Should Civ rulers share their power or remain omnipotent?
- Thread starter J-S
- Start date
I'm all for less omipotent power - but only as part of a general expansion of the game in general. For one thing the AI would have to be improved - I wouldn't let the computer near one of my civilisations as it is currently.
If there were more things we could do as players and more interaction with the game then it'd work and I'd be all for it.
If there were more things we could do as players and more interaction with the game then it'd work and I'd be all for it.
Well, the AI should be improved either way. What we're considering is, supposing the game has an AI good enough, would it be a good idea to, for example, make it run your civ for a number of turns if you loose an election in a Democracy? I vote yes
: BUT instead of making the AI run your civ completely, if you loose an election maybe you could just get like "degraded" to gobernor of 1 random city in your empire until the next elections. Just a thought...
Zachriel
Kaiser
The "leader" is not omnipotent, but represents the final decision of the government. He merely implements the decisions of the people. You could think of war weariness as a slipping in the polls in a democratic nation. The mask of the leader is just the traditional face of the government, like wigs in Britain. The actual president does not live for 6000 years, but is replaced on a periodic basis.
Consider Caesar. He was a specific person, but his name became the title of Roman emperors for centuries. Even the Russian title of Tsar, is a just a modification of that single man's name.
Consider Caesar. He was a specific person, but his name became the title of Roman emperors for centuries. Even the Russian title of Tsar, is a just a modification of that single man's name.
Lord_Vetinari
übermensch
Here is a little idea that I just had:
Your civ has gone through a long, drawn out war. You didn't gain any significant land in the war, and many of your units died. One day you get the message
"The terrible war-mongering tyrant [insert name here] has been pushed off a cliff by angry peasants. They have elected a new leader [chose name], who is going to put a stop to this war-mongering nonsense, and devote his time into research and happines."
And suddenly, your civ has become scientific and religious. It could of course also be the opposite. After giving in to too many A.I. demands for money/techs/luxuries you could be reached by the message:
"Too late the weak ruler [inser name] has realized that the nobility has been plotting against him for years. They are tired of the way he has brought shame to the once feared empire of [insert country name]. They have taken control by a military coup, and has elected general [cose name] as their new leader. He will once again strike fear into the hearts of our arch enemies."
And now your civ has become militaristic and expansionist.
By using this system, the player would still always be in charge of his empire, but couldn't push the people around any way he pleases without consecuenses.
Anyway, this was just an idea, and perhaps a bad one too. I just realized that as soon as people figured out what they needed to do to have a leader overthrown, they would just exploit it (like going on wars they know they will lose so they can become religious or something like that)
Your civ has gone through a long, drawn out war. You didn't gain any significant land in the war, and many of your units died. One day you get the message
"The terrible war-mongering tyrant [insert name here] has been pushed off a cliff by angry peasants. They have elected a new leader [chose name], who is going to put a stop to this war-mongering nonsense, and devote his time into research and happines."
And suddenly, your civ has become scientific and religious. It could of course also be the opposite. After giving in to too many A.I. demands for money/techs/luxuries you could be reached by the message:
"Too late the weak ruler [inser name] has realized that the nobility has been plotting against him for years. They are tired of the way he has brought shame to the once feared empire of [insert country name]. They have taken control by a military coup, and has elected general [cose name] as their new leader. He will once again strike fear into the hearts of our arch enemies."
And now your civ has become militaristic and expansionist.
By using this system, the player would still always be in charge of his empire, but couldn't push the people around any way he pleases without consecuenses.
Anyway, this was just an idea, and perhaps a bad one too. I just realized that as soon as people figured out what they needed to do to have a leader overthrown, they would just exploit it (like going on wars they know they will lose so they can become religious or something like that)
These are some awesome Ideas coming up... but if you guys are just gonna complain about how unrealistic civ is-- realize some things that make it fun:
1) All the leaders, no matter what country... speak your language! Bismark doesn't speak German to you, he speaks English (or, depending on where you're playing the game, he just might speak german
)
2) The fact that even if you're in the year 2049, and you have the largest empire in the world, you have to plan you're infrastructure, because you'll set up a city, with no resources, that's stuck building spearmen and warriors.
Note- I do love the idea of the whole overthrowing the king deal... and what was brought up in the last post, about changing civ attributes, would be awesome, because your civ would change over time, depending on how you ruled it.
1) All the leaders, no matter what country... speak your language! Bismark doesn't speak German to you, he speaks English (or, depending on where you're playing the game, he just might speak german
) 2) The fact that even if you're in the year 2049, and you have the largest empire in the world, you have to plan you're infrastructure, because you'll set up a city, with no resources, that's stuck building spearmen and warriors.
Note- I do love the idea of the whole overthrowing the king deal... and what was brought up in the last post, about changing civ attributes, would be awesome, because your civ would change over time, depending on how you ruled it.
