On a seperate note, I guess the number of capable players in the tribe would decide whether the tribe was a dictatorship or Council run. I mean, I could see instances where a dictatorship would be preferable to a council if the leader was the only player in the tribe displaying any quality leadership skills. I could also see instances where a council is easily more advantagous to a dictatorship. Something else I thought of since I made my first post is that with a council, you could have a range of players with valuable skills that would not be fully explioted in a dictator run tribe.
Say for instance your leader is a charismatic talker that keeps the tribe morale high and everyone loyal, but he lacks the military experience/skill to co-ordinate the tribe's war efforts. With a council you could have your charismatic leader keeping the tribe going great while another council member lead the war effort and planning.
Obviously I am a great advocate for councils, but I have also never experienced the negative aspects some of you have listed here. I guess I got lucky that way. Also, though I far prefer the council leadership to that of a dictatorship, I do see the advantages a dictatorship has over the Council. Faster decisions and far less chance for an internal power struggle since theres only one leader are the obvious reasons in favor of dictatorship. However the success of the tribe then hinges on the quality of the leader and his/her activeness, which can drain said leader of the fun he/she once found playing TW, leading to an eventual quitting of the game. As I think Christmasmarine mentioned (I appologize if it was someone else) rarely does the successor fully fill the shoes of the previous dictator.
There, thats my 2 cents on the matter, I'll end this essay now, sorry for going on and on, but after reading this topic it really got me thinking about the pros and cons of both.
