In Civ V...

[L4zXX0r]

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 kind of wish the leaderheads were non CG images. I hate the animated leaders. They're cartoony, and I hate watching their lame expressions. Except Gilgamesh.

 

[Gorman Truart]

I don't like it. Even if you have a predictable change (i.e. knowing when future successions will happen and what the new traits will be) it makes it too complex and rigid to plan and execute a long-term strategy. I don't want to be in a position of having to build, for example, a worker from turns 1-10, then a warrior on turns 11-20, then a building for the next 10 turns, etc... in order to use my traits effectively. Part of the fun of civ is carrying out a certain plan with certain traits while also being flexible enough to deal with changing conditions.

 

[thenooblet22]

I don't like it. Even if you have a predictable change (i.e. knowing when future successions will happen and what the new traits will be) it makes it too complex and rigid to plan and execute a long-term strategy. I don't want to be in a position of having to build, for example, a worker from turns 1-10, then a warrior on turns 11-20, then a building for the next 10 turns, etc... in order to use my traits effectively. Part of the fun of civ is carrying out a certain plan with certain traits while also being flexible enough to deal with changing conditions.

Sorry if you misunderstood me, I used 'dynamic' to express that the rulers* ('families' and 'parties') would be different and rise freely, not on a given timeline or settings. I know, I know, I've been using Europa Universalis as an example a lot, but they really have a great system. In Europa Universalis, rulers are rated 1 through 10 in Military, Diplomacy, and Administration. They don't etch a pernament strategy that the player would have to follow, just give percentages of bonuses to aspects of the gameplay. To the contrary, Civilization uses extreme traits that pretty much tell you how you're going to play. Again, that's not too terrible, but it does raise a question of balancement and linear gameplay.

 

[Tee Kay]

Cool idea, but it might complicate the game too much, so no.

 

[thenooblet22]

Cool idea, but it might complicate the game too much, so no.

It won't complicate the game, it would add depth It doesn't require micromanagement, it's just another level of gameplay. If you don't believe, then check out the example Europa Universalis.

 

[MSTK]

Cool idea, but it might complicate the game too much, so no.

What a terrible excuse. One could argue that Happiness and Health complicate the game too much. Seriously, why do we even have them there? I'd rather not have unhappiness on my heels thank you very much.

 

[Gorman Truart]

They don't etch a pernament strategy that the player would have to follow, just give percentages of bonuses to aspects of the gameplay. To the contrary, Civilization uses extreme traits that pretty much tell you how you're going to play.

Then why bother in the first place? If the bonuses are small enough that they can be ingnored (in terms of strategy), then having them at all (let alone a rotating/changing leader system) seems pointless. And if the bonuses are enough to affect strategy, switching them all the time makes it hard to plan.

I used 'dynamic' to express that the rulers* ('families' and 'parties') would be different and rise freely, not on a given timeline or settings.

This is even worse than a strict schedule, because you don't know when the next change is going to happen, making it even harder to execute a plan.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

What a terrible excuse. One could argue that Happiness and Health complicate the game too much. Seriously, why do we even have them there? I'd rather not have unhappiness on my heels thank you very much.

So how do you reflect discontent within a society?

 

[thenooblet22]

Then why bother in the first place? If the bonuses are small enough that they can be ingnored (in terms of strategy), then having them at all (let alone a rotating/changing leader system) seems pointless. And if the bonuses are enough to affect strategy, switching them all the time makes it hard to plan.

Woa, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they would be small so you could simply ignore them, I was stating that they wouldn't set you to a specific path. I'm sorry if you can't follow me when I'm referencing Europa Universalis, but they implaced a percentage of advanatges depended on how the ruler ranks in military, administration, and diplomacy. In fact, in Europa Universalis, the way you play the game actually influences which areas future rulers will succeed in (so if you're agressive and in constant war, you'll usually find higher military rankings), which makes sense realistically and helps in gameplay. So you won't have this random jump of policies because it will slightly adapt to you.

This is even worse than a strict schedule, because you don't know when the next change is going to happen, making it even harder to execute a plan.

I know you're going to flame me for being a realism nut, but I'm sure in history they didn't know when their leaders were gonna die

 

[Antilogic]

I'm voting for keeping it the way it is. Simply because it is an iconic element of Civ.

 

[Gorman Truart]

thenooblet22, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm saying that having a system of leader traits that will make it hard to impossible to plan long-term is no fun, and therefore (to me at least) pointless. One of the reasons I like Civ4 is that the leader traits give me an advantage over other civs, and if I plan well, I can use that advantage while keeping other civs from using their advantages that they have over me.

This doesn't constrain me to one path, as you seem to think. I can be an aggressive ruler, for example, and use that to help me have shorter, more successful wars so that I can get back to building sooner. I don't have to warmonger, but to use the trait effectively I do have to plan. It would be extremely annoying to prepare my troops to take a single key city and then DoW only to have my aggressive bonus disappear the next turn due to succession. Sure, I could go to war with enough units to guarantee victory in the event that that happens, but then I'm not using the aggressive trait to my advantage; I'm ignoring it.

Leader bonuses that are powerful enough that you can't simply ignore are bonuses that require planning to make best use of them. If you keep changing the bonuses, you hobble the player's ability to make and execute a plan, which makes for a frustrating game-playing experience.

 

[King Flevance]

You should try playing as an "Insane" leader in FfH2. There is I think a 5% chance of your traits changing every turn.

I still like this idea. It would make for a fun mod that had some flavor to diplomacy. And I don't think it would stray too much into the uncontrollable side so long as the traits always maintained 1 previous trait as described before. Also, there should be a set # of turns where it is safe, but then becomes a gamble.

For instance the game starts. Picking your leader would mostly be how you base your start off strategy. (e.g. Agg for rushes.) Then after 50 turns, not years, the Dynasty may change. make it something like 5% chance every turn. +10% chance for each resisting laborer.
When it changes if you were Agg/Ind it could change to either Agg/*** or ***/Ind and so on.

I wish I had the spare time to put in and I would start working on the mod. But as is I have enough modding to do on my plate. But if anyone needs it and plans on doing the mod, I could easily provide some static leaderheads for it.

EDIT: Also do you think it would be interesting to have it erase some modifiers like "You declared war on XXX" and "You razed one of our cities"? Also it would drop past mutual military struggles bonuses. Due to the fact that the new leader has not declared war? Or if it should drop any of the modifiers for that matter.