Time for leaders to go

[Brutus2]

I also think the leaders are core to what makes the game Civilization. I'm glad to see other games trying new things with the genre and of course I would expect any future civ to grow and try new ideas but if you throw out the key aspects of the game how could you even call it a civilization game anymore?

I would have no problem with an "unrestricted leader" option in the set up because I always think it is better to give players more options so everyone can play the game the way they want and if you don't like it, don't use it.

Personally I am really impressed with how the leaders are presented in Civ 6. I know a lot of people want to skip through dialogue every time they pop up, but I happen to love them. The animation is fantastic and I find them to be fun no matter how many times I have seen them.

My favorite thing about civilization has always been learning about other cultures. That includes interesting historical leaders, all the great people and their great works, unique units, etc. Sure we will always get the standard set of core leaders in every civ game but they always do a good job of adding new and lesser known civilizations too. It's what makes civilization special and it would be a lot less fun with "design your own leader" mechanics.

 

[kryat]

I think there’s a good idea here that needs a bit of polish. It might be interesting if there were multiple leaders from each civ available (a la Pericles, Gorgo, arguably Alexander...) but there was a chance for a revolution if the civilization’s unhappiness ever reached some critical point for too long. I’d really like to see revolutions like what happened in the 1800’s where massive change can happen in more than a few government policies. It’d work really well for there AI characters, but maybe it would be game over for your own. There really should be more ways to lose the game than not hitting a victory condition first or getting conquered. I’d really like to see the job of governing get a little more attention.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Last I checked we can't play Humankind and I'm sure it is delayed now.

 

[The googles do nothing]

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 .

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

I would be fine with having Leader and Leader abilities work just like Governors. I would make Leaders and Governors share promotions because I think it would help alleviate the problem @ShakaKhan points out. If a Leader doesn't have early abilities you can promote governors instead. That also means you could give players the option of choosing a new Leader at the cost of loosing the promotions the old one had.

 

[Stringer1313]

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).

LOL I think I am one of the 5 people on this planet who really loved how civ leaders changed appearance over time. That's the part (and the only part) i missed about Civ 3 and wish they would bring it back (and people can just turn it off if they don't like it). It actually contributed to the fantasy of an immortal leader precisely because it makes you wonder how Elizabeth would look today. And you immediately see whether a civ was more advanced than you which also added a flavor i like.

And it's funny you mention joan of arc skinhead because that was my FAVORITE one. Loved the idea of a fanatic john of arc in modern times.

 

[Zaarin]

LOL I think I am one of the 5 people on this planet who really loved how civ leaders changed appearance over time. That's the part (and the only part) i missed about Civ 3 and wish they would bring it back (and people can just turn it off if they don't like it). It actually contributed to the fantasy of an immortal leader precisely because it makes you wonder how Elizabeth would look today. And you immediately see whether a civ was more advanced than you which also added a flavor i like.

And it's funny you mention joan of arc skinhead because that was my FAVORITE one. Loved the idea of a fanatic john of arc in modern times.

Era progression wasn't a horrible idea, but I felt the implementation was lacking. In general, I think Firaxis has bad ideas when they try to be too original--just look at Beyond Earth.

 

[dagriggstar]

I actually dreamt the following setup (For context, this dream does involve me somehow becoming the lead designer for civ 7 lol)

The graphical representation or avatar of each civ is a diplomat. This was actually the case in civ 2 (No not the live action advisers, the avatar that appeared when you went to talk to another civ). Each leader is represented in the background - for example (France)
Napoleon - Background is a large painting of one of Napoleons battles
Louis XIV - Background is a large painting of Louis XIV receiving an embassy
Philip II (Perhaps Philip Augustus to differentiate from every other Phillip II lol) - Medieval Armour displayed in the background
The diplomat (the animation side of things) does not change. So you get the time savings of not animating multiple leaders while actually getting multiple leaders. For older leaders, you end up with more sculptures and relics, Cyrus might simply have the Cyrus cylinder for instance. This way you both know who the leader is AND you can make each leaders avatar more ..... flamboyant ? Like you can have more fun with the representations with less risk of it being insulting.

Would open up different ways to play a civ without losing it's historical characterness in game. I don't think I want to change cultures during a game, I want to have more choices before starting a game.

 

[AtlantisAuthor]

Civilization: Beyond Earth should remind anyone exactly why real-life Leaders are important. While it was a great game with all the familiar mechanics, its Leaders were generic and lacked any semblance of personality or historical context. That brought the game down a LOT for me; Beyond Earth simply never had the staying power of Civ V or Civ VI for me personally. The Leaders and the distinct Civilizations and their cultures are crucial; one could even argue that a change as radical as what the OP suggests would pretty much gut the very core of the Civ franchise and its identity. And besides, if we were all just playing as "America", "Germany", "Rome", etc., we'd miss one of my favorite things about Civ: the Leader animations and hearing them speak to you in their own language/dialect. That alone is WAY too much to give up.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i like the concept of having leaders. That being said improvements to them are always welcome. They should not have unique units/improvements attached to them or era specific bonuses, since they are timeless their agendas/abilities etc should also be timeless. Attach all that stuff to the civ , maybe even tie them to gameplay , your first war win makes your MVP unit your unique unit or your golden age most kills done by a unit etc etc.

 

[Gedemon]

I never liked the one immortal leader implementation. I understand that they may be required for "identification" purpose, but they've gone to far into that with civ5 and 6 by making them act as "players", not "civilization leaders".

I'm fine with no leaders at all (I've modded them out), just flavorful diplomats (I'd like to mod that in, and yes, it's actually possible), but if they keep them, they should at least allow to change leaders mid-game, with eras, government, civil wars for example. And maybe some achievement when you manage to keep the same leader for the whole game.

And no modern leaders in ancient era please, I think that's the worst in the current system, I'm fine with Cleopatra or Caesar clothes style in modern era, goes with "what if a culture survived this long", but modern clothes in ancient eras...

 

[Tech Osen]

I would rather see more leaders per Civ, three or four. Bit of diversity.

 

[LMT]

I understand why having leaders that last an eternity might detract from the game. Overall, I think it's fine as-is.

Plus if there weren't actual leaders, I wouldn't get to feel disgust at Philip when he gives me that nasty smirk...even when he's making an alliance with me. Or feel like I've done something wrong when Gorgo slams her spear to the ground. Or want to tell Kupe to "shut up and just get on with it" when he goes into his screed when he declares war (I usually am thinking to myself that he should just go to a rugby field to do that). Or... (you get the point).

 

[Mahi]

Leaders should stay but would be cool if you could throw in a simplified mix of heirs to the thrown a la Crusaider Kings. For each new Era you would be able to choose new heirs with new abilities and in more modern eras you could switch from monarchy to democracy or dictatorship etc

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I am afraid Civilization VI is not "what if" and changing history, because Civilization IS NOT A HISTORICAL SIMULATOR, even if you perceive it this way.
It is a good digitalized board game, limited not by historical realism, but game mechanics with a historical vibe as a cherry on top.

 

[Kayak06460]

I enjoyed an earlier iteration of Civ that allowed the player to name the leader. If I’m leading a civilization, I prefer use my own name.

 

[Zaarin]

And no modern leaders in ancient era please

I'm down with just no modern civilizations at all.

 

[Gedemon]

Well, true, but I'm fine with delayed spawn dates for those.

 

[Zaarin]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it would fit the Civ model. Later-spawning civs would start with a distinct disadvantage compared to those that start earlier; they might not even have land left for them to settle.

 

[UWHabs]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it would fit the Civ model. Later-spawning civs would start with a distinct disadvantage compared to those that start earlier; they might not even have land left for them to settle.

There's some aspects of that that would be cool, but you'd truly need a greater rise and fall to make it work. I do miss the way civs split in 2 or spawning off colonies from the previous games, I do think that would be a fun added feature. But at the same time, the greatest part of the game is about building your empire from scratch, so having America or Brasil only able to be played if you do that "delayed start" mode would really detract from my appeal in playing them. Sure, it's weird to see America starting next to Babylon, but it's still a fun alternate universe situation.

 

[choevi]

I have mixed feelings about this. I very much like the idea of playing against historic leaders, I just don't really feel the need to play AS one of them. Back in Civ1, I always renamed the civilization I was playing after myself and gave the cities names of real ones I lived in or had another relation to. So while I strongly prefer keeping the existing mode for the AI, I would love the idea of mixing and matching by own civ.