Another type of 'leaders'

[Zeevico]

No leaders live forever (or is forever elected). how about simulating that by having every 4 or 5 turns to have a new 'leader'. At that point you can choose if he's going to be militaristic, civilized, etc, and this will give you benefits and disadvantages like a civilized civ gets more happiness/ trade but is bad at war and miltarist is the opposite. These things could also work with your current government (or work against it). Like if you're in a democracy and you pick militarist leader (unless you're in a retaliationary war) you get less war bonus then you would under a communist gov and vice versa. Also, miltarist govs would gain plus one attack for all offensive units and all civilized would gain one defense for all defensive units. Any good?

[bagdar]

I don't think this idea makes sense. In Civ, you're not a leader, you're a god who leads a nation state right from the beginning. We have to take it as it is.

[wittlich]

Well, the leadership of a given civilization can follow the same type of naming nomenclature as Sierra's "Pharaoh" Game (Build a Kingdom. Rule the Nile. Live Forever).

As the game progresses, you keep the name you started with, but your Family name is followed by Roman numerals - to indicate family lineage. Let's say every 80-100 years your name will increase with numberals to indicate your ancestry as the descendant from your first common ancester (leader). How does that sound?

[Sabre2th]

Don't the different governments already do that, Zeevico? Your idea just makes it more complicated and more annoying, doesn't it?
I kind of like Wittlich's idea, though. It helps show the passage of time a little more accurately.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Grumbold]

The sign of a brilliant leader is their flexibility. While some definitely excel on the battlefield, in making laws or conducting diplomacy and have acknowledged weaknesses in other areas, the best can rise to any occasion. Leaders also grow and learn over time. Playing a game where your nation changed characteristics as your leader(s) changed and proved more or less capable in all regards could be fascinating but sounds a bit too involved for Civ. The timecale would almost have to be 1 year/turn right from the outset just to give you a change to utilise these talents properly. No good if they are dead or out of office before the armies can mobilize for war or the diplomat can reach the enemy capital.

Even 1 year per turn leaves modern democracies going into re-elections every 4-5 turns. This just seems too distracting from the real essence of the game. Once a nation grows larger than a kingdom it is often not the country leader whose skill in leading troops or persuading foreign nations is responsible for victory or defeat anyway.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited February 19, 2001).]