Multiple AI Great Leaders for each Civ

[daft]

Wanted to propose this concept again, maybe Firaxis will use it to the betterment of the game?

Every Civilization in CVI to have up to 5 Great Leaders who are not immortal but reign is succession, one following the other, in random order.
For example: The 5 Great Leaders for Russia might include: Ivan (the terrible), Catherine, Peter, Lenin and Nicholas II.
Each of the 5 great leaders is ranked according to the significance of their reign, the more the leader accomplished/more famous the more turns he/she would get to reign.
After the reign period of each of the AI's leader's finished, the next leader would be randomly chosen(each ruling only once), followed by the third...

Let me demonstrate this by an example:

I start a new CVI game and choose to play against 4 AI opponent civs (small map), either randomly selected, or rather (I almost always do this) selected by myself (choosing rival civilizations at the start of the game).
Lets say I chose Russia, Greece, Egypt, England as my rivals.
Before the game starts the program randomly selects which Great Leader will start the game for all of the AI civs included in the new game.
The game randomly selects Lenin as the first leader for Russia, Agamemnon for Greece, Ramesses II for Egypt and Victoria for England (Britain).
Lenin, as the 3rd on the list of Russia's Great Leaders gets to reign for 40 turns (for example) after which he is replaced by another Russian Great Leader (of the 4 remaining), Agamemnon rules for 30 turns, replaced thereafter by Pericles, Ramesses for 60 (top on Egyptian leader list) after which is replaced by Nefertiti, and Victoria rules for 60 turns as well, after which time is replaced by Churchill.

What would such a setup bring?
Great diversity in every game, much more fun, twists and intrigue for players, more immersion, more hooked and addicted players. Why?

You wouldn't be stuck playing against the same AI leader for so many game turns. Each change of AI leadership would/could bring major changes to the political, economic, military situation in the world you're playing, in what way?

If you were playing against Ramesses, for example, and him being a quite aggressive and expansionistic (and wonder building) leader, you might be in tough competition, but then his reign is over, and your new Egyptian opponent is Hatshepsut- a much more rational and peaceful builder.
You might have been in tough against Alexander of the Greeks, but then his reign comes to an end and the rational Pericles takes over, giving you a chance to switch your military focus elsewhere.

This way, former enemy Civs could become friends, and even allies, profitable trade could develop or suddenly end...

So the plan is simple:
1 to 5 AI great leaders for each civ (Huns would be stuck with just 1 GL)
2 AI leaders ranked by accomplishment, reign period determined based on total number of game turns allowed (divided between the 5-or less Great Leaders)
3 AI leaders change in succession in randomly selected order, and reign for their assigned number of turns (unless defeated/destroyed before their reign is finished)


As an added twist:
If a Great Leader ranking existed in CVI, ranking that took into account: Total Population, Number of cities, Number of Conquered Cities, Army Strength, Wonders built, Treaties signed, Trades and Trade routes signed/created, and other such important game aspects, then:
5 times during the game (possibly at end of each great era), this ranking would be displayed, and if your-(human player's) civilization ranks in the bottom 2 of the ranking you might be eliminated from the game (if your civ ranks last)-thus ending your game, or your empire is subject to a 1 turn of civil war and split in 2 halves (if your civ finished 2nd last in the ranking) and an AI great leader (from the group of a available GL's of the tribe you're playing as) would emerge to lead the newly formed civ and likely plot against you.
This sort of twist would provide added incentive for (human) players to do well in the game.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

A system like this might be fun to see with dynamic changes in rivals throughout the game but it would have to be executed well to stop it being a major advantage for the player.

Take your example with Egypt and flip it around. Hatshepsut spends her turns building monuments and generally being nice to people and making friends. Then Ramesses comes along wanting a war but only has a peaceful civ. He then switches focus into the military which catches up and he does keep building wonders but starts falling behind in culture and science. By the time he has done anything worthwhile, he's gone and there's another peaceful leader who's been thrown into a war that they don't want.

It's a more realistic idea and historically, it makes sense that different leaders have different agendas but the problem is that all those AIs are against a player who is statistically unlikely to be suffering the same level of schizophrenia. If I want to play domination, I won't take a couple of cities, flip a coin, get tails and say 'Berlin is about to fall but I'll make peace now because I didn't want it anyway'. A Gandhi following an Ashoka might.

It's not a bad idea to be rewarded for varying focuses throughout the game but not if the pacifist with the tech lead who is a threat in the space race is going to get 2/3 of the way through the game then decide they'd rather conquer the world.

 

[daft]

A system like this might be fun to see with dynamic changes in rivals throughout the game but it would have to be executed well to stop it being a major advantage for the player.

Take your example with Egypt and flip it around. Hatshepsut spends her turns building monuments and generally being nice to people and making friends. Then Ramesses comes along wanting a war but only has a peaceful civ. He then switches focus into the military which catches up and he does keep building wonders but starts falling behind in culture and science. By the time he has done anything worthwhile, he's gone and there's another peaceful leader who's been thrown into a war that they don't want.

It's a more realistic idea and historically, it makes sense that different leaders have different agendas but the problem is that all those AIs are against a player who is statistically unlikely to be suffering the same level of schizophrenia. If I want to play domination, I won't take a couple of cities, flip a coin, get tails and say 'Berlin is about to fall but I'll make peace now because I didn't want it anyway'. A Gandhi following an Ashoka might.

It's not a bad idea to be rewarded for varying focuses throughout the game but not if the pacifist with the tech lead who is a threat in the space race is going to get 2/3 of the way through the game then decide they'd rather conquer the world.

Yes, well, you're right. Could be more trouble for AI, but hey, would be fun to play!, seeing a new rival leader arise in your former aggressive neighbour's lands and right away seek peace with you.

They could lower the number of Leaders then, say only 3 per Civilizations and each gets to reign longer, or even make human players having their civilization switch traits and the people not allowing you to go to war because you now rule as Hatshepsut, not Ramesses, and that kind of behaviour doesn't suit you.

 

[daft]

This sort of a setup could be one of the game options at start:
you start a game of CVI and pick the option:
SUCCESSION GAME
AI leaders change with every new major era passing and new one beginning, same thing with player's civ, meaning your new leader might be pre-disposed differently and although you wanted peace your units would attack enemy units, just because it suits the personality of the new leader (or vice versa, your units/senate blocking you from any aggressive action because the new leader you're leading as is pacifistic/rational)

 

[Spartan_X]

I hope people from Firaxis are reading these threads and they are taking ideas from here - because it would be awesome if they could implement this particular one. I think it's great.