Leaders all die! No one has lived for thousands of years!

[Wade.]

Leaders all die! No one has lived for thousands of years!

The "leader traits" should become "civilization traits". A random generic leader, male or female, wearing culturally adequate attire for the era and civilization can be used and replaced every fifty years of game time. A portrait, on a wall or desk or such, of these leaders we currently have in the game can be in the background for each respective civilization generic leader.

The length of time of each generic leaders reign can alter too. I chose fifty years because we currently can reach age 100 more or less. Of course at some time points and places maximum age was much less. Leaders will generally be pampered though and then retire in various ways. So 50 years of reign sounds good before the next generic leader takes charge.

Also, certain types of government can have the generic leaders changing more frequently. This could all be for...looks and not affect gameplay or...EACH NEW GENERIC LEADER could could have new traits that we must get to know and contend with while adapting to our own new leaders' traits too! A whole new aspect of strategy that would be close to real life...(assuming that we are a sort of ascended being shaping and guiding a civilization while playing the game.) The "civilization traits" would always remain the same while "leader traits" would change with each consecutive leader.

Do you have any responses to this?

Wade

 

[Mewtarthio]

Sorry, but just about the only thing I agree with is the "ascended being" theory. The leaderheads are just abstractions, and I don't see why we'd need to have a "generic German guy" when we could just as easily have Otto von Bismark, who is easily recognizable as German (and, as a bonus, makes trait selections a bit easier). There's really no sense in changing the leaderhead, either, particularly when you consider how turns near the start of the game can take forty years or so. Having new traits and new foreign leaders to contend with every turn would just cause a headache.

 

[ChrTh]

No one has lived for thousands of years!

Are you sure?

 

[Zachron]

I always fournd if funny that one the civilization revolts, then the new government is commanded by the same old jerk. I've heard a pretty simple explanation actually. One politician is like any other. A much better explanation is actually on the back of the box, "HISTORY AS YOU KNOW IT, IS HISTORY."

 

[manningscolts18]

fine in the late game but in the early game turns are around 40 years you would have a new leader every turn.

 

[Spitefire]

Who knows mebey its the same family line (but then on the same style of subject why under Rep and US is there 0% leader turn over, retorical quetion)

 

[Gooblah]

I have a solution: Depending on civics and year of each turn, change leaders with elections (no anarchy) or monarchy/dictatorship.
Exp:
Washington-Adams-Jefferson etc

 

[aronnax]

Its just a game........

 

[Lone Wolf]

I just consider these leaders in a game as some sort of a representation a national spirit, not as an undying Bismark etc.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

I actually consider the game as an abstraction, and the leaders as "real".

Like George and Napolean aren't actually ruling nations for 6000 years, but like they got together one afternoon to play Civ.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I want to see myself as a national spirit of a real nation, not as some, as they say, "dude" playing a strategy game with other dudes.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I actually consider the game as an abstraction, and the leaders as "real".

Like George and Napolean aren't actually ruling nations for 6000 years, but like they got together one afternoon to play Civ.

So Civ's like the afterlife? When great leaders die, they become spirits controlling nations and warring against each other throughout eternity?

Cool! I've so got to become president!

 

[Spitefire]

naa man normal presadents only get a 4 year turn thay have to share with like 50 other guys so you only get your turn ever 200 years unless of course you use something like nspd 51 to make yourself dictator for life.

if you dont know what nspd 51 is google it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Civilizations having one leader has always been the same since Civ1. It shouldn't change.

I liked the way TheBladeRoden put it - think of the leaders as players of the game rather than leaders in the simulated world.

 

[Gooblah]

Guess so. ANd like Spitefire said, the terms would be SUPER short.

 

[Lazylen]

having leaders change off every fifty years wouldn't work, but an idea instead would be that each civilization has a leader unit, and without that leader unit, the country's government falls into Anarchy, and when the civilization rebuilds, you have a new leader unit (or leader units).

I am personally tired of having to deal with Louis XIII every single game (just so dang ugly o_O), and i would like it if leaders switched off.

Or perhaps, where the leader unit stays is the capital? It would make government more complicated to play, but easier to understand. If you want a Monarchy, you put your one leader unit in your capital city. If you want a Democracy, you are granted leader units for each of your cities. If you want some sort of communist system, you would put Enforcement units in each of your cities, with a group of leaders in one city. Making sense?

That way, when a civilization is raided, the leader can escape and start anew in a different area. Sort of like the "Kill all units to eradicate the Civilization" mode in Civ IV, but instead of having to kill all the units, you just have to hunt down the leaders of the government. Not to say doing so would instantly kill the country, but a country that relies heavily on the government would definitely fall into anarchy. However, a country that would be very weakly dependant on their heads of state would be hardly effected, making choices of government that much more important.

I don't want to have to run through voting pages every twenty turns. That would get annoying.

 

[ivanof]

If one is going to start swiching leaders because of realism, then you'd might as well do a complete rewamp of playable civilizations because of realism. Then youl'd have to start with one of the prime civilizations that were around in ancient times. Then that nation evolves or splits off, and you get to choose between the splitter and the original. And so you could include many many more civilizations, like Livonia, Poland, England, Finland, Thai, Japan, USA, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Brazil, so on. So some civilizations might end up misplaced or completely in different locales. It would take the original idea of CIV and pulverize it, creating a fantasy world. Same applies to the leader thing.

I like the idea though

As for Lazylens idea, one could be a true communist, and kill the leader off yourself. Then the leader would be The Proleteriat, with no real ruler. Same for anarchy. Also Democracy, in ture form should have The People, in charge. Medieval democracy, could also be included this way, making the leader The Merchants.

 

[Diamondeye]

this has been discussed throughout, but a new thread keeps popping - you'd ruin the game by adding 240 leaders for each nation (25 yearsa a piece). Besides, the situation is much more recognizable i you can say "and then, Montezuma attacked me!" - everyone knows what you are talking about! Imagine telling a story about your game using this sentance instead: "And then this Asoka XVIII of India attacked me" NOT THE SAME!