What seems to be the best leader after Warloards.

[SebP]

The preview said "Every great general is TWICE as expensive as the one before". I introduced the word exponential, and i know what it means.

[Watiggi]

But, I can imagine the previewer getting one Great General, seeing the counter double and then concluding that it doubles everytime - I can just sooo see that happening.

[SebP]

Haven't looked at it like this.You are probably right. Sure hope you are.

Also, on second thought my above arguments why exponential would be right just seem very wrong to me now.
As it would mean getting the same number of GG with maybe a difference of 1, in every game played with similar numbers of wars. And also, either very few generals, or very many very early generals depending on the cost for the first. Heh. Way to many posts about this subject i guess.

[Watiggi]

Impressive amount of work you put into that!

Thanks.

I guess that means you can't confirm or deny it, huh

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 .

Hmmm, that sounds like an answer? It doesn't make sense for it to double after every GG.

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

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

The difference with the GP system and the GG system is that the GP system allows for different ways of accumulating GPP's. You can have multiple cities producing GPP's, you can get it from wonders, specialists and you can increase the birth rate as a percentage with certain wonders.

You don't have that ability (one would assume) with the GG system. War seems to be the only way to accumulate it and there doesn't seem to be other ways to add to that.

It would be a bit like relying on one city to produce all of your Great People and that threshold increases with each one. On top of that, you couldn't increase the rate of which you got points.

It just seems strange. I actually don't see how the Great General bonus can actually compete with the Charismatic or Protective traits (or even Aggressive). The settler production bonus will only help until either your empires economy is stiffled, or there is no longer any room to expand (because all the land is taken up). Saving 25% hammers from building settlers will only help during the expansion phase - afterwards it wont do anthing. I have always thought of the General bonus as being the main part about the Imperialistic trait. I didn't realise it could be this weak though. I thought it had to be doing something substantial for it to be the 'conquerors' trait. I had it in my head that the Imperialistic trait would produce a lot more Generals for a lot longer than anyone else and that, that would be a BIG bonus. It appears not. Even with it being linear as the system I described as an example, it is still only a 30% increase in GG's (assuming it's the same model). That isn't much when you look at what Charismatic and Protective offer - especially considering that they too also get GG's.

edit: Argh! Maybe I am missing something here. I will say though, looking at the table I did before, getting 6 GG's when the non Imperialistic leader would have only 4 GG's and getting the majority of the GG's earlier than the non Imperialistic leader may be turn out to be a great bonus. I guess it would have to come down to playing it and seeing if it does make all the difference.

Watiggi

[Brancaleone]

If you can settle all those 6 GG in the same city (i dont know why you wouldnt) then thats +12XP for your units, or +10xp and 25% production Plus barracks, vassalage and teocracy and your guys start at 17. Now you have the requirement for west point. Ironwork or heroic epic and west point and you get +21XP (+23 with stables) and 125% production (150 with forge). Well any nation can do that, the imperialistic just does it faster. But a charismatic / protective / agressive leader will have actual military advantages to start with, so the chance of the imperialistic player surviving the initial battles is smaller.. I guess he will have to hunt barbarians, but the char/prot/agress player do it better with their free/faster promotions...

I thought it had to be doing something substantial for it to be the 'conquerors' trait. I had it in my head that the Imperialistic trait would produce a lot more Generals for a lot longer than anyone else and that, that would be a BIG bonus. It appears not. Even with it being linear as the system I described as an example, it is still only a 30% increase in GG's (assuming it's the same model). That isn't much when you look at what Charismatic and Protective offer - especially considering that they too also get GG's.

I hope its more usefull than that. Whos the guy who did the review, Mr Bee? Someone call him!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Brancaleone

I hope its more usefull than that. Whos the guy who did the review, Mr Bee? Someone call him!

I really suspect that it's worth more than that. I mean, Firaxis doesn't put out crap (though C3C apparently had a strong effect on some long-time fans' psyche).

Personally, I think the GGs will be a very useful addition.

[Watiggi]

Interesting. In the video, there is a close up of the Mongol Horse Archer. It has strength of 11, movement of 3. Now it is a scenario so I would expect the values to be different. But, it also says that it is a level 4 and yet it has 4 promotions. Only Aggressive mele/gunpowder units have the same amount of promotions as their level. Does that mean that the mounted units are catered for by Aggressive as well? On top of that, it has 12/13 experience. 13 for the next promotion? Again, I know it is in a scenario, but did it every occur to anyone that the thresholds for the experience may have changed? This Mongol Horse Archer had Combat I - IV with only 12 xp and needed 13 xp for the next promotion plus it was a level 4 unit with 4 promotions.... hmmmm.

[One_more_turn]

Cyrus is now Charismatic/Imperialistic. His units will be tough, but he will run into financial problems holding conquered cities at higher levels.

[kiky]

If you can settle all those 6 GG in the same city ...

It all depends on how many GG will appear on an average game.
Marathon game surely will generate more GG.

Does anyone know how many xp needed to get first GG ?

[Watiggi]

Maybe you get say 5 points per victorious battle and the first cap is 50. The Imperialistic leader would get 10 points per victorious battle and have the same cap. The next cap could be 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, etc. (note that the first cap to second is still doubled).

I don't actually know, but that would work with the above model I made. The interesting thing is, if it is any less than 10 battles, then there will be more GG's in a game, but IF it is more than 10 battles for the first GG, then there will be less GG's in the game. Now, with this model, the Imperialistic trait will get its 9th GG after 225 battles, whereas the non-Imperialistic trait will get his 6th GG at the 205 mark. The thing is, will having 6 or 9 GG's in a game that has 225 battles in it be worth it? And how many battles are there in a typical game anyhow?

Watiggi

[Randolph]

Originally posted by SebP
The preview said "Every great general is TWICE as expensive as the one before". I introduced the word exponential, and i know what it means.

Apparently not, because that isn’t what “exponential” means. An exponential function would be b^x, where b is constant (usually this will be the constant e), and x is increasing; if you work this out it is going to increase a lot faster then “doubling each time.” What your talking about is x^2 where x is increasing, this would be a quadratic function.

[Randolph]

Even if imperialistic is only +100% growth, and the cost of great leaders doubles with each leader, imperialistic could still be a good trait. When you get your first and second great leader is probably more important then how many you get by 2050. You’ll get your first great leader in half the exp as a non-imperial leader, and your second at the same exp as a non-imperial gets her first.

[Martinus]

Perhaps not the "best" leader, but Ramesses II is the one I will end up playing a lot, I think. First of all, I always wanted to play Egyptians, but prefer to play as male leaders. Spi/Ind also fits perfectly with my cultural victory strategy, allowing for a lot of temples and wonders (and I didn't want to play Gandhi, as it felt weird to be a warmonger as him ). So for strictly out of game, "rp" reasons, I'm voting for Ramesses.

[Watiggi]

Originally posted by Randolph
Even if imperialistic is only +100% growth, and the cost of great leaders doubles with each leader, imperialistic could still be a good trait. When you get your first and second great leader is probably more important then how many you get by 2050. You’ll get your first great leader in half the exp as a non-imperial leader, and your second at the same exp as a non-imperial gets her first.

You reckon? Compare getting one or two extra GG's with the bonuses of the Charismatic trait - remembering that non-Imperialistic leaders also get GG's too. One extra GG doesn't even come close to getting promotions with any of your units with -25% of the cost of normal promotions - not by a long shot!

The settler bonus will only help at the begining of the game in the expansion period too. After that, it no longer helps. It may allow you to settle faster or it may help you to build military earlier, but if say you end up settling 10 cities on a huge map before it fills up, then you have saved yourself 25*10 hammers - 250 hammers. That's 5 Horse Archers. That isn't much when compared to what Charismatic offers.

Watiggi

[Brancaleone]

I have no problems at all playing a female leader. Catherine is by far the one i use most, and i really like creative trait so i was happy that she was getting a new trait (Creat/Imp), but it seems imperial isnt so big...

What do you like best, one extra GG in the course of a game or +1 gold on 30% of your empire tiles...