Great Leaders only from war? I don't think so ...

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Hey all

I just wanted to drop my two cents on something I've been thinking about. You can only get great leaders from war. Does that seem right to everyone ???

If you want a peaceful game you can't get great leaders (virtually ... lest you have horse shoes up your @$$) and I find this a hindrance for peace-lovers like myself. The way I see it, you play war and you can conquer cities and get great leaders to build wonders like Newton's University, The Hanging Gardens or the Sistine Chapel (just as random examples) to help you declare more war, whereas these are wonders that would fit best in the image of a peaceful, scientific civ.

It just doesn't seem right.

What I wish for this christmas is a way for Peace oriented civs to get great leaders (a job for you wonderful modders out there .. keep up the great work!). Have it based on the culture of a city or maybe when you enter a Golden Age from wonder construction... or if you're the first to enter a new age maybe. It could be any number of reasons really.

Lets not forget that not all great leaders in history were warmongers. I find it hard to imagine a great general created by war founding a wonder of beauty (although i'm sure to get evil replies to this one).

So here's my big conclusion. If you get a great leader in a War, then he can only become an Army. If you generate a great leader in a Peaceful way (which i hope to have somehow) then that leader can hurry construction on a wonder (or whatever) only.

But I'm just thinking out loud really... what do you guys think?

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Carver]

Yeah, I definently think you should be able to get GLs while at peace. I've thrown around a few ideas like:

The first civ to circumnavigate the world gets a GL.
The first civ to build an airplane gets a GL.
The first civ to have 10 Universities gets a GL.

...and there should be more ways too.

[vmxa1]

Well great military leaders can inspire men to increase their efforts and get things build sooner. But I have no problem is some reasonable ways were introduced.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well great military leaders can inspire men to increase their efforts and get things build sooner. But I have no problem is some reasonable ways were introduced.

Although I agree with you, I just want to point out that it doesn't take war to inspire mankind to do great things.

Also, I like Carver's ideas. The circumnavigate the world one also makes me think about giving the Magellan's voyage wonder another prerequisite: The advance plus circumnavigation of the globe.

I think adding more bonuses and wonders (small or great) to players for being the first to do certain things in the game would spice it up a lot. In all honesty, I'm getting quite bored moving units around the map... its getting almost too repetitive (but don't get me wrong, I still play civ3 more than any other game i own).

And just as an aside, I wish they added more "Unconventional Warfare" unite like those in CTP... they were (other than the graphics at the time) the only thing that drew me to CTP more than Civ2. I still play CTP once in a while to basically re-energize myself... playing in the future and a change of pace.

But not i'm really off topic so i'll shut my pie hole

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Sean]

This disscussion has been had before...but anyway...

Yes, getting great leaders only from war, is yet another way the game encourages you to be war-mongering.

[JohnM2433]

You can easily mod the Leader unit so that it can only be used to create Armies. There's no way to have anything other than elite victories or goody huts generate units AFAIK.

[Jaybe]

Given time and a workable mechanic for them to be created I am sure that peaceful leaders would have been included in the game. Deadlines had to be met and any mechanics for their creation did not work out to satisfaction, so it didn't happen.

In other words, it is a better game with their absence. Maybe next time (civ4).
Consider that the building of a major wonder involved the creation (and use) of a leader, behind the scenes.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander

Although I agree with you, I just want to point out that it doesn't take war to inspire mankind to do great things.

True, I only put it that way as he said it did not make sense that they could hurry production (or words to that effect). Anyway it is just a contrivance and does not hurt anything.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Okay how about this
15% chance of getting a great leader whenever you take over a city through culture?

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Gwylim]

yes, totally agree with this, but also there is a certain balance now in the game regarding the total number of great leaders who can be created and I think most of the leaders in CIV3 after the first one are used to rush GW or am i wrong?
So it would be necessary to keep this balance so that there are not too much GL created.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Gwylim
yes, totally agree with this, but also there is a certain balance now in the game regarding the total number of great leaders who can be created and I think most of the leaders in CIV3 after the first one are used to rush GW or am i wrong?
So it would be necessary to keep this balance so that there are not too much GL created.

Agree ... I have no problem dropping GL generation to only 5% for warmongers ! yeah like that'll happen...

Regadless... I still think its wrong to only allow GLs to (mostly) warmongers. The most I usually get in a primaritly peaceful game is 2 or 3 if I'm REALLY REALLY lucky. If warmongers get 4 or 5 or (as some people claim) 8 or more per game, then i don't think giving us peacekeepers one or two more per game is gonna hurt that much.

Its one of those things that needs to be playtested obviously, but all things they put in the game are anyway.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Destroyer]

How about leaders that increase the culture of the city they are in each turn.

ie. shakespear or dickens

[Solomyr]

many great ideas here...i am 100% with you Thadalex, i feel lucky if i get 2 in a whole game. but a question i have thought of about circumnavigation (which i have thought to be messed up since civ2) how can you really judge if one of your ships goes all the way around the map? and does it have to be the same ship, or can you send two in oppisite directions? and what about trading maps? i rarely explore the whole world, i just trade for the map. your thoughts?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Gwylim
... I think most of the leaders in CIV3 after the first one are used to rush GW or am i wrong?
...

If you get a GL and you have no wonder to hurry at the moment, it could be a real waste of opportunity to not build an army immediately (i.e., before you make another attack). Particularly if you do not forsee the quick termination of the current conflict.

You don't have to fill the army immediately, but you don't want to miss out on the potential of getting another, since you cannot have more than one GL at a time.

[Solomyr]

i almost never build armies...they just don't seem that useful. you can upgrade troops, you can't unload troops, and they take a long time to heal. however, i had not thought of buidling an army and not filling it

nevertheless, peaceniks need a way to generate GLs