a lot of the nice but few of the bad

[madinkan]

This idea that the country's policy is based on the personality of its leader isn't a bad one. What troubles me is the fact that they rarely have guys like Hitler and Stalin as an available option. Maybe because some people might find that offensive, but still a nice idea being able to play as the Fuhrer or Commarade Stalin. Vladimir Lenin also would be a good inclusion.

One funny thing is that it is really hard to imagine FDR leading barbarians into war and Alexander with nukes in his inventory.

[xenophile58]

I think you might be surprised just how vicious come of these historical leaders actually were. Genghiz as an example, or Julius Caesar. These guys didn't like people fighting back and used cruelty to beaten victims as a tool of policy.

[Diadem]

They've got Mao in the game. He was almost as bad as Stalin, perhaps even worse.

And I think they had Stalin in the older civs, in fact.

[JackRudd]

Stalin wasn't in Civ2 or Civ3 - at least not in the vanilla game. (He was in various scenarios.)

[Diadem]

I think it was the original civ. But I'm not 100% sure anymore.

I know the Russians were in there. But maybe they've always had Peter and my memory is playing tricks on me.

[Stageon]

No Hitler though, and probably never will be. As interesting as it would be to have him in there, it's way too controversial in this PC world

[Quillan]

I think it was Stalin back in Civ 1, now that you mention it. I can't be sure; it's been more than 10 years since I've played that. Back in the first game, the leader I hated the most was Caesar. It would always reach a point where he'd pop up with the "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" line, and he didn't hesitate to use them.

[xxFlukexx]

Vote for Stalin and Lenin to be in an expansion pack here: http://www.firaxis.com/community/polls.cfm

[Dis]

if we do that, we got to put Nixon in for the U.S.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by Quillan
I think it was Stalin back in Civ 1, now that you mention it. I can't be sure; it's been more than 10 years since I've played that. Back in the first game, the leader I hated the most was Caesar. It would always reach a point where he'd pop up with the "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" line, and he didn't hesitate to use them.

Stalin was in the first game.

[Tufturk]

Stalin was downright scary. He never had anything nice to say, and usually had the means of backing up his threats. Genghis was the most aggressive, but Stalin was more competent (as was Caesar).

I think it would add nice flavor to the game if AI Civs could switch leaders if things start to slide: For example, if France under Louis trails the rest in score, suddenly a message appears: "Coup in France! Napoleon takes charge!" Gives multiple leaders a use within a single game, and adds unpredictability: Nice or bad? Could change quickly...

[JackRudd]

Oooh, that sounds like an interesting idea, Tufturk.

*watches Germany have Bismarck until they've built several wonders, and then switch to Frederick to cash in on the Great People*

[snafuc4]

Originally posted by Tufturk
I think it would add nice flavor to the game if AI Civs could switch leaders if things start to slide: For example, if France under Louis trails the rest in score, suddenly a message appears: "Coup in France! Napoleon takes charge!" Gives multiple leaders a use within a single game, and adds unpredictability: Nice or bad? Could change quickly...

Interesting. Would you keep it historical WRT timeline? (Peter supplanted by Cathrine, or vice versa (depending upon which Peter you're referring to)); would Louis /always/ be supplanted by Napoleon, or could it work the other way? Start with FDR & end up with GW..

I'm not intending to put this idea down at all - it has merit IMO! - I'm simply thinking of how other people will pull it down

BTW I haven't yet played with the 'randomise traits' button; maybe this would be a good time to experiment..

[Tufturk]

I imagine shifts happening irrespective of a historical timeline, so that Louis could take over from Napoleon too.

Primarily I would think change of leadership should happen as a response to a crisis, when a civ starts sliding down the score chart, as a way of "helping" the AI adjust its course. To be really effective, I would think such a change in leadership should also involve a reset of diplomatical relations, cancelling all current trades and giving the new leader a one-time "free" adjustment of all civics.