CivIV, they brought them 3D and animated. They can't get too detailed with them since medium-to-lower computer systems have enough trouble running with them. Also, I am a person who prefers gameplay over graphics, and I see much more possibilities with a dynamic ruling system of 'families' and 'parties'.

 

[CivFan87]

I like this idea. IMO, EU3(and the rest of paradox's games) have some really good ideas I wouldn't mind the Civ series taking some inspiration from

 

[Wenla]

Code and test it so that there is not technical problems.

Wenla

 

[3 EMS]

Leaderheads do add a nice touch to the game.
If you try dynamic Leaders who would represent?
America circa 4000 BC---Alley Oop?
Rome circa 2000 AD---Caesar Luigi?

Also, if you are going to have dynamic leaders you could also have dynamic unique buildings and units. They would add to the gameplay.

 

[thenooblet22]

Leaderheads do add a nice touch to the game.
If you try dynamic Leaders who would represent?
America circa 4000 BC---Alley Oop?
Rome circa 2000 AD---Caesar Luigi?

Also, if you are going to have dynamic leaders you could also have dynamic unique buildings and units. They would add to the gameplay.

No, but using Europa Universalis III as a reference again , there would be a pool of names for each civilization. Also, I think you misunderstand what I am proposing. I was a dynamic ruling system made up of 'families' for heirarchies or tyrants and 'parties' for democracies or dictators, not individual rulers. Also, each of these 'families' or 'parties' would be detailed with varying stats (or traits).

I know you were being sarcastic, but I wouldn't mind dynamic buildings (housing your growing population, managing a more realistic city with needs) or dynastic units (morale, nutrition, battle tactics), but this is another topic for another time

Code and test it so that there is not technical problems.

Wenla

Maybe I will! No seriously, I suck with computers and programming I'm just trying to plant the seeds of the Civilizationian Revolution!!

 

[L4zXX0r]

Would you mind dumping the civilization leaderheads in place of a dynamic system of rulers? I know this is a core concept of the Civilization series, but change isn't necessarily a bad thing. I know Civilization game spans a great deal of time, but there could still be 'families' or 'dynasties' that could alternate. Looking at Europa Universalis 3 as an example, each 'ruler' would have different stats that would affect your empire (similar to the leader traits of now). Plus, it would open up new diplomatic options like royal marriages, claiming thrones, etc. So yay or nay?

EDIT: Just to clarify, instead of individual leaders, Civilization could use 'families' (for monarchies and heirachies) or 'parties' (for republics and democracies) that should last a good sum of turns.

I've wanted family dynasties and civil wars for a long time. I like the idea of different factions within a civ working behind the scenes. A little bit of intrigue makes the game interesting. The only problem this brings up, is over all civ strategy. I'd be upset if I was using someone like Boudica, then all of a sudden, I have Gandhi...