[GS] Why not change leaders over differnet era?

[Boris Gudenuf]

In a way, I’d love Civ to have a leader and advisor system similar to EU4. But ultimately, I think individual leaders are too granular for Civ.

To me, the immortal leader represents sort of a cultural construct. Your Civ is never led by Teddy Roosevelt. Instead, Teddy the leader exists at the level of ideas, and the player can only see and interact with these leaders because they’re playing at a “god” level of the game.

The implementation of Governors was a bit of a missed opportunity here. They would have been so much better if you competed for them like great people, or instead represented “great families” rather than individuals.

Instead of (or In Addition To) 'Governors' affecting only individual cities, I would love to see a system of Ministers that affected your entire Civ in certain areas - a Minister of War, Foreign Minister, Master of the Builders, etc. They could be 'immortal' lie the Governors, but as Eras progressed, new ones with different capabilities and bonuses could appear. Better than 'progressive' promotions as the Governors get, the 'swapping out' of ministers would allow you to seriously change your Civ's orientation and capability - rather like having a new Leader, but without the cost of animation.

 

[acluewithout]

I don’t think there should be more immortal characters in the game. That’s one of my problems with the existing governors: having “immortal” governors really cuts across having immortal leaders. I can only suspend disbelief so much.

I have three gripes with Governors. First, they’re too generic. Second, there’s no way to opt out of having them really, which makes games feel a bit samey. Third, on the flip side, you can only choose each Govenor once.

The third issue is the biggest. It’s a real pain not being able to have more than one Pingala city or more than one Reyna city. Having only one Amani is very limiting. It means you can’t really lean into any one build. Really hurts a Civ like, say, Khmer, that build tall and could really benefit from having multiple tall Pingala cities.

The catch is that, over all, Governors are well balanced and work really well mechanically. But they just feel bland and, after you get the first three governor titles, just don’t feel like they have much impact and don’t let me shape my empire all that much.

If I was going to rework them, with the aim of making as few changes as possible, I’d make them “Great Families” not “Governors”, and let players choose each Great Family or Govenor type up to three times, except for the Castilian and Ambassador Governors which you could pick up to five times. You’d maybe have to rework the promotions a little, but I think that would work pretty well.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

No offense but civ wouldn't civ if it had mortal leaders. Civ would not be popular with Mortal leaders. Immortal leaders is just better for the game in every aspect apart from reality.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No offense but civ wouldn't civ if it had mortal leaders. Civ would not be popular with Mortal leaders. Immortal leaders is just better for the game in every aspect apart from reality.

- and variety, and Playability. Cramming a thousand years of French, English, or Russian history into a single leader, or even two alternate leaders, leaves out numerous aspects of the Civ - that's why there are so many Modded alternate leaders available, because the 'designed' Civ and single Leader just doesn't cut it.
And if you look at the so-called 'Leader attributes' in Civ VI, very few of them are actually specific to a single individual, and so if you were to leave out the 'Leader' completely, the same Uniques could still be attributed to the Civ. For example, Alexander's UA is for warmongering, but that's not necessarily Alexander's - it pretty much describes most of Macedonian History both before and after him.

No, the 'Immortal Leaders' in Civ are pure for marketing purposes. After the first few plays of the game, I doubt many people (I certainly don't) even bother to look at the animations of the leaders any more - they just slow up the game.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

- and variety, and Playability. Cramming a thousand years of French, English, or Russian history into a single leader, or even two alternate leaders, leaves out numerous aspects of the Civ - that's why there are so many Modded alternate leaders available, because the 'designed' Civ and single Leader just doesn't cut it.
And if you look at the so-called 'Leader attributes' in Civ VI, very few of them are actually specific to a single individual, and so if you were to leave out the 'Leader' completely, the same Uniques could still be attributed to the Civ. For example, Alexander's UA is for warmongering, but that's not necessarily Alexander's - it pretty much describes most of Macedonian History both before and after him.

No, the 'Immortal Leaders' in Civ are pure for marketing purposes. After the first few plays of the game, I doubt many people (I certainly don't) even bother to look at the animations of the leaders any more - they just slow up the game.

no one looks at the animations your right. But it isn’t fair on the developers and designers they just wouldn’t cope. Plus why should civ change immortal leaders after it has done that forever. It is a better marketing choice (also and good choice to keep their sanity) for them as people will like 1 leader more, I would rather have 1 Leader through the entire game rather than 8 to 9 leaders that I won’t get to appreciate. Plus specific leaders is a very good marketing point much more than you give it credit to, not for the animation but for consideration of said character made by developers where it will make certain communities feel respected to a point

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

no one looks at the animations your right. But it isn’t fair on the developers and designers they just wouldn’t cope. Plus why should civ change immortal leaders after it has done that forever. It is a better marketing choice (also and good choice to keep their sanity) for them as people will like 1 leader more, I would rather have 1 Leader through the entire game rather than 8 to 9 leaders that I won’t get to appreciate. Plus specific leaders is a very good marketing point much more than you give it credit to, not for the animation but for consideration of said character made by developers where it will make certain communities feel respected to a point

I appreciate that personalized leadership for each Civ with animated leader caricatures or portraits is a great marketing mechanism. I just don't think it adds anything to the game once you've actually bought it and are trying to play it. Therefore, to think that other animations/graphics and game mechanisms may have been short changed to give us a marketing device does not endear Firaxis or the game to me. I buy games to play them. If I just want to watch them, then I am mistaking a game for a cartoon, and will be extremely disappointed that Wiley Coyote or Daffy Duck do not show up as Leaders.