Got my first leader, some advice please..

[Dimension]

Well, if Firaxis has verified the numbers 1/16 and 1/12, then either way could be correct, whether it's additive:

base leaders:  1/16                        (6.250%)
militaristic:  1/16 + 1/48 = 1/12          (8.333%)
heroic epic:   1/16 + 1/48 = 1/12          (8.333%)
mil. + heroic: 1/16 + 1/48 + 1/48 = 5/48  (10.417%)

or multiplicative:

base leaders:  1/16                        (6.250%)
militaristic:  1/16 * 4/3 = 1/12           (8.333%)
heroic epic:   1/16 * 4/3 = 1/12           (8.333%)
mil. + heroic: 1/16 * 4/3 * 4/3 = 1/9     (11.111%)

1/9 would be easier to remember, and it'd be nice to have that extra 1%, but I'd still like some real verification of how they stack.

[Dimension]

...and actually, the fact that you have a small chance of generating a 2nd leader while you already have one makes me lean towards it being additive, because you could get a scenario like:

if ((!Leaders) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*15)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }
if (CivTrait(Militaristic) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*47)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }
if (GotWonder(HeroicEpic) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*47)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }

...which would give a Militaristic civ with the Heroic Epic a 10.417% chance of generatic leaders normally, but a 4.167% chance of generating leaders after they already had one.

[Hurricane]

I decided to test a bit to finally with my own eyes see two leaders at the same time. So I loaded a savegame where I recently had got a leader and started making attacks with elite units (with the leader sitting idle at my capital).

After 104 succesful elite attacks (including 4 succesful defence combats) I got a total of 0 leaders.

Before doing this test, during regular gameplay, I had immediately used up the leader, and then got 3 new leaders (which I all used up as soon as possible).

So I´d say that the chance of getting two leaders at once is much lower than the 4.167% Dimension suggests.

And I still haven´t seen a savegame or even a screenshot with two leaders.

[Dimension]

Man, talk about missing the point entirely.

I said it was possible, but I'm absolutely sure that's not what the actual code looks like. It's just a scenario that leaves room for a small chance of a 2nd leader. You could just as easily modify it so that there is a 2% chance of a 2nd leader. My point is that, while Sir Ralph's theory about multiplying by 4/3 makes sense, it doesn't leave as much room for having 2 leaders at once.

And I also think this whole 2-leader thing is pretty suspicious...

[Hurricane]

Sorry. I got your point, but I just wanted to continue the discussion by provoking people to do some more testing. You know how easily a number such as that is taken as a fact.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dimension

if ((!Leaders) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*15)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }
if (CivTrait(Militaristic) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*47)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }
if (GotWonder(HeroicEpic) && (!(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*47)) {
      MakeLeader();
   }

Did you make a reverse engineering, huh? Don't you know that you are not allowed to?? Nevertheless your code is wrong, because it would give some odds to create three leaders out of the same battle!

But I must agree, that having 2 leaders at once, while I think it's possible (so many have reported it and they can't be all liars), is neither predictable nor are the odds to create the 2nd as high as for creating the 1st. I think Firaxis will not make a statement to prove our guesses.

We need a lot of numbers (fights with elite units involved, with or without existing leaders, etc.) to calculate the odds ourselves. It would be great if the results could be reported and collected in one thread (and be it this one), so that everyone could make his theories out of the same raw data base.

[Dimension]

Yeah, those should probably be else if's, because that would give a 0.13% chance (1 in 768) of generating 2 leaders if you had none, and a 0.0027% chance (1 in 36863) of generating 3.

Anyway, it would sure take a lot of data to make any sort of conclusion (like tell if it was 10.4% or 11.1%). Those make the most sense to me, but Firaxis could be putting their numbers together in some completely different way.

I suppose I'll start keeping track next game, though

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dimension
I suppose I'll start keeping track next game, though

So will I, if I ever will have enough time left to play another one

[vmxa1]

All of this seems to verify that holding a leader for a long time makes no sense, unless you are not going to be at war. Even then I say it is like having a large sum of money and not putting it in the bank. Late in the game I use leaders to rush temples in new towns, just to get them out of the way. I am sending elite armour to city after city so I get leaders to burn. When I use to hold them, I did not get more. I do not need them for wonders now as I have them all and the few left can be make in a short time in a city that is now doing nothing anyway (or I may rush a leader back).