Announcement

**Willem** · January 20, 2002, 21:52

Re: War for leaders??

Originally posted by Rothy
I was thinking, This is probably a very talked over stratagy already, but a war, even for a peaceful empire, could be beneficial for purposes of Leader Creation.

If you have a weak neighbour, who does not have any potentially damagine alliegences, Then it seems a war could be very beneficial, If you fight the war by defending the bordering cities with a Few Veteran Strong Defensive units, it's unlikely you'll use Units or Cities, and just get a nice Stream of Leaders When the Computer attacks your well defended units in vain...

On the Mathmatical side, a decent Wonder can take , say, 750 Sheilds, whilst a few pikemen (early days) and a Barracks will cost a fraction of that, and could yield several leaders..
Any thoughts on this stratagy..?

Leaders are extremely rare, even if you're a Militaristic civ, so it's not that simple to "get a nice stream of Leaders" as you say. By the sounds of it, even those whose style of play is sheer war mongering might expect to get 5 or 6 throughout the whole game. Nice idea in theory, but it doesn't quite work out as easily as you're thinking, though it would increase your odds of getting one. BTW, you need Elite units to create a leader, not Veterans.

**vmxa1** · January 21, 2002, 00:22

Yes 5 or more leaders would be a good number, I have done worse. The only sure way to increase the chances is to make the Heroic Epic and have the same Elite unit fight every time you can until it yields one, then switch to another Elite. 1/16 is the norm and the Epic gives 1/12. Remember the people will get tired of war regardless of how it was started, if it goes on and on.

**Nakar Gabab** · January 21, 2002, 02:45

Originally posted by vmxa1
Yes 5 or more leaders would be a good number, I have done worse. The only sure way to increase the chances is to make the Heroic Epic and have the same Elite unit fight every time you can until it yields one, then switch to another Elite. 1/16 is the norm and the Epic gives 1/12. Remember the people will get tired of war regardless of how it was started, if it goes on and on.

Not if you're in despotism/monarchy/communism!

**Worthingtons** · January 21, 2002, 11:02

I'm aware they come from Veterans, I simply siad create Veterans because they are 2 or 3 battles closer to Elite than Regulars...

The probability is 1/16 to gain a leader, but I can 16 battles in any one turn when at war!!!, Sometimes 30 or 40 battles, inlvolving many Elite Units.

But still, lets say war only yields 6 Leaders in a game, Presuming you can use them all, thats 6 good wonders. If they average 750 shields per wonder (cos you're gonna want to chose the best wonders!) then thats 4500 Shields, Which is nothing to Sneer at.

I guess, that there is no way to quantify this stratagy thought, unlike food velocity in despotism. It is very circumstancial, but in one of my games, where i have many Elite Units, and can produce decent Veteran Units, I seems beneficial to me to continue my war with the french for the leaders it may help me achieve.

**Willem** · January 21, 2002, 11:12

Originally posted by Rothy
I'm aware they come from Veterans, I simply siad create Veterans because they are 2 or 3 battles closer to Elite than Regulars...

The probability is 1/16 to gain a leader, but I can 16 battles in any one turn when at war!!!, Sometimes 30 or 40 battles, inlvolving many Elite Units.

But still, lets say war only yields 6 Leaders in a game, Presuming you can use them all, thats 6 good wonders. If they average 750 shields per wonder (cos you're gonna want to chose the best wonders!) then thats 4500 Shields, Which is nothing to Sneer at.

I guess, that there is no way to quantify this stratagy thought, unlike food velocity in despotism. It is very circumstancial, but in one of my games, where i have many Elite Units, and can produce decent Veteran Units, I seems beneficial to me to continue my war with the french for the leaders it may help me achieve.

Until you decide to become a Republic or a Democracy, then waging war might not be worth it because of the war weariness. Certainly it's worth considering waging war for Leaders, but to me it's not enough of a motivation. For the amount you get, it might be more beneficial running a nice, peaceful Democracy that tries not to bother anyone.

**Ironikinit** · January 21, 2002, 11:15

If your war weariness isn't bad and you aren't losing, why end the war? Offensive troops become obsolete until you get tanks, so use your elites while you can. May as well wipe out the French.

**Willem** · January 21, 2002, 11:22

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Offensive troops become obsolete until you get tanks, so use your elites while you can.

What?? I think you're mistaken here, you can always build offensive troops.

**Ironikinit** · January 21, 2002, 11:25

Well, I mean offensive troops like swordsmen and longbowmen. Even horsemen/knights/cavalry eventually become obsolete and cannot be upgraded. Further, elite troops become vets when upgraded. Sorry I was unclear. All I really meant was, if you can, may as well extend a war to increase the chance of getting a leader with your existing elites.

**Arrian** · January 21, 2002, 11:41

I generally don't upgrade elite units, unless they have gotten hopelessly outdated. The most common leftovers I have are usually elite Cavalry. My veteran Cav get disbanded while I build Tanks, but the elites get to stick around. Why? Because there will always be AI units that Cavalry can kill. The AI always has tons of spearmen and other ancient units kicking around, and my elite Cavalry will be used on them, if possible. I've gotten leaders this way.

As to the strategy of picking a fight to get leaders... well, war weariness is certainly an issue there. My though would be that you should pick the fight to gain the territory, but prolong the enemy's death until war weariness begins to kick in. Pick the AI apart... use your elites as much as possible, even if it means delaying attacks for them to heal and things like that. Then, when your people start babbling about "giving peace a chance" wipe out your opponent. That ought to maximize leader generation.

Sitting back and hoping for the AI to attack fortified cities is unlikely to work. The AI knows when the odds are against it (on a unit level... not empire wide), and will avoid such battles usually. They will instead run around ripping up roads and mines until you kill them.

-Arrian

**Worthingtons** · January 21, 2002, 13:50

Hmm, The War Wearyness is certainly an Issue here, But I am rarely Democracy or Republic.
BUT, can someone clarify this for me -

If you are at constant war with One civilisation, will the war wearyness differ to if you were at war with 6??

and if so, by how much??

**Hermann the Lombard** · January 21, 2002, 14:45

I was able to generate a couple of early leaders by provoking the Aztecs (tough job, right?). I didn't end the war (despotism), but they seemed to give up. "Boo-hoo! They wouldn't come out to PLAY!" So I ended the war and got almost all their cities. Now I'm kinda hoping the furious French (only other civ on my continent) actually attack, so I can get another leader.

A couple of questions:

1. Has it been determined whether you can have more than one GL "alive" at one time? I've heard both yes and no. In my limited experience, when I've had one, I didn't generate another, and as soon as I used the first, I generated a second.

2. Any opinions on using a GL to build FP? Feels like a waste, compared to building Great Wonders, but I knew I wouldn't have any GWs to build for 20-odd turns, and I wanted the FP, and I wasn't generating any leaders while the one was alive.

**Bautou** · January 21, 2002, 21:53

Any opinions on using a GL to build FP? Feels like a waste, compared to building Great Wonders, but I knew I wouldn't have any GWs to build for 20-odd turns, and I wanted the FP, and I wasn't generating any leaders while the one was alive.

Actually, I think that using a leader to build the FP is one of the better uses you can put a leader towards.

Normally, the place where you want to build the FP is so hobbled by corruption that it'll take hundreds of turns to complete. A leader can bypass all this waiting and get that city, and all the surrounding ones, running in no time flat. You can then use the increased production from these cities take pressure off your core cities so that the core cities can quickly build Great Wonders later.

That way, if you get the advance necessary for building your future wonder at the same time as the AI, you should be able to beat the AI to completion as it tends to waste a turn or two before focusing on building the wonder, whereas you can start up right away due to your excess capacity.

**Worthingtons** · January 21, 2002, 22:19

Absolutly Right, The Forbidden Palace should ideally be well away from your Capital, around a cluster of cities, and as we know, Waste in a city far away makes building the thing seemingly impossible in the first place, Unless of course a GL can do it nice and smoothly for you

**roadcage** · January 22, 2002, 00:58

I suspect that this will get me flamed, but...

Great Leader unit is a poorly executed in the game. Great leaders come from elite victory but the are more or less random for any given elite victory. The value of a Great Leader unit is several hundred shields. This is too large of an event to be determined by chance. Civ3 would be a better game if:

.) The "value" of a great leader were less, but the probability of leader formation were greater.

.) Leader formation were based on some CUMULATIVE elite victories. Every elite victory puts point(s) in a leader box. You get enough points, and a leader is formed. This makes leader formation process transparent and certainly less random.

.) There were civ specific ways to use a Great Leader. For example, a scientific might pop a few techs, while a commercial might get some serious gold.

.) There were other paths to leadership. Culture? Diplomatic coop? etc

Comments anyone?

roadcage