leader strategies

[JohnE]

Leaders a Problem

Originally posted by Dimension
Leaders are the worst problem with Civ3? I'd like to hear you explain that. I mean, of all the ridiculous things to whine about.

I think I know what he means.

Leaders aren't a problem, really, because they let you do really neat things. But they are an entirely artificial add-in to the game that gives an incentive for warfare. It seems really backwards to try explicitly to make the game revolve less around warfare, and throw this fly into the ointment. If the game has great leaders, why not great statesmen, artists, and etc? I get very few of them ( less than 3 per game despite having earned the nickname "Genghis John" for my hyperaggressive style ) but the bottom line is that they just don't make much sense.

[Aeson]

I agree that warfare is already overpowered, even without great leaders. Waging a successful war gives a double chance at new wonders, capturing them or rushing with a leader. Not to mention the territory aquisition, disabling of the AI, and free workers.

Having a way to generate leaders (statesmen, artisians, inventors) during peacetime, like JohnE suggested, would be a great addition to the game.

Perhaps military leaders should only be able to rush military type wonders (Sun Tsu's, Lighthouse, Great Wall, Leo's, Magellans, Sufferage) and build armies.

Statesmen could have a chance to be generated based on how happy the AI were with the player. They would be able to rush political/administrative type wonders (Palace, Forbidden Palace, Adam Smiths, Collosus, UN) and buildings, perhaps even allowing for instant revolutions.

Artisians would be generated based on cultural value. They would be able to rush corresponding wonders (Hanging Gardens, Oracle, Michaelangelos, JS Bachs, Sistene, Shakespeares).

Inventors could be based on science rate, giving more reason to have it high instead of hording money and buying/trading techs. They could rush all of the scientific buildings and wonders (Copernicus', Great Library, Newtons, Cure for Cancer, Longevity, ToE, SETI, Manhattan Project), or be turned in for a free tech.

A couple of the wonders (Pyramids, Hoover Dam) don't really fit in those categories. The small wonders would be split up as well.

[Pilfur]

It would balance the game out and make it far more interesting to play, good ideas. Especially for those of us who enjoy civ games more as a roleplaying experience than a war game.

[Ironikinit]

I'm not seeing how the leader feature forces you into war. Encourages war, yes, but it doesn't force it. My last game I had one war. Although it was a pretty big war (the leader in points got whacked) and I had a lot of elites and can usually get several leaders in a game, I didn't get one that war. I was tempted to provoke a war with the English on principle and to try to get a leader to rush a palace in the new territory, but I wasn't forced to do it.

War is important. It's possible to win a game of civ without it. I've yet to do it. However, leaders are a bonus of war, not the aim.

It might seem like warmongers get all the breaks, but we have to push all those dang units around and it gets tiresome. Leaders provide excitement, for me at least.

[Aeson]

It might seem like warmongers get all the breaks, but we have to push all those dang units around and it gets tiresome. Leaders provide excitement, for me at least.

That's the whole point. Adding some excitement for everyone, not just in wartime situations.

[Ironikinit]

OK, but the scenarios you suggest don't have the ingredients of the battle leader situation. The way it is now, you attempt to get a leader in a concrete way, you have a battle that is of consequence in itself. Then comes the random reinforcement of getting a leader.

Not that there's anything wrong with your suggestions. I enjoy the random element, I'm just saying that I don't see the excitement of getting a leader when you hit 20,000 culture points or whatever.

Further, a peace leader you get for doing what you might do anyway, building improvements, etc. Possibly they could be easier to get AND ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN NOT AT WAR but with a smaller reward. For instance, a scientist might give a free tech. That might save 40 turns or it might save one, and it overlaps the ToE, but it's a bit smaller than a wonder, which to me is quite sensible.

I'd also like it if random events favored those who've fallen behind. Obviously, the GreaLea as it is today doesn't really weak civs, but doesn't actively disfavor them. However, keep in mind that the militaristic attribute is generally considered one of the weaker ones. Personally, I favor it, but if other attributes begin to yield leaders, then militaristic is weakened.

Isn't this pretty much a moot point anyway? Fun to talk about, tho.

[Taxidopolis]

Just to confirm that the AI does get leaders. Not too sure about the AI leaders being able to hurry wonder building...there was a hint of this in a recent game when I checked a civ to see how far it was getting on with building a wonder, continued building mine and then wham bang thank you mam the same AI civ has suddenly built the wonder. I put this down to it hitting a Golden Age. Can't check the game since it was the last tournament one and so wasn't saving anywhere.

One very annoying thing with armies...they can't pillage. Carefully snuck one behind enemy lines in my last game with the set intent of letting it pillage until destroyed, and it couldn't pillage. This was a scenario, is it the same for undiluted pure funky fun Civ III ?

On larger maps I'd think about saving a leader for rush building the Forbidden City. It's so important to plan for future expansion and reduce corruption in the expanded empire.

Taxi

[JohnE]

[SIZE=1] However, keep in mind that the militaristic attribute is generally considered one of the weaker ones. Personally, I favor it, but if other attributes begin to yield leaders, then militaristic is weakened.

Isn't this pretty much a moot point anyway? Fun to talk about, tho.

You're right, I hadn't thought about that. And yes, it is a fairly moot point.