1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Time for leaders to go

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by jasper, Apr 8, 2020.

  1. jasper

    jasper Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    USA
    Time for civ7 to do away with civ leaders.

    Why.

    Leaders come and go just like governments and policies. Alexander didn't lead greece the whole time anymore than greece was democratic the whole time.

    Civ is all about the "what if" and changing history. America building the pyramids and egypt founding Buddhism. If arabia can attract the thomas edison great person then why cant Arabia also follow teddy roosevelts or ghengis khan leadership instead.

    How. One idea.

    Build upon governors and religions.
    Say theres a pool of leaders, pantheon style. The civics tree grants leader points at specific civics, governor style. You use the leader point to choose a leader from the leader pool. This way spain can benefit from ghengis khans decision's and leadership while mongolia reached golden age under Abraham Lincoln .
     
  2. pokiehl

    pokiehl King

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    I disagree entirely. I would like to see Leaders as a concept have less importance to Civ for the sake of including otherwise obscure factions and to reduce production costs so they can focus on gameplay and other art more.

    But what you're proposing doesn't accomplish that and to me would just break immersion even more. People are already sore that governors aren't culture specific (I personally don't care about that but many do). Can't imagine this idea going over well writ large.
     
  3. MrRadar

    MrRadar Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,227
    You don't need civ7 for this, only one more setting in the game setup screen. Which was present in Civ 4 - Unrestricted leaders. Check it and lead any civ with any leader.
     
  4. Villager720

    Villager720 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    241
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC
    I think that moves us a little too close to a “sandbox-civ” situation.
    If we’re actually going to have distinguishable cultures that bring their own unique characteristics and flavor - I think they should also have a culturally specific paragon.
    Just as only Rome could have produced the Roman legions, I think most leaders are a unique product of their society.

    Just my two cents though.
     
    AsH2 and CPWimmer like this.
  5. Leucarum

    Leucarum King

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    665
    Gender:
    Male
    I get what you mean but at the same time the leaders do give a lot of personality to each civ. While it does feel odd having an immortal leader for all time, anachronistically dressed for most of it, it's a lot more fun interacting with Cleopatra or Trajan than Nameless Leader #5...
     
  6. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,230
    Location:
    Toronto
    Perhaps you could sort of merge the leader in with the eras. Perhaps most eras you end up electing a generic leader (America has Dave lead them in the Ancient era, Sally during the medieval, etc...), but you Abe Lincoln is your unique modern era leader, who gives extra bonuses in that era. So sure, you might have a leader around for a thousand years, but it would be more akin to having the Han dynasty rule the country in a similar style with similar bonuses, even if nominally in the game you had the same leader for the entire dynasty.

    In a perfect world, each civ would have a unique leader for every era, but obviously that's not really possible overall given the span of the game and eras.
     
  7. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    15,039
    If you want no fixed leaders and bonuses that change with the eras, you should have a look at Humankind.
     
  8. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Especially now with Humankind's model, the Civ series needs to differentiate itself. In 7 they should lean into leaders even more IMHO. Make them extra flavorful and tie more bonuses and events to them.
     
  9. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    100% this. I love Amplitude's formula and I'm looking forward to Humankind more than I'm looking forward to anything in Civ's future, but the leaders have always been Civ's charm. The leaders give a "face" to the civilization, someone you can love or someone you can hate or someone you can love to hate. They give the civilization the appearance of personality. I, too, want to see Civ7 double down on that. I'd even be keen to see light roleplay elements added; diplomacy in particular is a perfect opportunity for that.

    Civ3 tried that insofar as changing the leader's appearance by era. The result was unsuccessful IMO; most leaders looked sophomoric outside of their actual era (I'm looking at you, skinhead Joan of Arc).
     
  10. jasper

    jasper Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    USA
    Its not nameless leader 5. Its whatever leader you recruited or chose. Youre picking from the same pool of leaders you pick from now just without the civ attached to it. Its not generic great wonder 5 that you build in game. Its the actual great wonder with the same importance, identity and culture,just built by a different civ that historically built it.

    Still interacting with the same cast of celebrity leaders just leading a different civ that they historically led.

    Only Rome producing legions is arbitrary. Mongolia is landlocked, so how can its unique society background produce triremes in game? Hows mongolia produce the colossus of rhodes or great lighthouse?

    Civ is a sandbox game already. Its 99% sandbox with the exception of the 4-5 unique bonuses that each civ brings. Bring us too close to sand box makes it sound like civ is on the verge of sandbox, like its teetering on the cliff about to take the plunge. Civ is face down in a gutter, passed out and reeking of sand box.
     
    SolInvictus and Fluphen Azine like this.
  11. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Mongolia had a navy. Japan just weaponized hurricanes against them. Twice. :mischief:
     
  12. James_Champagne

    James_Champagne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2019
    Messages:
    59
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, I think the leaders do add a bit of flair and personality to the game, and if you took that out something would be missing.

    Having said that, I almost wish at times that the game would also have some kind of Crusader Kings type deal where you could have a family in charge of all of these civilizations and they would age up and die and their next of kin would take over, and there could be political marriages and things like that between civs... maybe that would be too complicated though (as it is I find the Crusader Kings series too complicated but I'm intrigued by that aspect of the game). But with Civ it's just this weird immortal leader running the civilization for all of eternity: I just pretend when I'm playing the game that every 100 years they die and someone else assumes the name (so when I'm playing as Egypt I'll think Cleopatra the first, Cleopatra the 2nd, and so forth).
     
    utahbutmakeitatheist likes this.
  13. Dotsworthy

    Dotsworthy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2019
    Messages:
    57
    Gender:
    Male
    I kinda disagree here.

    Yeah it's not historically accurate, but you as the player are also leading your civilization uncontested the entire time. Having leaders gives the diplomacy a bit of character and gives each nation more of a theme.

    I think the bigger problem is that some civilizations are very situational and don't mesh well with the "play the map" style of this current generation. I think VII could focus more on civs that give a unique play mechanic and be less vulnerable to the dreaded RNG
     
    j51 and Zaarin like this.
  14. Jkchart

    Jkchart King

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    942
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    *shudders at remembering* There were some decent era alterations, and then there's the bad crap like THIS example.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  15. Socrates-

    Socrates- Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Although I get the point you’re making, I’m on the pro-leader team.

    Playing against the likes of Monty, Cleo & Gandhi are a big part of my history of playing civ, it would be a shame if that aspect disappeared. I like how they give a ‘face’ to the AI and always imagine them more like opposing players/puppet-masters instead of actual ingame-leaders who have an eternal lifespan for 500 turns...

    However, When thinking of the game as a historical simulation like lets say Crusader Kings or EU I get the opinion of wanting to get rid of the current leader-mechanic.
     
  16. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    851
    Conceptually and from a role-playing perspective, I really like this idea. From a game mechanics and balance perspective, I think it intensifies one of the flaws of the franchise. One of the problems... sorry I meant "recurring game elements" in every game in the franchise since the early 90's is that it is a game of exponential growth and snowballing power. A good start puts you into a position where you are guaranteed victory; you'd have to put considerable effort into sabotaging your game for a loss to even become a possibility. A bad start means that even if you turn things around for the better, it's not going to be as decisive of a victory as it could have been. The importance of decisions made (and opportunities discovered) in the early game are remarkably more critical than those of the late game. How this relates to the topic is that bonuses that apply to the early game are far better than those that apply to the later game (while the best bonuses, of course, are those that unlock early and are maintained throughout, the early ones have much more impact than later ones.) In attempts to maintain historical accuracy (well, I think "historical acceptability" is a better term) Civilizations that existed earlier historically have unique units, unique improvements, etc. that are unlocked earlier. This makes older civs (Sumeria, Babylon, the ancient American civilizations, etc.) usually better civilizations than the more recent civilizations (America, Germany, etc... and yes I acknowledge that Germany is one of the best in this game, but that's only because they gave them a powerful unique infrastructure that unlocks during an era when the German civilization didn't exist... at least as Germany, but I digress...) In keeping with historical accuracy (acceptability), if they were to introduce unique leaders that unlocked during a different era for each civilization, this means that not only a civ's unique unit and infrastructure bonuses would unlock earlier for ancient civs, but yet another bonus, the unique leader, would be earlier (and more impactful) as well. I don't think the snowball effect is going to end with this franchise, and I think they need to find ways to make the more recent civs more of a valid option in relation to the older civilizations. Civ4 did a pretty good job of this by having the leader's traits, which were not limited to a particular period of the game, have really good synergy for some of the more modern civilizations.

    As for the discussion about how ridiculous it is to have an immortal leader... I think it's kind of necessary. Because while it may be more realistic to have different leaders ruling at different periods of the game, a toss of the baton so to speak, just how realistic do you want to get? Because in order to keep the flow of the game reasonable, the number of years that a turn represents condenses as the game goes on - the first turn represents 20 years and the later turns represent 1 year. When you combine this with the fact that life expectancy goes up significantly over time, this means that if you wanted to make the leaders "realistic," you would need to pick a new leader every single turn for the first 100 turns or so of the game... No thank you!
     
    utahbutmakeitatheist and Pure24 like this.
  17. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree with the others that it wouldn't feel like Civ if there were no leaders.

    Then again I'm sure somehow Gandhi, Alexander, Genghis and Shaka etc. would find there way in the game somehow as temporary leaders, if that were the case of them not being permanent for Civ VII.
     
    AsH2 and Zaarin like this.
  18. Connor_CivFan

    Connor_CivFan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    88
    Realism isn’t something that civ has ever relied on. PC gamer said (in a article about Humankind) that civ’s style is ‘enjoyable but not realistic’.
    And personally this whole realism thing Humankind has painted itself to be doesn’t sit with me (And one of those reasons is because it fails in the aspect of realism but that is a debate for a different time).
    Neither Humankind or Civ nail ‘realism’ perfectly.
    Plus if you don’t want immortal ruler there are already other 4X games that don’t have that feature.
     
    utahbutmakeitatheist likes this.
  19. MonkeyPaw

    MonkeyPaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    85
    Keep leaders- but make them replaceable. If you do a bad job of keeping your people happy and/or under control, they should be able to vote you out or overthrow you.
     
  20. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,082
    I’m with @pokiehl

    Keep leaders. They’re fun. They’re a great way to learn about real historical people. They allow for good gameplay and are a great way to organise mechanics.

    Civ isn’t a historical simulator. It’s more about representing history (and an idealised version of history at that), and leaders do a great job of supporting that approach.

    I don’t even find the leaders unrealistic. I tend to think of them as avatars, the spirit of your Civ. Sort of like a conceptual meme that drives your Civ’s development. ... yeah. I read a lot of Neil Stephenson.

    Leave no leader Civ for Humankind. Civ should just do Civ.
     

Share This Page