POLL: How many Great Leaders do you usually get in the ancient age?

[Artifex]

POLL: How many Great Leaders do you usually get in the ancient age?

In 20+ games I have only recieved a GL in the ancient age once. LOL guess I have bad luck

[FrustratedPoet]

If I'm militarisitic, then usually one and sometimes two.

If not, then usually 0 and sometimes 1.

I don't think I do as much warmongering as some people do, though.

[Theseus]

I can;t really answer the poll, as it's been all over the map for me.

My most recent game: 0

Best ever: 4 (I think)

FP: Eddie Izzard rocks!!

[Arrian]

I voted for 2. I've had zero, and I've had 3 or 4... it's hard to keep track, because I don't really pay attention to ancient age/medieval age so much as enemy spearmen/enemy pikemen.

In the game I posted about in the "Game of Ultimate Power" thread, I think I got 2 in ancient times (army/FP). Shortly after building the FP, I remember buying pikemen to defend against the Japanese, so clearly I was out of ancient times. The GLs exploded in that age, though. Heh. I think I got 6, with the remaing 4 coming in the Industrial Age.

Though GL generation clearly depends somewhat on luck, it really has to do with playing the odds the best you can. More units, more battles with those units, more elites, more battles with those elites, more elite victories... more leaders. Therefore, if you want to get lots of leaders, play a militaristic civ and warmonger like crazy. You will probably have some failures, just as I did (and still do), but keep trying and you'll figure out how to go about it.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Somewhere between none and two. Voted 1.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Great Leader?! What's that?

I've only seen one leader before the middle ages. I make a point of starting a war in every game, too, but don't have any GLs to show for it. O well, maybe someday...

[Arrian]

Marquis,

What size maps? Militaristic civ? How many attack units do you have when you launch your attack?

My guidelines for my usual settings (standard/continents/8 civs/Monarch):

20-25 horsemen
5-10 swordsmen

Attack to commence sometime around 350bc.

With a good start, this can be done. Those numbers are important. You can cut loose earlier and do just as much damage to the AI, but that's not the point. Waiting and putting together a larger force is better for leader generation, since both you and the AI have more units. Again: more units, more battles, more leaders.

I've had to fine tune this thing - it sucks when your attack runs into pikemen (hit too late) or you end up razing all the AI's cities because they have no culture yet (too soon).

-Arrian

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Arrian
What size maps? Militaristic civ? How many attack units do you have when you launch your attack?

I play large maps, and have played most civs. My attack forces in the ancient era are not nearly as large as yours, tho. (Except as the Aztecs, of course) I'll typically invade with two or three packs of 5-6 units. I only go for the core AI cities once I've sacked some of the smaller ones. They lose many units, and also the ability to make and support reinforcements. So the AI forces I face are almost never large, either.

A typical war involves me marching to an AI town, killing a few wandering bad guys and the defenders, then moving on to the next town after healing.

Part of my problem is the smaller attack forces, to be sure. I usually focus on culture, so building bad guys is often secondary. Instead of having 50 units and 5 improvements, it's more like 30 and 10. I think I need to just put off building that library and instead pump out a few more swordsmen or archers.

[Arrian]

Hey, as a former builder I understand. I developed a strategy, however, that pretty much forced me to build a proper Mongol Horde. I research specific techs at a low tech rate, hording cash to upgrade chariots to horsemen. I don't have the tech for libraries, therefore I cannot build them (because I admit that, like you, given the chance, I WILL build libraries and marketplaces over troops). My only improvements are temples and barracks when I launch my attack. Once the attack is rolling and I'm getting tech out of defeated AIs, then I switch to build mode. A medieval golden age caps this off nicely.

-Arrian

[SuentusPo]

The way I typically play, i usually only get one or two GLs per game, if I'm lucky. But I played a warmongering game as the Japanese recently and got 4 in the ancient, 7 (!!!) in the middle ages, and then a few more before the end of the game. I was at constant enough war that as long as I rushed my GLs off to build an army or a wonder right away, I'd usually get another one very quickly. At the peak of my war against the Aztecs I got 4 GLs in 3 turns. I'm beginning to rethink my peaceful ways...

[Theseus]

Aaah, another convert...

[alva]

Doesn't anyone else think that GL are just abit unballancing/deciding. I mean there is quite a differance between getting 1 or 10. Maybe there should a max. amount GL's possible.
After units that would have produced a GL might give you some extra money, a extra HP/ the same unit,etc...,etc,...etc any thouhts?

[Arrian]

Yeah, GLs are unbalancing. But that's also what makes 'em fun!

I have a couple of ideas:

1) no pre-req for the Heroic Epic. If you want to invest the shields, you can have better leader chances. How about that?

2) Leader generation chances lowered once you have a certain number. For example, you could lower the 1/16 chance to 1/25 after the civ has generated 6 GLs. 1/20 if you have the HE.

3) Some sort of mechanism for peaceful leader generation. I would say it should be based upon the ratio of your total culture to number of cities. This would prevent the warmonger with 100 cities with temples from having a better shot at a peaceful GL than the builder with 15 beautifully developed cities. This would be even cooler if there were improvements in the game that gave nothing but culture. How exactly to implement this, however, is hard to say.

I dunno... I have to admit I'm addicted to GLs now. But the system does screw the "builder."

-Arrian

[The_Hawk]

I usually play as Egypt and France. I always am an early aggressor if I share my continent (I don't share continents at all). And in my entire experience I'VE NEVER GOTTEN A GL IN THE ANCIENT ERA! I've gotten several elite units, but never a GL. I usually am pretty aggressive in the beginning, so its not due to passive infrastructure building and belevolent diplomacy either. Taking my continent is always a first priority for me. So, I don't get it. Maybe I need to play as a militaristic Civ just to experience the feeling....

[dawidge]

I think I've only gotten two ancient era GLs, and both were in my first Regent game (3rd game overall). As Rome, my warriors discovered that Egypt was sharing our island in a continent game (we were the only two on a large island/small continent). Ancient era warrior rush with a militiristic civ quickly generated two GLs. The first went into an army, the second went to build the HE. I didn't have enough cities, yet, to be able to build FP.

I expect that the average will go up now that I'm a convert to ancient era conquests.

In the mini tourney 3 game, I couldn't tell you how many GLs were generated. I know that I had at least 5 armies in the field at the endgame, and had GL-rushed at least 4 wonders, so a bare minimum of 9 GLs cropped up (gotta love Elite MAs taking on an infantry SOD, even the Vets were getting into the game - wham-elite-wham-wham-GL).