NO LEADERS on start - new idea thread

[Lazy sweeper]

The general idea is to just Start the Game and choose, pick your civ of choice.
Without ANY Leader attached to it.
Then, throughout the game, depending on your behaviour, achievement, etc, a Leader is born.
Inside YOUR civ. And the same happens to all other Ai civs.
It can happen at different times, and they could also DIE. (This is an OLD idea of mine - where you can KILL your Leader-King-Queen, and try to Kill other civs Leaders as well...)

So you might get a Leader you like, and keep it, but you could also get a Leader that you don't like...
In any case, the Leader should be culturally linked to your Civ.
SO that No Benjamin Franklin could ever appear to FRANCE, THE GAULS, THE ROMANS, or CHINA.

UNDO the Leader "FIRST" approach completely.
Put back Civilization "First" in the mindset again, and then move along from that as a UNMOVABLE, not dabatable, pivotal concept.

This should be one of the 2/3rd of things that should NEVER be questioned.
One of the BASIC CORE TENET of Civilization.

This concept would allow players to play the entirety of the game without ANY leader at all.
Some government type, like Kingdom... could see the birth of Monarchs Leaders... more frequently
A Republican government could see the birth of OTHER kind of Leaders (Napoleon) more frequently
But NAPOLEON could also appear as a new possible leader, whilst say KING "SUN" III of France i still alive...
You would have then to do a REVOLUTION, KILL or EXILE the old King-Leader, and then you would be able to keep NAPOLEON...

Dynamic Leaders... but it's YOU, the PLAYER, YOUR CIV,. the one IMPORTANT thing...
Your Civ will not disappear if your Leader dies... you still have your Governors AND Government; an army, etc...

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE?

 

[Evolena]

New idea game thread

 

[tedhebert]

I am sadly NOT in favor of this change, sorry.

I want to choose my civ and leader !

 

[Lazy sweeper]

New idea game thread

I'd say goodbye to idea of monetizing new Leaders packs... that would be new...

 

[Lebo44]

Actually it would be great idea to start with a default Civ and shape it so it can stand the test of time

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I am sadly NOT in favor of this change, sorry.

I want to choose my civ and leader !

You GET to choose your Leader when you choose your Civ...
You just DON'T know WHEN your Leader will appear in the game...
It might appear in the fourth turn, or in the 20th turn... but you WILL get the appropriate Leader for your Civ...
maybe even TWO... and then you can CHOOSE which one to pick... and which one to "discard"...

AND they are also immortal... untill you decide you've grown weary with him, of course...
What would happen if your Civ has to play for a limited time WITHOUT any Leader?
That's seems interesting to me... it's not like you're in a state of Anarchy...
you loose some Leader specific bonuses, but everything else remains the same...

E.g.
I play with the Mongols...
but I embrace Philosophy, science, and Multiculturalism... no religions of any sort... what kind of Leader should appear?
I'd say Gengis Khan should appear if you choose the WARPATH... but if your gameplay choices are other...
maybe you could get to pick between Gengis Khan brother... or his sister... but not him...

In any case, under Tribalism ( which should be the default government type for everyone at start), the leader is
the COUNCIL of the ELDER... which reflects your Civ... so it could also be a kind of Leader replacement...
..you roll back to the "council of the Elders" leadership..
Every aspect of the game that requires a Leader to work, would still work...

Problem fixed?

 

[tedhebert]

You GET to choose your Leader when you choose your Civ...
You just DON'T know WHEN your Leader will appear in the game...
It might appear in the fourth turn, or in the 20th turn... but you WILL get the appropriate Leader for your Civ...
maybe even TWO... and then you can CHOOSE which one to pick... and which one to "discard"...

AND they are also immortal... untill you decide you grown weary with him, of course...

ok I’ll rephrase…

I want to chose my leader and civ FROM THE GET GO !

 

[Lazy sweeper]

ok I’ll rephrase…

I want to chose my leader and civ FROM THE GET GO !

BZzz... I can't receive...
interferences...
sorry... com lost...

...bzzzbbzzz...

 

[Evie]

I dislike everything about this idea, and most especially the idea that only specific civs could produce specific leaders. What's next, only specific civs can build certain wonders? Only specific civs can use certain government? The deterministic "only historical options allowed" approach flies in the face of everything that has ever made civ fun - which is the wild chaos of seeing how far you could mangle history.

Leaders being "locked" to factions ONLY make sense in the context where the leader is the figurehead used to represent the civilization in the game, and in precisely no other context. If they're not something that's predetermined at game start (as in this case), then there is precisely no reason whatsoever for them to be locked to specific civ.

(Except deterministic delusions).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I dislike everything about this idea, and most especially the idea that only specific civs could produce specific leaders.

Isn't that essentially how it worked from Civ 1 to Civ 6?

Anyways I don't dislike the general idea, and this is similar to ideas I've had about a potential 4X game I've been brainstorming.

 

[Evie]

Isn't that essentially how it worked from Civ 1 to Civ 6?

Anyways I don't dislike the general idea, and this is similar to ideas I've had about a potential 4X game I've been brainstorming.

You might want to read the start of the next paragraph?

Leaders being "locked" to factions ONLY make sense in the context where the leader is the figurehead used to represent the civilization in the game

Which is historically what it has been in Civ (to the point the devs thought that the Leader was more important to identity than the faction - and I frankly agree).

(And even then Civ II just let you input whatever civilization and leader you wanted, and Civ IV had "any leader with any civ" as an option)

In a perspective like OP's idea where leaders are generated over the course of the game, like great people (who, historically, weren't civilization locked), wonders (who still aren't civilization locked), etc, then there is no reason whatsoever to lock leaders to civilization. EITHER you get something that's pre-set as part of your civilization identity that you,re guaranteed to get ; or you get rewards based on your in-game actions without regards to which civilization you're playing.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Actually it would be great idea to start with a default Civ and shape it so it can stand the test of time

Have I got the game for you

Millennia on Steam

Create your own nation in Millennia, a historical turn-based 4X game that challenges your strategic prowess across 10,000 years of history, from the dawn of humanity to our possible futures.

store.steampowered.com

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In a perspective like OP's idea where leaders are generated over the course of the game, like great people (who, historically, weren't civilization locked), wonders (who still aren't civilization locked), etc, then there is no reason whatsoever to lock leaders to civilization. EITHER you get something that's pre-set as part of your civilization identity that you,re guaranteed to get ; or you get rewards based on your in-game actions without regards to which civilization you're playing.

Ok. As I said I don't mind the general idea of dynamic leaders, but I would still do it differently than the OP.

I still think you would need choose a civilization from the beginning of the game, along with a leader (whether you would want it linked to your civ or not can be an option). The option of changing leaders would be from an existing pool of leaders (either linked to your civ or that hasn't appeared in the current game) would be as the game progresses by choosing a new government, not having them appear or be born like Great People.

 

[Evie]

I mean, OP's idea is a completely different idea than just "dynamic leaders".

I'm not super into your idea either, but that,s mostly the usual problem of "leaders are the bottleneck", so any option that require multiple leaders per civ just sink diversity in the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not super into your idea either, but that,s mostly the usual problem of "leaders are the bottleneck", so any option that require multiple leaders per civ just sink diversity in the game.

I did preface it as brainstorming ideas for a different 4X game. Because at this point, I'm certain that the idea of immortal leaders is a focal point for this franchise.

 

[Skojardu]

The general idea is to just Start the Game and choose, pick your civ of choice.
Without ANY Leader attached to it.
Then, throughout the game, depending on your behaviour, achievement, etc, a Leader is born.
Inside YOUR civ. And the same happens to all other Ai civs.
It can happen at different times, and they could also DIE. (This is an OLD idea of mine - where you can KILL your Leader-King-Queen, and try to Kill other civs Leaders as well...)

So you might get a Leader you like, and keep it, but you could also get a Leader that you don't like...
In any case, the Leader should be culturally linked to your Civ.
SO that No Benjamin Franklin could ever appear to FRANCE, THE GAULS, THE ROMANS, or CHINA.

UNDO the Leader "FIRST" approach completely.
Put back Civilization "First" in the mindset again, and then move along from that as a UNMOVABLE, not dabatable, pivotal concept.

This should be one of the 2/3rd of things that should NEVER be questioned.
One of the BASIC CORE TENET of Civilization.

This concept would allow players to play the entirety of the game without ANY leader at all.
Some government type, like Kingdom... could see the birth of Monarchs Leaders... more frequently
A Republican government could see the birth of OTHER kind of Leaders (Napoleon) more frequently
But NAPOLEON could also appear as a new possible leader, whilst say KING "SUN" III of France i still alive...
You would have then to do a REVOLUTION, KILL or EXILE the old King-Leader, and then you would be able to keep NAPOLEON...

Dynamic Leaders... but it's YOU, the PLAYER, YOUR CIV,. the one IMPORTANT thing...
Your Civ will not disappear if your Leader dies... you still have your Governors AND Government; an army, etc...

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE?

Yes! Make Civ Through the Ages again!

 

[Skojardu]

I did preface it as brainstorming ideas for a different 4X game. Because at this point, I'm certain that the idea of immortal leaders is a focal point for this franchise.

I would have said everlasting empires; astronaut Aztecs, Computing Carolingians and steam-powered Scythians were the focal point but...

 

[Monene]

It would be no different than a Civ6 hero getting a general bonus until they die.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Maybe in some theoretical version of a Civ-like game, you would have a succession of leaders all through the game (like I guess leaders age and die and are replaced in Old World).

But to do this, you would need either a list of actual leaders of a given civ, over a 6000 year span, which we don't have, or a bunch of made-up names. An early turn of Civ is 40 years long; you could have twenty different leaders within the space of a turn.

If you have the leaders change some limited number of times in the game--three, six, a dozen--then you go from having Civ's 6000 year old leaders to ones that are 2000 years old, or 1000. 6000 years is unrealistic, but one can cope with it by saying that that leader is just a symbol of the civ in question. 2000 year old leaders, who then die, are just unrealistic tout court.

I don't see any advantage, then, in having leaders change over the course of the game.

To work as a game, Civ has to be massively reductive of full historical complexity. Immortal leaders are one form of reductiveness to which we've acclimatized ourselves.

 

[Skojardu]

Maybe in some theoretical version of a Civ-like game, you would have a succession of leaders all through the game (like I guess leaders age and die and are replaced in Old World).

But to do this, you would need either a list of actual leaders of a given civ, over a 6000 year span, which we don't have, or a bunch of made-up names. An early turn of Civ is 40 years long; you could have twenty different leaders within the space of a term.

If you have the leaders change some limited number of times in the game--three, six, a dozen--then you go from having Civ's 6000 year old leaders to ones that are 2000 years. 6000 years is unrealistic, but one can cope with it by saying that that leader is just a symbol of the civ in question. 2000 year old leaders, who then die, are just unrealistic tout court.

I don't see any advantage, then, in having leaders change over the course of the game.

Maybe the way it would work is similar to how the Colonization Founding Fathers would be unlocked, but instead of being stuck in the ether, they get recruited into your capital as physical Great People and have an effect for some time.