I played the entire game and NEVER got a leader.

[vmxa1]

It is just a freak thing. I have only one other time gotten more than the 5-10 range and it was over 20, I forget now. So after scores of games, only two memorable times had large numbers and they required nearly non stop wars. I war a lot less lately.

[Beren]

Leaders?
I once build barracks on the entire world (Medium map) and only built military units and used them in my constant stade of (victorious) war from 500 BC till 1300 AD. About 1300 AD I had conquered 7 civs and had the half of the globe under my control (I play with 16 civs) I still did not get one single leader.

[Bambul]

The most I got was in my last game: 6. And that was heaps for me. I would hold on to them until a wonder came along.

[DeepO]

well... in the current game, I'm in 1200 AD, and had continuous war from 1800 BC onwards. As said above, leaders didn't appear a lot, and while it has helped to build the HE, I still have gotten only 5 of them. Over half of my troops are elites, I typically have about 10 elite victories each turn. Last game, this meant the huge amount of leaders, this game is different, but still if you war a lot, you have to be very unlucky to have no leaders appear.

Oh, and I too don't safe on them: leaders are used before any further elite battle if possible. This sometimes means rushing a wonder in a city that is just conquered, in the middle of resistance if neccesary. And, in this game, I was only able to build one wonder with a leader, as there weren't any wonders available when leaders emerged... but I will never save them, or I should know the war is about to stop and I need to position my FP or palace.

DeepO

[Arrian]

*(#%@)$&%!)~!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm in leader hell! I started a new Emperor game last night (Japan) and if I could have gotten JUST ONE leader, everything would be great. But I haven't. I've destroyed India, knocked China to 1 city, and destroyed Greece (Samurai vs. muskets & hoplites... ouch). No leaders. My FP is right next to my palace, built in anticipation of a palace move w/leader. No leader, no move, terrible corruption. ARG!

In a last ditch attempt, I am assembling my elite Samurai (approx 6) and horsemen (2) around the last Chinese city. Maybe, just maybe, I can get one from wiping them out. A palace in Greece would fix everything.

-Arrian

[SanPellegrino]

"The early leader catches the worm".

9 leaders were the most I've been able to get, 8 of them in the ancient wars. I had games where I had more leaders, but mostly in modern age with tanks/MA, but as pointed out before, they are of little use.

8 early leaders can really turn the tide (FP, Army, 6 wonders) of a game.

So I'm interested how much of your dozens of leaders come from the early stages of the game, because to my experience it' pretty easy to get leaders with Modern Armor.

[DeepO]

Last game with the 25-30 leaders? all of them were done before tanks came around, most of them from samurai and horsemen. 3 of them during the initial archer rushes (IIRC)... they were early all right... otherwise they aren't that great at all.

Arrian: I can feel the pain... I had a close call in my current game as well, where I built the FP relatively close to my palace, and was waiting for a leader to build my palace on the other side of the panganea (totally disjunct capitals, resulting in the most productive empire you will ever get). When I didn't had the city conquered in which I wanted the palace, I didn't had much problems getting leaders (like said, 5 of them), but by the time I had the city it didn't happen... but eventually, it just has to, certainly after about 80 elite battles... so now my empire looks like two massive, productive centers on a round continent with an inner sea... nearly 2 third of all available land, and not one city is totally corrupt

DeepO

[Arrian]

DeepO, that's the stuff of dreams. Well done.

My game is rather challenging, for a number of reasons beyond my lack of GLs:

1) I lost the Hanging Gardens (by 3 turns).
2) I lost Leo's (also by 3 turns - tactical error on my part, however)
3) My trade reputation is shot to hell

#3 came about as a result of my war vs. Greece. I did not yet have Astronomy, and my sea connection with Rome (far side of Greece) required sea tiles. Upon declaring on Greece, my ongoing trade with Rome was nixxed, wrecking my rep. The Romans, who I paid off to ally with me, hated me anyway because of prior history. But the three overseas civs (Aztecs, Americans, Iroquois) now think of me as "a cheat and a liar."

#2 really hurt. In retrospect, I should have aggresively researched Chivalry (didn't, hung back and raked in cash) and upgraded a couple of horsies to Sams and taken out China, triggering my GA and polishing off Leo. Instead, I was waiting for Leo to do a mass upgrade... which cost me double because I lost it.

I do have some positives: The Colossus, the Sistine, Copernicus, and should get Bach. I captured the GL (Beijing) but it unfortunately wasn't that great for me - Greece raced ahead and Rome sucked, so I didn't get much, and Sun Tzu (Athens). My Golden Age is winding down with me a tad behind in tech (chemistry, navigation), but poised to take the tech lead on the northern branch (banking), and the only scientific civ is dead. I have access locally to 4 luxuries, and a 5th via a tech deal with Rome. Their main supply of this luxury (ivory) is just across the border...

The deal with Rome:

I made peace with China, having knocked them to 2 cities, and received their non-capitol city for peace. It came undefended, of course (thanks, Aeson), and there was a Roman settler team next to it. They declared war and took the city. Wonderful. So I paid an arm, leg and I think part of my spleen for the Greeks to ally with me, thus blowing their GA's on a war in which neither gained ground. However, Greece raced ahead in tech (libraries, I guess) and Rome trailed back with me. My one gain from the war was a city which gave me dyes.

Rome now has Knights - a fair number of them - and remains "furious" with me. My republic was seriously war-weary, so I do not intend to take them on until I have Cavalry.

What a frustrating game.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Bambul
The most I got was in my last game: 6. And that was heaps for me. I would hold on to them until a wonder came along.

That is a contributing factor to the dirge of leaders. You must use the leader before any further elite battles or you will prevent any leader generation. I have had multiple leaders (up to 6) in one turn. This could not happen if you hold a leader. I will only hold a leader if I have dire need to rush something with the next turn or two. If I was sitting there with say Fission being researched and it was 1 turn away, I may hold off to rush the wonder. I would not if I was sure I could build it first anyway. That is a reasonable conundrum, holding the leader for a say 8 turns is not.

[Arrian]

Holding a leader for a few turns - or even longer - isn't a bad thing, so long as you understand fully what you're doing. If I have an extremely important goal (such as a Palace move to create an optimal Palace/FP setup) that I do not feel I can leave to chance, I may hold a leader until I own the city I need to rush the Palace - and simply hold any elite units out of combat during that period, using my veterans exclusively (which ought to generate more elites). Then, having used the leader, *boom* back come my elites.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Wooohooo! I'm out of leader hell! Yeah, baby!

It took some doing, though. My little China gambit failed: I destroyed the Chinese, but no leader.

So I went for it. During my war with Greece, I had allied with Rome. There was a Greek city in the far north of my empire, and in the last turns of the war, the Roman military charged northward into my territory, trying to get there. But I killed it first, and the Romans had to pull back. But on the way back, the RoP was no longer active, and it took them some time to withdraw. Finally, they had 1 legionary + 1 longbowman still in my territory, about to cross the border.

I decided to roll the dice. I called up Caesar, and as rudely as I could, ordered him to leave my territory, with rather predictable results. So it was my Samurai, muskets and cannon vs. his knights, muskets, legionaries and longbowmen. I was, however, researching Mil Tradition.

Suffice it to say that things were a bit dicey at first, but I got my leader and was able to move my Palace to Thermopolye (sp?), solving most of my corruption issues. Then, just for good measure, I got 2 more leaders (Adam Smith and an Army). Cavalry came along and I wiped them out, despite their getting nationalism.

Meanwhile, the Americans went on a rampage on their continent, nearly destroying the Iroquois, and I was able to take advantage of the conflict to plant some cities (mmm, luxuries) over there. More fighting (Americans vs. Aztecs and then Americans vs. Iroquois, round II) opened up more space, and I now have 6 cities over there with a seventh about to be built.

It's 1740, IIRC. ToE & Hoover are built, factories, hospitals and police stations are either built or building. I have rep. parts, and am shipping infantry over to America via my 6 galleons. It's pretty much just me and Abe (Monty's handing around with 2 island cities), and I have a tech lead (5 or so) which is increasing.

My economy, however, isn't what I'm used to. So much time w/o a good Palace/FP setup and the loss of Leo's cost me a lot of cashola. I ended up just building infantry at 2 turns each and disbanding my musketmen & pikemen rather than upgrading.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Arrian
... I may hold a leader until ... and simply hold any elite units out of combat during that period, using my veterans exclusively (which ought to generate more elites). Then, having used the leader, *boom* back come my elites.

-Arrian

Such purity!
I do not hold back my Elites if there is a battle to be won, just because I am holding a Leader. Things might be different if I hadn't drawn Shaka (militaristic) to be my civ again.

(I am frustrated at choosing Random Civ and getting Shaka twice in a row, especially since my games last several weeks.)

[Arrian]

Jaybe,

If the use of elites is required for victory, I'll use them anyway. But I generally try to have a surplus of troops - or at least enough that I can hold the line until the leader is used and I can surge forth again. I typically don't hold leaders long.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

Arrian,
Yah, I know what you mean....
I have been suffering a little war weariness, personally. In my current 1.29 game I am at war with the Chinese commies, who have taken cities defended by MI Armies (well, a small army anyway) just by using hordes (sometimes all they own) of tanks! Got to the point I was garrisoning luxury cities with an Army plus extra defenders.

The war is going better now. Got his oil supplier (who also had a RoP with Mao ) to join in alliance against him.

And Now For Something Completely Different: I have not had a government collapse from war weariness before. Is there a PERCENTAGE of unhappiness due to "give peace a chance" threshold that causes a government fall? Mine is currently stable at about 45%.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Arrian
Holding a leader for a few turns - or even longer - isn't a bad thing, so long as you understand fully what you're doing. If I have an extremely important goal (such as a Palace move to create an optimal Palace/FP setup) that -Arrian

There are always good reason to ignore a rule of thumb, but it needs to be a good one. I am not so sure that a palace jump requires me to sit on a leader for 10 turns? If you are peace, fine, but since you are at war you may well get another one in that much time. If it is in say 4-5 turns, that is different, at some point I will not keep holding it. The fact is that if I am busting heads in a new land, I am not going to worry about getting the palace moved, it is not critical at that time, unless I in over my head and need to grab a foot hold and get peace to regroup. It is situational, but I probably have a large empire going well and do not really care about getting production from these new cities, they are just to control the land and resource/lux. I do not need them to contribute to research or unit production. If this is an early expansion, then things are different and I may need them to contribute.
So you are correct you need to understand the impact and tehn choose.