Leader Switching

[WeaselSlapper]

First I know there are still many things about this game that need to be fixed before we should seriously expect new features improvements, but here's one I thought might be a good one to add in an expansion.

Give each civilization two leaders (each with say their own UA, UU and UB will stay the same) and allow the player to switch between the two leaders during the game. You could have say a war leader and a domestic leader one with a UA that's better during war and another that's better during peace. You could throw in a turn of anarchy to switch but other then that you can switch as much as you want during the game.

I think this would add some extra flavor and replayability to Civ V. This would be a little tricky for some of the more obscure Civs but I think it would add some fun.

 

[CoolLizy]

Something akin to Advance Wars: Dual Strike, I assume?

It's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit too gimmicky to me. It also seems like it would take the fun out diplomacy. When Monty backstabs me, I want to stuff my fist into his face, not whatever military leader he switches places with after declaring war.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Something akin to Advance War: Dual Strike, I assume?

It's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit too gimmicky to me. It also seems like it would take the fun out diplomacy. When Monty backstabs me, I want to stuff my fist into his face, not whatever military leader he switches places with after declaring war.

I've actually never heard of Advance War: Dual Strike.

It wouldn't have to have any impact on diplomacy, the diplomatic stuff would apply to the country, not the leader. And they wouldn't all have to just be war peace you could throw some more flavors in and say have a civ with an expansionist leader and an economic leader.

 

[That nerdy kid]

how about you have to choose at the start? So for example, for France you would choose between Louis the XIV and Napoleon Bonaparte, with Napoleon having French Republic as his UA, which reduces unhappiness from puppetting cities, and Louis XIV gets Ancien regime

 

[black213]

Or leaders could change from a revolution, much like in some IV mods.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

how about you have to choose at the start? So for example, for France you would choose between Louis the XIV and Napoleon Bonaparte, with Napoleon having French Republic as his UA, which reduces unhappiness from puppetting cities, and Louis XIV gets Ancien regime

Choosing from the start is how they did it in 4. I think it would add some strategy to the game if you could switch midstream for a few turns of anarchy. But you can skip that anacry with a few policies.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Or leaders could change from a revolution, much like in some IV mods.

Exactly

 

[Bechhold]

I just want to have Russia's leader to be Alexander II. Is that too much to ask?

 

[headcase]

I like this idea. Give each leader their own UA, and let the player swap at the cost of something (revolution would make sense).

 

[unfairlane]

why not let leaders come and go like irl? with different personalityes aso. it would add a dimension to the game. only problem would be to make up all thne neccesary(?) graphics

 

[Camikaze]

I'm with CoolLizy in that it does seem kinda gimmicky. And weird (not that having one leader throughout the whole isn't weird enough anyway when you think about it). If there are to be two leaders for a civilization, it seems to make more sense to me to still only play as the one throughout the duration of a single game. The whole idea is that you are that player, so transferring your soul to possess the other leader during the game might kill a bit of immersion.

 

[That nerdy kid]

I just want to have Russia's leader to be Alexander II. Is that too much to ask?

or maybe Pyotr I ...

 

[ShahJahanII]

I just want to have Russia's leader to be Alexander II. Is that too much to ask?

that's not the point.

I think this could be a good idea if you only have 1 switch throughout the whole game.
I think civs need to spread out through the eras.
The Ottomans, for example, only shine in the Rennaisance era.
Maybe we could represent Holy Rome and Germany with only one civ.
The possibilities are endless.

 

[Tavelon]

I'd sooner just have the choice to have two different leaders before SETUP of the game, each with their own UA and each with their own UU, but the remaining UU\UA slot stays the same for either leader.

 

[Bechhold]

There could always be more than two leaders to select from, perhaps as others have said be able to change them mid game but only after completing policy trees and their connection to said leaders... Wouldn't work for all Civs but still.

 

[JimboThrasher]

I would like this idea if you could only switch once.

like, a country is not going to have a revolution and then go back to the original leader. There should be a penalty for the switch, increased rebels/barbarians and lower gold production because the administration is changing along with the system of taxing.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Only giving one switch would also be good, and there would have to be a few turn of anarchy for switching. I don't like the idea of having multiple leaders to choose from at the start of the game. We already had that in Civ 4 I want something a little different.

 

[Catastrophe90]

Something akin to Advance Wars: Dual Strike, I assume?

Lightning Strike -> Victory March in CiV would be amazing.

So basically this Leader switching thing is pretty much Civ IV's governments with faces associated with them? That would be nice.