Killing the 6000-Year-Old-King

[Earwicker]

An issue that I've noticed coming up repeatedly is the "realism" question of you and your empire lasting from 4000 BC to AD 2020. I was thinking of something that would introduce a different element of play into the game, without drastically altering the way the game is played.

Mortality of the Ruler.

Every so often the King will die. This interval would be randomly determined each time and might be somewhere between, say, 20 and 60 turns (I know, not realistic in early phase of the game, but hear me out). Each time this happened, assume one turn of turmoil during the interregnum, at the end of which the player could select among several options:

1. Same government with linear succession, as in Caesar to Caesar II to Caesar III
2. Same government with new line -- Caesar is succeeed by Naughtius Maximus
3. Entirely different government. Like revolution but perhaps with a shorter period of unrest.

At the end of the game, you could lookback on the line of rulers, of all the diffferent government phases your civilization phase took.

To reflect the tendency for governments to stagnate and revolt if too long under one type, introduce another random element. If too many successions without changing government type, the unrest period will be longer to reflect the people's dissatisfaction. To foster change, the three options listed above are listed in order of "tension".

Factors influencing death of the ruler:
1. Difficulty level. Not necessarily more frequently, but a broader range, like every 5-60 years at Deity, every 50-60 years at Chieftain.
2. Wartime. The longer you're at war, especially in pre-industrial times, the likelier your heroic king might die in battle. In addition to the "troops-away" unrest, democracies will be more likely to revolt if there's an interregnum during a prolonged conflict.

There were some other things relating to this as I thought of it last night, but they slip my mind at present. What say the general population?

[Footie Mad]

If the leaders change shouldnt each new leader have a new mentality..at least in monarchies and despotisms. I dont like the idea it would complicate matters and not add to the fun.

[Father Beast]

Probably the most unrealistic thing about civ, but one that, surprisingly, never shakes me.
I always just figured my leader took an immmortality pill at the beginning of time, and took the reigns of power. being immortal, he's reverd almost as a god by his people, which is why he keeps getting ending up at the head of government no matter what it is.


anyway, I don't really know what to think of your suggestion. I suppose it could work, but I'm comfortable with the old way.

[SerapisIV]

I'm not a big fan of the suggestion. In Civ, half the fun is that I'm the leader of a people throughout the millenia, I'd rather not deal with intermediaries. MOO3 is currently working on a similar concept, though not of the main leader, I don't know how long each advisor/governor lasts, but it'll be interesting how that game interprets the idea.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I think it's a great idea. It adds an element of realism, and tosses in some unexpected occurences to your schemes. Many times history has been changed because somebody kicked the bucket at the wrong time. As the player, you still control what is going on, but your puppet would need to change periodically. I'd view it as a minor but welcome hassle, forcing me to make adjustments to my game in order to continue. However, poor Six Thousand Year Old Man would probably need a new login...

[senowen]

What helps me get over this unrealistic aspect of the game, but with no feasible solution that I have heard is to not think of myself as the king, but rather, as the power structure of the empire/nation. I'm the merchants/businessmen, the bureaucracy, and the generals of my nation. Lets face it, no ruler has ever been able to rule without the support of at least a majority of one of these (if not all of them) on his good side. The army and the bureaucracy may be able to keep down the merchants in a communist state for a long period, but from recent history this doesn't look feasible either (Soviet Union [dissolution, return of capitalism]), China [special economic zones]), etc.

What I'm getting at is that the aims of these groups is always the same in every country and era. Merchants: want to increase wealth/status/power. Bureaucrats: More infrastructure (so they will gain more wealth/status/power). Military: Better/Bigger military (so they will gain more wealth/status/power). Usually these groups collide. Your job is to decide how the power structure of your civilization comes about and changes through time.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Yes, it does seem unrealistic to have one leader directing a civilization for 6 millenia...

But, well, let me put it this way:

In the game, one leader really is directing a civilization for 6 millenia. Unless you plan on changing personalities every 5 or 6 decades, this particular unreliastic aspect of Civilization(tm) is not going to change...

[KrazyHorse]

If you wanted to change the leader, then 1/4 of the time you should end up as a coward (can't make war) 1/4 of the time as as inefficient (-50% revenues) and 1/4 of the time as insane (what shows up on your screen has very little to do with what's actually happening). There's a lot of inbreeding in royal families you know.

[Lord_Davinator]

a good idea but there would end up being a minor revolt every 4 years in a democracy to pic the next president so that would make a bit boggled up.

[TechWins]

I don't like this idea one bit. It's just too complex.

[Kc7mxo]

insane. heh heh. thats perty funny krazyhorse.

i think i've certainly seen some crazy ai leaders, like those morons with the one city that attack my eurasian empire. silly brits.

as to the changing times, what about civil war? That would be rather embarassing, you're in the middle of conquering the world / launching your spaceship / evolving / whatever, and half your emprie decides that last election was a bit fishy. heh heh.

while i think that moo3's idea of attention points is a creative and interesting idea, i don't think its one i'd like to see in civ. at least not until we've seen it in moo3.

[raingoon]

I know in Europa Universalis there's a model for changing rulers. It's not too far afield of your suggestion, and it's pretty fun. At the same time, for all my excitement at getting my hands into a persistent "reign" of command, if you will, it didnt' really wow me.

Kinda convinced me that this is one of those fun ideas that would neither help or hurt gameplay. Try Europa Universalis, if you haven't already, see if it's anything close to what you were thinking.

[Grumbold]

The change of ruler in EU had relatively little effect on the game. It gave some bonuses to certain types of activity that the historical monarch was reputedly good at (like diplomacy or warfare) and triggered the chance of certain historical events. There certainly was no period of turmoil between monarchs. If you turned on certain options then the monarch could give you certain objectives to complete, but it was always better to pick your own first unless you were feeling masochistic because some are markedly easier and more sensible than others.

I always think of myself as the secret power behind the throne in these games. No matter who the ruler is, they accept your wise advice and follow your policies. EU acknowledged this role and refers to the player as the "gray eminence". Trying to change policies in democracies every 4-5 years would just be silly. The game is not designed to alow you to behave inconsistently and still remain in a strong position. To win you must be outperforming your international opponents, not modelling your internal political struggles.

[Provost Harrison]

Excuse me, but I think this is a crap idea, IMO. It is kinda one of the fun things about the game, that you are a ruler leading your nation through the whole of time and have somehow managed to circumvent the limits of mortality. This is a game and is being designed to be fun, and sometimes, you have to have a bit of give and take. As I remember seeing in someones signature once, if you want realism, play two turns and die

[Grim Leaper]

I agree, it is a sillllly idea. i thought that civ was about rewriting 'history' your way. so what that this element isn't realistic, but you take any part of the game and look at from a microscopic level it looks crap compared to the 'actual' world. Instead look at the game from an overall perspective, and it works.

eg combat in civ2. alright is nothing compared with actual combat, but it worked for the game. (altough i do agree combat needs upgrading for civ3 ) making elements complicated just adds restrictions on the game.

[DarkCloud]

This could be good-
If- but only if you get different bonuses based upon which King ascends to the throne.

You start with some 'genes' to give to your king

Power/Might
Intelligence
Strategisim

Then his children and line have different ratings based upon the original King/Queen's ratings.

It's like the Sims/Tropico's genes, but with CIV!

You then get extra bonuses based upon what the King is best at.

[KrazyHorse]

I can't believe people are taking this seriously. You are the player, and CivIII is a strategy game. Being a strategy game, the player "calls the shots". He decides how best to manage his civ over 6000 years. This means that no matter what sort of veneer of change you attempt to put on, there is a constancy of personality. So, while it may be beneficial and fun for AI leaders to change intermittently (I think Firaxis has stated that this will be the case) it is silliness to claim that the leader of your civ can change with any degree of realism.

[Captain]

In principle, it's a good idea - BUT not for the way CIV is currently set up.
If you changed leaders every 50-60 years, that would be every THREE turns at the start of the game! That is way too frequent, it would make the game unplayable.

In the CIV series so far, you aren't really a mortal human leader - you're more like the Spirit of the Nation. I think the Civ manual says 'Guiding Spirit' but I think of it more as you 'possess' whoever the current leader/ruler is, and thus there is a continuum of your ambitions and strategies. When your people are no more, then your Spirit dies.

An alternate solution which incorporates the whole death of the ruler aspect (which was very significant in history), was using the fixed linear time scale so that you would play as a ruler for those 50-60 years but have sufficient #turns to actually accomplish something - whether it was 1turn=1 yr or 1 turn=1 month. This would make CIV too long to play as a single game, but instead it would be broken up into episodes (lifetime of each ruler), and played as single games that could be 'continued' (similar to Homeworld) by starting a new episode as the successor to your last episode's ruler. This of course, would be much more in depth and possibly just over the top for non-hardcore players.

[Sean]

I don't like this idea.

1) It unneccasirly complicates the game. I would soon geted annoyed at having to "reset" options every 20 turns.

2) Yes a 6000yr King is unrealistic...but this isn't real life...its a game first and formost!!!! This aspect of the game isn't broke, so there is no need to tinker with it. Realism is nice, aslong as it doesn't interfere with good gameplay.

"If you want realism, play two turns and then DIE"

[Kc7mxo]

See, your character is one of those guys from Highlander. Thats why its ok.

[MidKnight Lament]

It's not such a silly suggestion that people don't keep coming up with it. So I wouldn't feel bad about it.

But it's just unneccessary complexity for a game on such a grand scale as Civ. It's much more suited to a game over a smaller time-period.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, but if the king that ascended did so quietly with but one announcement about the bonuses you would be experiencing...

Then the game would make you the "God of the Romans" and not just the "King of the Romans", you would influence the leader by ordering him what to do.

This would give micromanaging a good reason to be computer oriented if the player wants it, because he lets the "King" run that himself while the "god" orders troop movements, etc.

[rah]

*GENERAL DISCLAIMER*
I do not want to see this as part of CIVIII, just give me a good AI
*END*

In the old NES series Romance of the 3 Kingdoms, they incorporated it quite easily. As you aged your capabilities started to deterioate. You had characteristics similar to the old D&D days that influenced actions. Every few years you would get announcements that you had a son or daughter born and they would list their characteristics. You could offer your daughters to other rules to seal pacts (when they got old enough). For the boys, you would have to determine (based on how decrepit you were becoming) when it would be best to retire and turn the kingdom over to him. (and which son if you had many)
It really added a lot of interest to the game, and it was fun to get the notice that you had a new son. (that looked like he would be a great general some day, or a great scholar)

But in this game the span of time was only a couple of hundred years. Any attempts to REALISTICALY do this in a game that spans 1000s of years would make it a major annoyance.

Fun to discuss, but don't even think about adding it.

RAH
*end of tirade

[tniem]

Yeah more realism...

[Earwicker]

Cool. Thanks for all the feedback. Just thought I'd suggest something that might help around a perceived problem. Honestly, the issue of eternal ruler never really bugged me before -- but it occurred to me that might be a good optional challenge. A way around the ruts of gameplay that no matter what civ you're playing it gets into a prolonged, stable democracy, which suddenly switches to a prolonged, stable Fundy for a war, then back to the prolonged, stable democracy. Effective game strategy but sometimes it would be cool to have a monkey wrench in the works. But only sometimes.

Oh, yeah: forgot to say before that I definitely would NOT want a change every four years as a democracy, realism or no realism.