Brainstorming thread for how the 24 leader units can be used in modes other regicide

[monkspider]

At the request of our beloved Jeff, let's try to brainstorm interesting uses for the new leader units announced in the recent chat event. These are going to be actual units of leaders such as Montezuma, Elizabeth, Genghis Kahn, etc. that are going to in regicide mode, but are also being looked at possibly being integrated into the other modes as well.
It could be interesting if each civ started off with their leaders, and could add to the statistics of each unit within a certain range of them. However, once they died you could not regain them for the rest of the game.
Another possibilty is that wherever your leader unit is, that city sees a decrease in corruption, increase in culture, increase in happiness, or perhaps a combonation of the three.

What does Apolyton think? Any further thoughts? I think there is a lot of potential here for interesting gameplay.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Could have a vision of 2 squares and when entering barbarian village, will eliminate barbarian uprising as a possible event.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by monkspider

It could be interesting if each civ started off with their leaders, and could add to the statistics of each unit within a certain range of them. However, once they died you could not regain them for the rest of the game.
Another possibilty is that wherever your leader unit is, that city sees a decrease in corruption, increase in culture, increase in happiness, or perhaps a combonation of the three.

Nice. I like those ideas. But please, Firaxis, nothing silly. I don't want to see Alexander or good ol' Mao trashing their foes like Sauron in the Lord of ring movie intro scene.

[Hoznog]

How about as a roaming version of the forbiden palace? I am a massive expander sometimes making it to Orleans 3, and so it's very early in the game when I need to use my forbidden palace that I usually end up rebuilding my palace in the late game to better distribute its effects. But if I could move a leader to where corruption is brutal and help those cities develop it would kick butt.

Perhaps make the leader a benefit for building the heroic epic where the next leader generated in battle would have the effect of a palace. Afterall Heroic Epic quickly becomes redundant anyway.

[Harlan]

I like the idea of your leader being a boost whereever it goes. Less corruption, more happiness, etc... You want to prevent it from just sitting in the capital city all the time. Having it also boost the attack and defense of all units within a certain radius would be good. Then you'd want to bring it near the action, but not so near that you'd lose it.

These leaders should come with the start of your Golden Age. You obviously can't have them all start at the beginning of the game when you have 0 units.

The big problem I see is having the AI use them properly. Not putting them in a reckless position, but also not wasting their potential. The AI should keep a lot of units with the leader at all times.

Howabout, in the regular game, having them die at the same time the Golden Age ends. "With the death of great Montezuma, your Golden Age has ended". That would prevent civs with an early leader appearance from having a disproportionate bonus from them. It makes sense too: its a bit silly to have someone live for thousands of years.

[Harlan]

Another idea:

what if the leader matches the abilities of the civ? So a military civ gets a military bonus for units near the leader, a scientific civ gets a scientific percent bonus in whatever city the leader is in, an industrial civ gets a production bonus, religous extra happiness, commercial extra money. Since each civ has two attributes, each leader would as well.

Expansionist is a hard one. Maybe +1 food permanently for each turn the leader spends in the city? I would just say plus growth, but the problem there is the city would starve away most of the gains when the leader left. Religious you also might want the happiness to be small but permanent, since all your cities could be happy to begin with, making that attribute useless. In fact, perhaps for all but the military, the effects could be small but permanent.

The AI could be taught to go to the city that would produce the most gain. So for a scientific civ, the leader would go to the city producing the most science, to boost that by a certain percentage. Except for the warrior leaders, who would linger near the battlefronts.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Harlan

These leaders should come with the start of your Golden Age. You obviously can't have them all start at the beginning of the game when you have 0 units.

The big problem I see is having the AI use them properly. Not putting them in a reckless position, but also not wasting their potential. The AI should keep a lot of units with the leader at all times.

Howabout, in the regular game, having them die at the same time the Golden Age ends. "With the death of great Montezuma, your Golden Age has ended". That would prevent civs with an early leader appearance from having a disproportionate bonus from them. It makes sense too: its a bit silly to have someone live for thousands of years.

Great idea, it might be kind of sad to see your leader leave you at the end of 20 turns though.

It would provide a great impetus for the formation of the leader unit though, and could make golden ages even more exciting. Say when your golden age begins, Montezuma will appear in your capital and you can move him where you want from there.

It could also add a new level of strategic depth for golden ages, maybe you need a quick boost of science to catch up with a dreaded foe, or you have reached a critical juncture, and you need more money, or maybe you need decreased corruption in those recently conquered territories, so you will make sure you get a golden age soon.

All in all a great idea Harlan.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Harlan
Another idea:

what if the leader matches the abilities of the civ? So a military civ gets a military bonus for units near the leader, a scientific civ gets a scientific percent bonus in whatever city the leader is in, an industrial civ gets a production bonus, religous extra happiness, commercial extra money. Since each civ has two attributes, each leader would as well.

Expansionist is a hard one. Maybe +1 food permanently for each turn the leader spends in the city? I would just say plus growth, but the problem there is the city would starve away most of the gains when the leader left. Religious you also might want the happiness to be small but permanent, since all your cities could be happy to begin with, making that attribute useless. In fact, perhaps for all but the military, the effects could be small but permanent.

The AI could be taught to go to the city that would produce the most gain. So for a scientific civ, the leader would go to the city producing the most science, to boost that by a certain percentage. Except for the warrior leaders, who would linger near the battlefronts.

Another great idea!
However, if their benefits are more specialized, I think it would be more fun if these leaders lasted from the beginning of the game until they were killed. Otherwise, they might seem kind of meager if they only lasted twenty turns.

Let's see
Religous- increased happiness
Miltaristic- increase unit stats
expansionist- maybe cities grow two sizes instead of one where the leader is? Or maybe just decreased culture?
scientific- increase science
Commerical- increased wealth
industrious- increased shields

[Cesa]

Originally posted by Harlan
Another idea:

what if the leader matches the abilities of the civ? So a military civ gets a military bonus for units near the leader, a scientific civ gets a scientific percent bonus in whatever city the leader is in, an industrial civ gets a production bonus, religous extra happiness, commercial extra money. Since each civ has two attributes, each leader would as well.

Expansionist is a hard one. Maybe +1 food permanently for each turn the leader spends in the city? I would just say plus growth, but the problem there is the city would starve away most of the gains when the leader left. Religious you also might want the happiness to be small but permanent, since all your cities could be happy to begin with, making that attribute useless. In fact, perhaps for all but the military, the effects could be small but permanent.

The AI could be taught to go to the city that would produce the most gain. So for a scientific civ, the leader would go to the city producing the most science, to boost that by a certain percentage. Except for the warrior leaders, who would linger near the battlefronts.

Very nice

Perhaps the military leader could work like a barrack, the produced units in the city the leader is in starts with one more hit point then otherwise, could be used together with barracs for a nice effect

If the leader improved success rate of battle it would perhaps be too powerful imho, but on the other hand it would be a risk keeping it close to battle. But I still think it would be too powerful, you'd just keep all units in one stack together with the leader, almost impossible for the other nation to kill. Perhaps just a small bonus, +10% or +25% to attack OR defence. Or the bonus could apply to UU's only, but that would make the games even more predictable (hmm, wonder if the Germans are going to try to conquer now or wait til they have the panzer...? )

[Harlan]

I think these special leaders should also have a decent defense value. If they have no defense, then you could catch them and make them yours, which makes no sense. Plus, if you have a battle with them in it, it would be more exciting to see if you can kill one instead of it being a foregone conclusion.

[Hoznog]

if they appear when you enter a golden age instead of having them amplify your current civ specific traits how about a pop up appearing allowing you to chose one other trait to add to your civ (but may not choose one you already have) until your leader dies of natural causes (end of golden age) or is killed in combat. I think that would be more usefull. I could time my wars to the extra effect of militaristic or while religious switch all my cities to build cathedrals and such.

what do you think? discuss.

[notyoueither]

I don't know if I can agree with reinforcing a civ benefit with the leader. Imagine the first Jag kills something, now Monte takes the stage and lends his benefits to the already overwhelming Jag rush... too unbalancing.

An additional FP? Perhaps too much as well. The problem with balance in the later game right now is the difficulty of the smaller powers to be able to survive, let alone compete with the big boys (and girls). Giving massive empires an additional FP would stretch that gap even more.

What might be good though are some limited, location specific benefits. Give the leader 'missions' like so:

LawMaker- The leader acts as a CourtHouse in the city he/she is in.

Morale- The presence of the leader turns one or two discontented citizens to content in the city he/she is in.

Merchant- The leader gives a 25 or 50% boost to the Gold Income of the city he/she is in.

Scientist- The leader gives a 25 or 50% boost to the Beakers of the city he/she is in.

The Leaders should exist from the start, and they could if their effects are not too large. It would give the players, both human and AI a way of focusing attention on a specific area of development in specific cities as needed. Everyone could benefit from them, whether builder or war monger, and the loss of them would not be catastrophic for the losing civ.

Oh, one last thing. Perhaps a civ who loses it's leader could opt to turn a GL into a CL (Civ Leader) to replace a loss.

[monkspider]

That's absolutely brilliant NYE, we have been forgetting to take into account the already great disparity between large and small civs as the game goes on. Your solution is definitely on the right track.

[Inverse Icarus]

if you wanted to intergrate leaders into the standard game, they could give a extra attack / defense point to nearby units, and if they die, yuo plunge into anarchy. eh?

[ranskaldan]

If these Civ Leader Units represent the actual human or AI players (Cleopatra, Alexander, Mao, etc), shouldn't they therefore exist throughout the game?

Their powers would be minor at the beginning and build up slowly through time.

Finally, the problem of the civ leader getting killed: by logic the game would then end for that player, but that of course wouldn't make for a playable game. Perhaps the civ leader would then be respawned in the capital city.

In short: a weaker CL, but one that exists throughout the entire game.

edit: ubercrux's idea is good too.

[alva]

what if you kill a cl, a new one gets "born" with new civ abilities??

i.e. france starts off with Joan( commercial- scientific?)
she dies... Napoleon takes over and France becomes commercial-miliaristic (no need to change both)

just a thought (although granted it will cause a few problems)

[Mikhail]

alva: Problem with that, is it would create a 'StarCraft' type game where people get so used to the way a certain civ plays, they'll end up forgetting how to play other ones. I, personally, don't want civs to be that drastically different.

I don't see why it has to be something so complicated as all this. I'd prefer them to just have the 'capital' effect in a second city (forbidden palace being the third). Useful on a world map where your empire's liable to be spread out a lot more.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Mikhail
alva: Problem with that, is it would create a 'StarCraft' type game where people get so used to the way a certain civ plays, they'll end up forgetting how to play other ones. I, personally, don't want civs to be that drastically different.

I don't see why it has to be something so complicated as all this. I'd prefer them to just have the 'capital' effect in a second city (forbidden palace being the third). Useful on a world map where your empire's liable to be spread out a lot more.

Maybe, as earlier suggested, a leader can be used for missions. BUT, those missions take time. So, say your Perisa and you just conquered Washington which is on the other side of the world. You bring Xerxes to Washington, and then you hit something that might say

"Lawmaker Mission - 5 turns to complete" So then your leader becomes inactive for those five turns, and at the end it begins to reduce corruption

Then, you can boost Industrious by saying "Increase Production - 10 turns to complete", you wait ten turns, and then your production goes up slightly. Same with science. However, you can only do this once to every city and lawmaker is only in effect for as long as the king is within the city limits.

Just a thought.

[Firebird]

Hi,

I would prefer a CL to exist troughout the game. I like the idea of him getting reborn if killed. One could even let him die of age after randomly 40 to 80 years, die of disease (in jungle) or perhaps even killed by a new spy mission (which of course should be very costly and difficult). The spy-mission is perhaps not a likely candidate to slip into the Firaxis wish-list but it could be a realistic addition.

The death of the leader could tricker a revolution just like when you push the revolution-button. After the end of anarchy a new CL enters the scene.

When reborn she/he could be a hole new CL (go from Joan to Napoleon) as mentioned above or as Joan the II.

I like the Idea of CL giving a fighting boost to troops and a bonus to the nearest cities. I think the bonus to nearby cities should aply also when the CL is in the capital. This would ensure that she is of equal use to small countries and large empires.

That was my current thoughts. Comments are welcome.

[Stuie]

I think they should last until killed, then you're out of luck.

As for what they do, I like the idea of them developing over time. Maybe a list of abilities, pick one to start, and then gain one more each time a new era starts. So you would be forced to make some strategic decisions....

Do I want the ability to reduce corruption now, or can I wait until the next era? Would a combat bonus serve me better or should I start with a boost in culture?

And if there were more abilities than four, you would have to balance your goals for the game against the abilities you pick (or don't pick).

[Panag]

hi ,

maybe we should let the leaders as they are now , ....


have a nice day

[Switch]

perhaps the CL could, as mentioned, act like a portable forbidden palace, and when in a city for, say, 5 turns, that city will experience WLT*D, until the CL leaves (unless it meets the requirements for a WLT*D anyway). I mean, if you were in a monarchy or whatever, and the king visited your puny hamlet, you'd probably make a celebration of it.

Second thought, the city goes into WLT*D right away, but it only lasts for a limited time unless the requirements are met.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by panag
maybe we should let the leaders as they are now , ....

Panag, we are debating about the "Call for Suggestion" that some people from Firaxis asked about not current Great Leader but the newly created Civilization Leader.

They are been developed to fit in PTW the "Regicide - Catch the King" multiplayer mode.

At this moment they aren't included in others Multiplayer or Single player mode, so we are suggesting a possible use. This is only related to the unique "Civ Leader" unit, not to the "Great Leaders" effect.

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't know if I can agree with reinforcing a civ benefit with the leader. Imagine the first Jag kills something, now Monte takes the stage and lends his benefits to the already overwhelming Jag rush... too unbalancing.

An additional FP? Perhaps too much as well. The problem with balance in the later game right now is the difficulty of the smaller powers to be able to survive, let alone compete with the big boys (and girls). Giving massive empires an additional FP would stretch that gap even more.

What might be good though are some limited, location specific benefits. Give the leader 'missions' like so:

LawMaker- The leader acts as a CourtHouse in the city he/she is in.

Morale- The presence of the leader turns one or two discontented citizens to content in the city he/she is in.

Merchant- The leader gives a 25 or 50% boost to the Gold Income of the city he/she is in.

Scientist- The leader gives a 25 or 50% boost to the Beakers of the city he/she is in.

The Leaders should exist from the start, and they could if their effects are not too large. It would give the players, both human and AI a way of focusing attention on a specific area of development in specific cities as needed. Everyone could benefit from them, whether builder or war monger, and the loss of them would not be catastrophic for the losing civ.

Oh, one last thing. Perhaps a civ who loses it's leader could opt to turn a GL into a CL (Civ Leader) to replace a loss.

I agree that a Civ Leader shouldn't (by himself) widen the gap between the small and the large Civ.

In fact I suspect that the whole concept of managing a Civ Leader will be an hell for the AI.

Anyway, I think that the "King mission" concept is interesting but too much intricated (a game into the game: do we need one? ).

A "mobile Palace" is more easy to manage, but to avoid the unbalancing effect for Large vs. Small civ that must come paired with a tune down on the palace itself.

This way, in a small Civ you can keep the Civ Leader near the palace, adding the effect into a greater efficiency and so on, while on a large Civ you can move around but loosing the focus (the Palace will act less effectively against inefficiency).

I'm not against the idea to focus a bit the CL in his/her Civilization Unique Point, but as a general rule it should be as a Queen in Chess Game: powerful, but too much important to leave her unprotected. And no, if you lose your CL, it's gone forever, IMHO.

Gimme a militaristic CL that inside city can act as a temporary Barrack, or a temporary Wall (defense bonus) or a Scientific CL that can act as a temporary Library (or University bonus, if the library is already built).
Temporary Marketplace/Bank for Commercial Civ Leader and so on.
So every Civ leader can have one of the two Unique Trait (they can change every game) or have both, it's a matter of balancing, and a general "mobile palace bonus".

While Firaxis left out from the final Civ III the Great People (not military) effects, they can bring back some limiting it to the Civ Leader.

[Dr. Stiby]

The idea of the CL has potential and a lot of good ideas have been raised. A point I definitely do not agree with is the death and rebirth of CL's. I think every civ should have one CL. It just wouldn't make sense to have CL's acording to era. Who would be the American CL in 4000 BC, or the Aztec CL in the modern era?
This however raises a question about what's to happen if a CL gets killed. It would be really disadvantageous if you loose your leader in the beginning of the game in a moment of weakness.
Therefore I suggest that a CL can't be killed by your opponent. They can however capture him and keep the CL captive in their capital. This will give you a chance to liberate and thus recapture your CL.

Some ideas on the traits:

Militaristic: gives the most possibilities. A lot of options from morale boosts, defense and attack bonuses or faster promotions. An interesting idea might be the option to draft citizens without causing unhappiness (it's an honor to be drafted by the great Montezuma!).

Scientific: thinking of science bonuses is really easy but it doesn't make too much sense. It's easy to picture a CL motivating an army, but picturing one motivating scientists is harder. Therfor I'm not sure how a CL can result in ascience bonus.

Industrious: this is easy. A CL can motivate the citizens to work harder and thus improving production. A CL could motivate workers who are nearby to finish jobs faster as well.

Commercial: like scientific ít wouldn't make much sense to have a CL improve gold production in a city. Maybe a CL can be used in negotiations with oter Civs. this can result in better prices for luxuries or resources you're trading with other civs.

Expansionist: Having a CL in your city might make citizens happy enough to make a lot of babies, thus improving city growth.

Religious: Of course a CL can result in happiness throughout cities. Him visiting a city with a colosseum (and thus attending the games) might make an extra number of citizens happy. Of course civil diorders can be stopped by the arrival of the CL.

[kring]

The old ransom trick. It worked in the Middle Ages; even works somewhat today, esp. in some countries.

[Dr. Stiby]

Originally posted by kring
The old ransom trick. It worked in the Middle Ages; even works somewhat today, esp. in some countries.

Ransom, forgot all about it. Sure you're right.
Liberate the CL or pay for his return. Thnx!

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Dr. Stiby

Ransom, forgot all about it. Sure you're right.
Liberate the CL or pay for his return. Thnx!

Ooh, yes. I like the ransom idea. Capture the leader and take him to your capital; he becomes a tradeable item with the civ you took him from.

[wrylachlan]

How about have your CL start with base attributes and have them increase over time. When it is killed, it respawns back at your capital and returns to its base skill level.

I think all abilities of the CL should be proximity effects, and there should be one for each characteristic, but all civs get all bonuses, and the civ with the specific charachteristic gets a little more. I know this sounds confusing, but this should explain it.

Militaristic
If you are militaristic, your CL gives a minor AD bonus to nearby troops. If youre not, the CL gives a slightly larger bonus just to defense. That way, the small nation that doesn't want to go to war can keep its CL well protected.

Commercial
All CL's act as a Forbidden Palace, but in a much smaller radius. Commercial civs get a slightly larger radius.

Expansionistic
If the CL is in a city building a settler, the cost of the settler goes down. Expansionistic civs pay slightly less.

Industrial
Workers within a certain radius work faster. Industrial civs get a slightly larger radius.

Scientific
When the CL is in a city it gets a science bonus. Scientific civs get a larger bonus.

Religious
Percentage bonus to the effect of religious buildings in a certain radius (maybe nearest 3 or 4 cities). Religious civ gets a slightly larger radius.

With the CL giving bonuses to every aspect with only a slightly greater bonus for the attributes of the specific civ you won't run into the compounding of the Jaguar rush problem. Additionally each of the bonuses increases over time, so a CL that manages to live till the fourth era without dying would be quite formidable. But I guess its all a playbalance thing. If they get too powerful, then just tone down the bonus percentages.

[alva]

maybe a cl could prevent a city from "flipping" to the other side, again, just a thought

they could be linked to goverment as well btw I.E.:
despotism = one extra shield
monarchy = two extra ..... etc.
only in the city he resides, this wouldn't be too unbalancing and sometimes just one extra shield can be very important.

i agree that a CL counting as an mobile palace is abit much

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Dr. Stiby
Scientific: thinking of science bonuses is really easy but it doesn't make too much sense. It's easy to picture a CL motivating an army, but picturing one motivating scientists is harder. Therfor I'm not sure how a CL can result in ascience bonus.

You forgot Renaissance and the main role Leaders played, "sponsoring" great artist and researcher.
Leonardo Da Vinci and the support he gest from Ludovico il Moro (since 1482 AD), Cesare Borgia (since 1502 AD), and finally the France King Francesco I (since 1516) is one of the most relevant example.

Commercial: like scientific ít wouldn't make much sense to have a CL improve gold production in a city. Maybe a CL can be used in negotiations with oter Civs. this can result in better prices for luxuries or resources you're trading with other civs.

Many Leaders played relevant role in trading, not only by direct diplomatic role, but also because they supported by laws trades and early banks (don't forget the moneyleander at the core of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice)

Expansionist: Having a CL in your city might make citizens happy enough to make a lot of babies, thus improving city growth.

Why not "ius primae noctis" in large?