Leader Freqency

[wapamingo]

Sorry to start a new thread but I have to say something.

People have been complaining about how infrequently they get leaders. Maybe 1 in a game. Well, the game I am playing (emperor, 16 civs, huge map) its the 1300's and so far I got 5 leaders. All of them I used to build wonders (sistine, JHB, Smiths, Gardens, and Great Library). I do not have Heroic Epic since I decided not to build an Army. Just to brag...I am 1200 points in the lead in score. I am playing as the Egyptians, which are not militaristic so my units do not advance as fast.

If you are wondering how I do it: WAR, obviously. I try and keep my wars goin for long. Basically until I get 1-2 leaders from it. That is why I go to war...to get a leader and build a wonder. 'Cause there is no way you will beat the AI in building a wonder (Emperor and up difficulty has big production bonus).

So stop complaining and start warmongering.

Cheers,

[Dida]

well, everyone was saying the possiblity is low, and NOT impossible. It is, of course, possible to get A LOT of leaders in one game, but the chance of that happening is very small.

[Expatriate]

I have played a game where I wiped out 5 other nations in the industrial age where they had all built up considerable size. Not a single leader was gained in this or at any other point in the game

[wapamingo]

its hard to believe with 5 huge wars no leaders...that must be frustrating...

also... I got a leader on the defensive once. This poor spearmen got gangbanged by 12 swordsmen and survived (the combat skeweness worked in my favour this time).

[Kolyana]

I've had both sides of this: Decades of war with no leaders and - in my last game - leaders coming out of the gazoo.

I had so many that I had 4 armies stonking around, completed several wonders and still had some left over for completing other buildings in corruption high cities.

This was with the Germans, zillions of panzers and war for pretty much the entire game

[Fayadi]

Well by 800 + AD i got 4 great leaders already!Wow I am so lucky!I am using the Chinese.BLAME URSELF FOR NOT TAKING MILITARISTIC CIV DUDES!

[Xentropy]

My main problem is that leaders give militaristic players much too large an advantage. Note I said players, not civs. Militaristic SHOULD have some good advantages; we don't need another expansionist.

Anyway, keeping in line with just about everything else in Civ3, there should be a way to get leaders peacefully. As it is now, despite trying very hard in almost every other way to make the peaceful route a viable one, it's not viable at higher difficulty levels, in part due to the *need* for great leaders.

Just my two cents. No, I haven't thought of WHAT, exactly, peaceful means they should go about adding great leaders for, but something other than war would be nice.

[Falconius]

I've played six full games so far, and have yet to see ONE LEADER! My last four games have been with militarist civs, and I fight wars constantly, always putting my Elites in harm's way. Still, no leaders!

And what's the catch with Heroic Epic? It produces leaders more frequently, but you have to have an army before you can build it. But you can't have an army until you have leaders! What kind of insane circular logic is this?

I wouldn't know a leader if I saw one, because I've never seen one! I've yet to build an army, because I'm always leaderless!

Ah well, back to attempt number seven...

[Terser]

The thing that seems so weak is that in order to be assured of getting a GL I have to "play" the game. Basically, I have to plan and coordinate my military actions so that my elite units are always sent into battle fully healed against less technologically advanced units. Even then I try and "chew their food" for them--softening the intended target with an intense artillery barrage or throwing less experienced units against them in a suicidal charge.

It's an alright system, I suppose, but I still think leaders should be either easier to get or more powerful.

[Terry M]

Whatever possessed Impressions to force a player to go to war? From Civ(I) to CivII(MPG), I've developed a style I'm comfy with...peaceful expansion punctuated with interludes of fighting.

Now, I have to reverse my style, and I don't like it.

Bring back the camels/trucks!!

[gozpel]

It is very random, as I see it..my last game with Zulu I sat and wondered wtf is going on...I had 3-4 great wars but no leaders, it was 1800 and suddenly without notice when I was attacked in a city, I got 2 (TWO) leaders the same turn....

I could only laugh, it was like the silly AI was making up for hard times...

[AHO]

Has anyone ever had two leaders available at once? I mean, you win a leader in battle and send him to a city to wait until you learn the advance that you're working on in order to get the Wonder you want to build, and, while you're waiting, you win another great leader. I've never had more than one at a time. Anybody had two available leaders?

[Dadeo]

What a concept; go to war and eventually you may get a leader. But wait, the game discourages you from playing long protracted battles by beating you to death with war weariness. This is the same type of logic that Falconius noted:

"And what's the catch with Heroic Epic? It produces leaders more frequently, but you have to have an army before you can build it. But you can't have an army until you have leaders! What kind of insane circular logic is this?"

Clearly not much thought has gone into this part of gameplay (are we seeing a central theme here?)

Leaders are only useful as wonder builders. Formed into armies they are ineffective. Not only do they defeat only one defender in a turn but they take forever to heal. They can be seriously weakened by a couple of good attackers are are therefore rendered useless.

[paulmagusnet]

Leading Edge

My solution to the leader problem is to keep a pet punching bag. In a variation of the Vassel strategy (the only way to win), I keep a 1-3 city civ handy to throw elite units at. And I DO build the Heroic Epic ASAP.

The game does need an alternative method of getting leaders, my suggestion is that everytime your palace is upgraded you should some random benefit, one of which could be a leader.

[dmjohnson]

I think that civ's should start with an army token in addition to worker/settler (perhaps militaristic civs would get 2 armies), such that the infrequent leader game doens't force a chocie between heroic epic/pentagon/military academy or finishing the race with teh AI to get that darned Great Library.