What seems to be the best leader after Warloards.

[SebP]

Originally posted by Watiggi
You see, the thing is, IF it doubles and the Generals are rare, then the bonus wont be much of an addition when compared to Charismatic for instance.

Actually, with doubling costs, if generals are rare, imperialistic is MORE of a bonus. If a normal civ gets 10, an imperialistic one gets 11, which is only 10% more (The last costs more than all the ones before him summed up) If a normal civ gets only 2 in a typical game an imperialistic leader gets 3 which is, well 50% more.

IGN Review
Any units that happen to be in the same tile when the Warlord is created, gain an additional twenty experience points.

Watiggi sayed:
That to me says that every unit in the tile gets 20xp each. Is this true too?

Watiggi

I sure hope not. That'd be insane

[Watiggi]

Originally posted by SebP
Actually, with doubling costs, if generals are rare, imperialistic is MORE of a bonus. If a normal civ gets 10, an imperialistic one gets 11, which is only 10% more (The last costs more than all the ones before him summed up) If a normal civ gets only 2 in a typical game an imperialistic leader gets 3 which is, well 50% more.

Good point! I didn't see it that way before. I was thinking about it from the Charismatic vs. Imperialistic perspective. IF Generals are hard to come by, then the Imperialistic's Great General bonus wont return much when compared to what the Charismatic trait offers warmongers.

Right now, the Imperialistic trait looks *significantly* weaker than Charismatic in terms of conquest - which surprises me because I would have thought that being imperial would imply militaristically focused and proficient.

I had it in my mind that because the Imperialistic trait equates to a strong military, that the Great General bonus would appear often for an Imperialistic trait and would help the leader immensely. But apparently not.

I sure hope not. That'd be insane

It would balance out the Imperialistic traits return with the Charismatic trait. Right now, the Imperialistic trait just looks like a vamped up expansionists trait - not really a warmongers trait.

Watiggi

[Watiggi]

Interesting question. The philosophy bonus grants 100% extra but that can be made up through wonders and civics. Unless one of the civics has changed to do something similar for great generals the 100% great general boost could be far more effective than the 100% great person boost. Of course, without knowing how the great general points are assigned - per victory only or are odds of victory accounted for - this comparison could be meaningless.

And the philosophical bonus, if you use Pacifism, becomes 200% . 100% is always a noticeable bonus. In the case of Imperialistic, that would mean you get your first general twice as fast as you normally would, and I'll leave the judgement of whether it's worth it to you.

Not twice as often, only earlier. i remember having read somewhere (last IGN preview?) that every General is TWICE as expensive as the one before. If in fact costs grow exponentially like this the imperialistic leader will only generate 1 more great general than the non-imperialistic in total.

It has just occured to me that the definition given for the General bonus in the Imperialistic trait is "100% Great General emergence". That says to me that they emerge twice as often (or, more precisely, they emerge 100% more often).

If it was in a similar way to the way the normal GP threshold increases, then the Great General bonus would effectively allow it to get Generals with half as much combat, effectively giving it twice the number of Generals with the same amount of war. That makes far more sense to me than if it were doubled each time. If it were doubled, then the only bonus would be the first one. The person who wrote the article may have just gotten one General and saw that the amount was doubled for the second one - which would still happen if it were linear.

Watiggi

[Solver]

20 XP to all units in a tile would never be balanced. Take your entire army, put them in one tile, boom, every unit gets 20 XP. I think not...

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Watiggi

Interesting question. The philosophy bonus grants 100% extra but that can be made up through wonders and civics. Unless one of the civics has changed to do something similar for great generals the 100% great general boost could be far more effective than the 100% great person boost. Of course, without knowing how the great general points are assigned - per victory only or are odds of victory accounted for - this comparison could be meaningless.

And the philosophical bonus, if you use Pacifism, becomes 200% . 100% is always a noticeable bonus. In the case of Imperialistic, that would mean you get your first general twice as fast as you normally would, and I'll leave the judgement of whether it's worth it to you.

It has just occured to me that the definition given for the General bonus in the Imperialistic trait is "100% Great General emergence". That says to me that they emerge twice as often (or, more precisely, they emerge 100% more often).

If it was in a similar way to the way the normal GP threshold increases, then the Great General bonus would effectively allow it to get Generals with half as much combat, effectively giving it twice the number of Generals with the same amount of war. That makes far more sense to me than if it were doubled each time. If it were doubled, then the only bonus would be the first one. The person who wrote the article may have just gotten one General and saw that the amount was doubled for the second one - which would still happen if it were linear.

Watiggi

No it means you only get 1 more great general. If a non imperialistic civ gets 10 GG, then an imperialistic who has the same amount of combat would only get 11, not 20.

Here's a chart

Combat for that GG/Total for all the GGs/Number of GG (assume it takes 5 for imperialistic and 10 for non)

Imperialistic

5/5 - 1
10/15 - 2
20/35 - 3
40/75 - 4
80/155 - 5
160/315 - 6
320/635 - 7
640/1275 - 8
1280/2555 - 9
2560/5115 - 10
5120/10235 -11

Non Imperialistic

10/10 - 1
20/30 - 2
40/70 - 3
80/150 - 4
160/310 - 5
320/630 - 6
640/1270 - 7
1280/2550 - 8
2560/5110 - 9
5120/10230 - 10

[Watiggi]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert
No it means you only get 1 more great general. If a non imperialistic civ gets 10 GG, then an imperialistic who has the same amount of combat would only get 11, not 20.

Here's a chart [.....]

I for the life of me cannot figure that one out. Sorry. If it does indeed double each time and an Imperialistic trait does indeed result in only getting one extra, then there really is no bonus there for the Imperialistic trait - nothing considering what Charismatic offers, that's for sure.

"100% Great General emergence" implies that they emerge 100% more often. That would imply that they appear twice as often.

If - for arguments sake - it takes 10 successful battles to get the first GG (to clock up 100 GG points).

Non-Imperialistic leader:
10 battles to get first GG.
another 20 battles to get 2nd GG
then another 30 battles to get 3rd GG
then another 40 battles to get 4th GG
then another 50 battles to get 5th GG
then another 60 battles to get 6th GG
then another 70 battles to get 7th GG
then another 80 battles to get 8th GG
then another 90 battles to get 9th GG
then another 100 battles to get 10th GG

Imperialistic leader:
5 battles to get first GG.
another 10 battles to get 2nd GG
then another 15 battles to get 3rd GG
then another 20 battles to get 4th GG
then another 25 battles to get 5th GG
then another 30 battles to get 6th GG
then another 35 battles to get 7th GG
then another 40 battles to get 8th GG
then another 45 battles to get 9th GG
then another 50 battles to get 10th GG

That would make sense to me and would be consistant with what the description of the General bonus is ("100% Great General emergence"). It's not "100% Great General birth rate").

Solver, what is it? How does the threshold rise? Is what QwertQwert said right? (are you allowed to confirm that?)

Watiggi

[Aro]

Is there someone with Fin/Org?

[Watiggi]

Not anymore.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Aro
Is there someone with Fin/Org?

Hopefully one of the new leaders in a future expansion will have this trait combo returned to them.

Unless Firaxis thought it was unbalanced or something...

[Watiggi]

Here is more of an explanation that might help make sense of my understanding of the "100% Great General emergence". This is my idea of what would result from having the Great General emerge 100% more.

I have assumed that it takes 10 battles to get the first GG. Each one thereafter requires more - exactly like the Great People do. This one is linear. The first will require 10 battles, then the next one will require 20 more battles on top of that, then it will require 30 more battles for the next one and so on.

Non-Imperialistic:                              Imperialistic:
10 battles to get first GG.                     5 battles to get first GG.
another 20 battles to get 2nd GG                another 10 battles to get 2nd GG
then another 30 battles to get 3rd GG           then another 15 battles to get 3rd GG
then another 40 battles to get 4th GG           then another 20 battles to get 4th GG
then another 50 battles to get 5th GG           then another 25 battles to get 5th GG
then another 60 battles to get 6th GG           then another 30 battles to get 6th GG
then another 70 battles to get 7th GG           then another 35 battles to get 7th GG
then another 80 battles to get 8th GG           then another 40 battles to get 8th GG
then another 90 battles to get 9th GG           then another 45 battles to get 9th GG
then another 100 battles to get 10th GG         then another 50 battles to get 10th GG
then another 110 battles to get 11th GG         then another 55 battles to get 11th GG
then another 120 battles to get 12th GG         then another 60 battles to get 12th GG
then another 130 battles to get 13th GG         then another 65 battles to get 13th GG
then another 140 battles to get 14th GG         then another 70 battles to get 14th GG
then another 150 battles to get 15th GG         then another 75 battles to get 15th GG
then another 160 battles to get 16th GG         then another 80 battles to get 16th GG
then another 170 battles to get 17th GG         then another 85 battles to get 17th GG
then another 180 battles to get 18th GG         then another 90 battles to get 18th GG
then another 190 battles to get 19th GG         then another 95 battles to get 19th GG
then another 200 battles to get 20th GG         then another 100 battles to get 20th GG

A total of 550 battles to get 10 GG's.          A total of 275 battles to get 10 GG's.

If a typical map resulted in 250 battles, then Non-Imperialistic leaders will get 6 GG's
and the Imperialistic leader will get 9 GG's.

If it resulted in 1000 battles in total, then the Non-Imperialistic leaders will get 13 GG's and the
Imperialistic leader will get 19 GG's.

That would at least follow the 100% Great General emergence idea (as it would emerge twice as
often) and would also mean that the bonus is actually of value. It would be important to note though, that the 100% Great General emergence bonus in this case, would give about 30% more GG's even though it would appear twice as often.


Note: the battles on the left are a time line, which is not the same as above. This just shows when one gets a GG after so many battles. The first one comes at 10 battles, the second after a total of 30 battles, the next after a total of 60 battles etc. In this example, Imperialistic will get their 6th GG after a total of 105 battles. This information is taken from the above example.

Timeline:           Non-Imperialistic          Imperialistic

Total # of battles  GG given                   GG given
--------------------------------------------------------------
5 battles                                      1st GG
10 battles          1st GG
15 battles                                     2nd GG
20 batlles 
25 battles
30 battles          2nd GG                     3rd GG
35 battles
40 batlles 
45 battles
50 battles                                     4th GG
55 battles
60 batlles          3rd GG
65 battles
70 battles
75 battles                                     5th GG
80 batlles 
85 battles
90 battles
95 battles
100 battles         4th GG
105 battles                                    6th GG

[Solver]

Impressive amount of work you put into that!

[Thedrin]

So it would work out to being under 50% extra great leaders (assuming the factor doesn't decrease further as the list goes on). Not as good as Philosophy for great people but that's because there's a great people counter in each city and presumably only one great general counter.

Minor quibble: The guides all seem to imply that it is the number of accrued XP rather than the number of victorious battles which go towards creating great generals. (As it should, since winning with 99% odds is not equally indicative of great leadership than winning with 25% odds.)

[SebP]

Originally posted by Thedrin
So it would work out to being under 50% extra great leaders (assuming the factor doesn't decrease further as the list goes on). Not as good as Philosophy for great people but that's because there's a great people counter in each city and presumably only one great general counter.

But only if the threshhold does, in contrast to the IGN preview, really increase that way and NOT exponentially. You'd else be only 1 leader ahead, at any given time, and that's AT MOST. It would be zero for a certain fraction of the time.

I still believe it will be as told in the IGN preview. We'll probably just have to wait and see. I for my part think it will be as described in the IGN preview and thus imperialistic will in fact only get 1 more total than the non-imperialistic ones. Why:

a) costs for great people don't grow linearly as you suggested. They grow 100, 200, 300... 1000 for the first 10 alright but then the curve gets steeper: 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, ... 3000, and steeper again for the 21st to 30st: 3300, 3600 ... 9000

I don't know if after the slope increases again, but I'd guess so

b) because great generals are separate from great people, and you sorta already get them "for free" when bashing heads, which already IS the strongest strategy in civ4 (Getting many great people on the other hand requires you to build less cottages), i suppose the curve will be steeper for GG than it was GP.

c) as there is only ONE GG counter, into which all of you battles feed, there is NO LOST POINTS such as the great people points from cities that generate too few are


I have a feeling that's a good thing, EXCEPT that it makes the imperialistic bonus rather small. Depending on timing it may STILL be worthwhile. For example if the first one would usually take longer to get than your first expansive war, after which usually a period of consolidation comes, only imperialistic leaders can profit from whatever they do with the first (military academy?) early.

However, i must admit i'm pretty sure that this particular bonus for imperialistic will in fact be underwhelming. If you don't build a military academy, the general does you nothing good during consolidation, and the academy as described is sorta weak itself.
So, being consistently 1 GG ahead just seems weak. Now, if costs grew exponentially, but with a smaller exponent, like maybe 1.5 or 1.3 so that you'd end up being 2 or 3 Great Generals ahead... that would be better

[Thedrin]

Imperialistic seems to get the best production bonus so it wouldn't be too surprising if its other ability was weakened.

Since getting 1 great general resets the counter to zero (as opposed to great people which can be produced in quick succession due to the multiple counters) I would say it's already weaker than the main Philosophy bonus.

I've seen the word 'exponential' misused too often in media to put much faith in the IGN use of the word. That one extra great general produced by an exponential spread would have to be exceptionally powerful.

[Solver]

The media seems to think that, anytime you need more of something for a second something than the first, it's exponential . So they'd call the current GP system exponential, too... stupid gits .