Role of personalitys/leaders

[Pythagoras]

Ok, I was curious how everyone thought (or if anyone thought) that leader personalilys shoudl play into the gameplay. I mean leaders as in city governors, generals, not the leaders like head of a civ. Although they could be a leader too. Could leaders develop relationships with other leaders which could alter over time and affect diplomacy and administration?

[Caesar]

Well we know from the FAQ that we'll have generals etc for leading armies (I'm really looking forward to this - imagine assigning a good number of diverse units to one leader, and then letting them get on with fighting a war or a particular aspect of the war, so that we can focus on stuff beyond what often amounts to military micromanagement).

Anyway. SMAC had governors in each base, so I assume we'll have the same in Civ3 - whether they go beyond the model in SMAC (ie simply a device for saying do this, don't do that) or whether they'll be more complex, who knows. I'd personally be happy with the SMAC model.

Looking forward to it all!

C.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Could leaders develop relationships with other leaders which could alter over time and affect diplomacy and administration?

Good idea, but imagine 7 civs @ 25 cities each, and all the possible combinations of relationships for the computer to compute.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Empress]

I don't like the idea of predictable leader personalities. I think the randomness and many combinations without being overwhealming is what makes civ II soo addictive.

[Tim White]

I like the idea of Governers, and leaders. IT happened all through history that different civ leaders were best friends, and totally changed everything. I hope there will be Gernerals, and armies in civ 3, or rather, there better be.

[Jorrit Hansson]

I would like to see the same idea of governors as in Masters of Orion 2 (or was it Pax Imperia ID); anyway..
You would have Governors who evolve over into better or worse leaders. They would affect your production, food, science, money and spy/counterspy. The other civs could put spies and bribes into the governor to make them perform less well. You yourselfs could put counterspy's on them, replace them or just execute them en put in a new one (execution should produce some turmoil). You might even capture city governors (majors, chiefs, whatever). A rotation system might be ok too, if you want some safety in not losing cities to traitors.

It was a thing I liked very much in the game I played. The properties of the Governor should be somewhat hidden however (unlike MOOII), otherwise you would be checking the sorry bastards every other turn (I might), adding to the micromanagement strain. Messages from agents that report a governor doing very bad / good should be included. Corruption in this way should not be traceable directly to a city, but only to the central treasury ("we lost $121 to corruption this turn, sir).

I mean, nobody knows everything, and only having a spy/agent network might improve you knowledge on this.

[Grandpa Troll]

I see by the date I am way late..however I would love to see different personalities../ attributes of which to assign troops to..like WW2..had MacArthur..Bradley..Patton..Beetle Smith...Eisenhower...Lord Mountbatten...Rommel...Montgomery..each with a flair..a kanck for getting job done..


Remember..Opportunity doesnt present itself..it is created by circumstances we place ourselves into!

Troll

------------------
If they call an orange an orange, why don't they call a banana a yellow?-Christopher Lloyd-Taxi

The Forum Fur Flyer

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to see civs, particularily AI civs, having rotating leaders. Givng civs a single personality "pacifist perfectionist, aggressive expansionist, etc., is too simplistic and too predictable. Certainly over such a long period of time, 6000 years, you'd expect variations in the conditions in a country. Countries with a reputation for pacifism, like Egypt, occasionally have an expansionist leader like Ramses.
Each civ should have a assortment of leaders, at least 3 or 4. Most of the time the country's leader would be the one most representing the country's traditional personality. In times of dire need an alternate leader would replace the usual one. As an example, Egypt might be lead by Cleopatra, reperesnting pacificism and perfectionism most of the time. Repeated raids might prompt her replacement with the war-like Ramses. There could also be gifted administrators available who would confer bonuses in money or prodution. Great war leaders like Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc. would be held in reserve and each used only once(for a number of turns). Such leaders would convey a temporary massive advantage in military unit production.

------------------
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

[Sirotnikov]

All praise Dr. Strangelove!

I've been saying similar things many moons ago. I totally agree, but I think that leader's personality shouldn't affect the human civ, as I evolve and change my strategies anyway.

[Zeevico]

Egypt: Pacifist? Not in the same sentence as far as i know. During the past 50 or so years Egypt has attacked Israel three (this is the amount when the declaration of war was actually made. Other times they just sent gangs to kill a few farmers or blocked of Israeli shipping) . Maybe it was pacifist before that but right now it isn't too much of a pacifist (it, along with other Arab countries, contributed a total of 1 billion dollars to the intifadah in Israel. Meaning, that's even more weapons and bombs Arafat has to blackmail Israel). That kind of reveals it stance towards Israel rather openly, does it not?

[tmarcl]

quote: Originally posted by Zeevico on 03-01-2001 10:06 PM Egypt: Pacifist? Not in the same sentence as far as i know. During the past 50 or so years Egypt has attacked Israel three times

Also, during the time of Moses (I can never remember the years), Egypt was an empire, not just a big nation. Now, there may have been times that Egypt *was* pacifistic, but not through their entire history. In fact, I don't think any of the major civilizations (especially those in Civ) were pacifists for their entire history. I guess this counts as a vote for the evolving leaders idea. :-)


Marc

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by Zeevico on 03-01-2001 10:06 PM Egypt: Pacifist? Not in the same sentence as far as i know. During the past 50 or so years Egypt has attacked Israel three (this is the amount when the declaration of war was actually made. Other times they just sent gangs to kill a few farmers or blocked of Israeli shipping) . Maybe it was pacifist before that but right now it isn't too much of a pacifist (it, along with other Arab countries, contributed a total of 1 billion dollars to the intifadah in Israel. Meaning, that's even more weapons and bombs Arafat has to blackmail Israel). That kind of reveals it stance towards Israel rather openly, does it not?

Well, I ignored the part about egypt being pacifist and supported the civ 3 idea, but I really appriciate your post.

You know, you should be in the Off-Topic forum as there are constantly discussions there about the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's history and current events. I think you have lot's to contribute.

Most posters there know little and speak only about their impressions from bits of news.

I would also be glad to invite you into the Israeli Defense Coalition consisiting of Me (Siro for short), Eli (formerly known as Builder) Taurus, Yoav, Natan, Spartan187.
(kidding, there is no such coallition. Each poster posts mainly on his own.)

[Sean]

I just can't wait to see how this great leaders play out in the final version of civIII game.