I'm now planning a Leader Mod

[Verenti]

Help me mod the leaders into some sanity. Their choices have gone off the deep-end for atleast how the favoured civics are concerned.

--------------------

Universal Sufferage: (5)
Washington, FDR, Fredrick, Asoka, Gandhi

Theocracy: (1)
Saladin

Police State: (5)
Montezuma, Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Kahn, Peter, Isabella

State Property: (1)
Mao Zedong

Hereditary Rule: (6)
Hatshepsut, Louis XVII, Alexander, Huayna Capac, Kublai Kahn, Catherine

Free Religion: (1)
Elizabeth

Repersentation: (4)
Victoria, Napoleon, Bismarck, Cyrus, Caesar

Mercantilism: (1)
Tokugawa

------------



I think it should look more like this:

Universal Sufferage: (2)
FDR, Asoka

Theocracy: (3)
Saladin, Isabella, Montezuma

Police State: (4)
Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Kahn, Peter, Napoleon

State Property: (2)
Mao Zedong, Lenin(Catherine)

Hereditary Rule: (7)
Hatshepsut, Louis XVII, Alexander, Huayna Capac, Kublai Kahn, Bismarck, Cyrus

Free Religion: (1)
Elizabeth

Repersentation: (3)
Victoria, Caesar, Fredrick

Mercantilism: (1) (Althought I think Tokugawa is more suited to Hereditary Rule)
Tokugawa

Free Market: (2) (Not that I think Washington was all about Free Markets, but we needed atleast one American leader thats pro-freemarket. Maybe I'll add Regan or Truman, If possible to fill this role)
Mansa Musa, Washington

Pascifism: (1)
Gandhi


Now I don't know much about some of these leaders (Meso-Americans, Eygpt) so if anyone has any suggestions for new characteristics or ideal civics (or even new leaders),Espeically if it involves getting some of the people OUT of Hereditary Rule ,Feel free to post.

[MarkG]

sanity doesnt equal balance

[Verenti]

True, but plenty of game have teams that are harder or easier to play on top of the difficulty settings. This wouldn't be much different.

[prscormier]

What does favoured civic mean? is it a civic they get for free?

[Nikolai]

It probably means the civic the leader likes the most, and therefore will tend to choose when getting the chance.

[LordShiva]

I don't know why Ashoka gets Universal Suffrage - he was an emperor, after all. Gandhi is a toss-up between Universal Suffrage and Pacifism (the latter might make him into a real wuss, though). Catherine came to power not through hereditary rule but through marriage. Doesn't suit Bismarck either (on your list). Representation for Caesar is kinda silly. Elizabeth should get Mercantilism.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Nikolai
It probably means the civic the leader likes the most, and therefore will tend to choose when getting the chance.

Kind of like how the AI used to have a "favorite government", that never really worked...
Now you'll have an AI that has a "favorite civic" that never really works.

[Verenti]

Okay, What should Caesar, Asoka and Bismarck have then? I really don't know much about Caesar or Asoka.

I was, however, under the understanding that Bismarck was a Die-hard supporter of the Prussian Monarchy and was a staunch supporter of Conservitive values (Against the whole Liberal and Socialist movements of the 19th century).

[H Tower]

I wouldn't have thought it possible before, but maybe we need a Civ4 creation forum already, so we can put all these wildly theoretical mod threads in one place.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by alms66
Kind of like how the AI used to have a "favorite government", that never really worked...
Now you'll have an AI that has a "favorite civic" that never really works.

yep, i fear the same!

i just hope their preference has only a small weight in deciding what they need. for instance it would be unfortunate if a war torn situation anything else but war-supporting would be chosen.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alms66
Kind of like how the AI used to have a "favorite government", that never really worked...
Now you'll have an AI that has a "favorite civic" that never really works.

I can't recall a single instance in Civ3 where an AI civ would try to persuade me to change government. According to the screenshots released so far, this will be different in Civ4.

And I guess every leader will also have a "shunned" civic.

[Nikolai]

I think Firaxis will get it to work. After all, they did so with SMAC.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by H Tower
I wouldn't have thought it possible before, but maybe we need a Civ4 creation forum already, so we can put all these wildly theoretical mod threads in one place.

We also need a PBEM forum already.

[Martinus]

Having Asoka for Universal Suffrage is like having Isabela for Freedom of Religion.

[Verenti]

Okay, So I've moved Asoka to Police State. Would that be the correct place?

[Martinus]

Actually I would place him in a Caste System since India is a model Caste system state. The problem is, it is not a favoured civics group the way Firaxis made them.

[Verenti]

Updated List.


Universal Sufferage: (1)
FDR

Theocracy: (3)
Saladin, Isabella, Montezuma

Police State: (3)
Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Kahn, Napoleon

State Property: (2)
Mao Zedong, Lenin(Catherine)

Serfdom: (1)
Peter

Hereditary Rule: (7)
Hatshepsut, Louis XVII, Alexander, Huayna Capac, Kublai Kahn, Bismarck, Cyrus

Caste System: (1)
Asoka

Free Religion: (0)


Repersentation: (3)
Victoria, Caesar, Fredrick

Vassalage: (1)
Tokugawa

Mercantilism: (1)
Elizabeth

Free Market: (2)
Mansa Musa, Washington

Pascifism: (1)
Gandhi


Edit: Anyone think they can think of a way to get people out of Hereditary rule? Eh, then again, maybe that would be sorta realistic.

[Solver]

Well, just consider - Louis XIV, Hatshepsut (and all Egyptian Pharaohs), Alexander, Huayna Capac and Cyrus are probably some of the best definitions of monarchy. Full, absolute monarchy there. Kublai Khan, I do not know that much about him. Bismarck, well, he's the guy you could reasonably put somewhere else, at wish.

[Philotas]

Aren't there a total of 25 "civics" choices? Many of the others could be used for doing leader mods.

[Verenti]

Apparently Kublai Kahn was a massive warmonger who introduced Economic reforms (paper money) and gave religious tolerence to all but the Taoists.

[Matches10]

Maybe move Washington from Free Market into Free Religion? I wouldn't say Washington was known as an economics guy as president or otherwise, and this would serve to put someone back into the Free Religion category.

Personally I'd like to see them give each leader two favorite civics, that way we don't have to pigeonhole some of these people into one civic. All the guys you have in hereditary rule deserve to have that as part of their personality but I think a secondary one would help differentiate them from each other a little more.

[Locutus]

The thing about favoured Civics is that they're a big part of diplomacy, to help create blocks of civs, as mentioned in various previews. You're not gonna get blocks if every leader has a unique Civic. The original list is pretty good for this, Verenti's list will just create one big block vs single civs (and maybe the odd couple).

This is why it isn't wise to attempt to mod a game you haven't ever played. Theory and practice tend to be worlds apart...

[Verenti]

I think it won't be as bad if you suggest. I think it would be more like Alpha Centauri: Like if you have Economic adgeda, Your allies will be amongst those who'se agendas lie in other Spheres

Mansa Musa wouldn't ally with Mao, but He could get along with practically anyone else on the board. It doesn't kill the blocs, it makes them more flexible so it won't be the same players siding over and over

[Locutus]

Maybe, maybe not, we really don't know until we play the game. Which brings me back to my second point

[Nikolai]

I tend to agree with Locutus, let's wait and see.

[snuggs]

As well as adjusting existing leaders some civs would benefit from new ones. Obviously that would require new graphics and God knows what else so it's something for later.

I posted this at Civfanatics.

I don't know if every single civ really requires two leaders, but there were some weird omissions.

I don't share the problem some of you have with the preferred civic choices. The leader doesn't represent the individual but the guiding spirit of the nation. We could take issue with Elizabeth's rendering as pro-freedom of religion for example but in historical context it makes sense.

Some one-leader civs, I feel, are misrepresented.

Arabs: how about resurrecting Abu Bakr for the Arabs' greatest expansionist phase? Expansive / Aggressive - Spiritual perhaps. Make Abu Bakr's preoccupation Theocracy and change Saladin's to Hereditary Rule. (And will the Arabs get the 'camel archer' even if they're based in tundra?)

Egyptians: like others, I don't understand why they only get Hatshepsut and therefore not even a shot at industriousness. They are crying out for, say, Rameses, Industrious / Expansive and probably also Hereditary Rule or conceivably Caste System.

Greeks: strange there's no alternative to Alexander. When you think of ancient Greece, you think of city states and Alexander and his dad were more responsible for breaking those than promoting them. In fact, in the big scheme of things his rule was a bit of an aberration. I suggest adding a leader from the high time of Athens, Pericles or possibly Themistocles are the obvious choices. I'm thinking either Creative or Financial / Philosophical. Representation sounds about right, though for some reason the one Persian leader gets that too :crazyeye: shame nobody told 'em, it could have saved a lot of bloodshed.

Indians: Asoka favours Universal Suffrage? WTF? At least one Indian leader should favour Caste System, right? And it's certainly can't be Gandhi. There we are then.

Persians: Cyrus should without shadow of doubt favour Hereditary Rule, not representation. A second leader, Xerxes, might even suit Police State and be organised and aggressive.

Romans: beats me why such a great and longrunning civ only gets one leader. A second, perhaps Hadrian, could represent the high imperial period. Police State, Organised / Industrious. I don't mind having Caesar be pro-Representation, as ridiculous as it sounds, because at least one Roman leader should have that trait and the alternative is a second leader from the Republican period. If that's preferred, how about Gracchus?

Russians: I'm no commie but Russia, like China, could do with one leader from that period and Lenin will do. State Property obviously, Organised / Industrious, and he should replace Catherine even though Catherine looks pretty fit these days.

Spanish: Could do with a second leader from their Habsburg period, perhaps Carlos (V) or Philip (II). Would favour hereditary rule and be spiritual and either aggressive or philosophical.

[GeoModder]

Small wonder that, with the exception of the Mongols, the main world powers between now and the last 50 years have 2 leaders.

[conmcb25]

We should start a suggestion thread, these could be modded in or patched in by Firaxis?????

[LordShiva]

Not a bad idea. But let's wait until we actually have the game first?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Not a bad idea. But let's wait until we actually have the game first?

Well I was thinking that BUT the information IS out, and it would give us something to do while we are waiting for release. Someone could volunteer to maintain the thread and if we change our minds about combinations, etc, we can just update the thread after release