Does anyone like the way leaders work?

Dis · February 26, 2002, 16:26

I absolutely hate the way they work. I can find no possible explanation why they made it work the way it does.

I just can't stand not being able to build an army without a leader (yes I know there is a minor wonder that allows you to do this- but you still need a leader to build the army). Who the hell created this monstrosity feature?

The Andy-Man · February 26, 2002, 17:06

i dont like to fact you have to get them through war. and that building some wonders, you need them.

i never get any from my lack of war, so tis another feature that benefits the warmongerer.

Worthingtons · February 26, 2002, 17:12

I think the leader system is great, Fantastic.

My 18 i have got in my current game have been crucial.

Spec · February 26, 2002, 17:27

The only thing I think that sucks with leaders is the rate at which they appear. They only appear with Elite units but Elite units, for some reason, seem to be really weak. How many times have I seen an Elite unit get killed by a veteran units of the same kind or worst. I'd have to try this but I'm sure If I take 10 veteran units of the same def. than attack against 10 elite units of the same value, the veterans will win easely. Both ways, attacking and defending. That's what I find most annoying, you elite dies before making a leader.

Spec.

Worthingtons · February 26, 2002, 17:52

I've noticed that with Elite's too, but i always give my Elite's easy win fights now.

Dis · February 26, 2002, 18:46

I never use elites for city busting except for cleanup. whenever I sense that the only thing left is a concript unit, I'll use my elites. Leaders seem to spawn more when taking cities. So I'll wait until I think there is only 1 defending unit left to use my elites. I never use them as my first attack on a city. I use vets to try to gauge how good the defenses are.

Slax · February 26, 2002, 19:43

A poorly designed game element, mainly, as mentioned, due to the fact that they come to civs at war.

I believe, though, that the issue can be resolved. Something simple, such as reaching a specified culture value in a city or civ could spawn a leader.

Encomium · February 26, 2002, 21:11

Simply, leaders SHOULD supply a combat bonus to every unit in a stack - not merely "build armies". This is much too limiting on their effectiveness and the historic roles of such as Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon, etc. Civ III Armies are of limited use offensively; better defensively. But real Great Leaders did not stay on the defensive.

Jaybe · February 26, 2002, 21:18

They come rarely enough that they are not significant. They are not unbalancing because of their rarity: therefore -- BANANAS!

nato · February 26, 2002, 21:22

Basically, I like how they work with making armies, and they make decent sense that way. They add an exciting element.

I do not like how they work rush building improvements, which makes no sense at all. I would not care about this, except there is no other decent way to build Palace/FP in a one shield city. It also has bad effects on Wonder races, by turning war like civs into better builders than peaceful builders!

I don't like being forced into war to get them for rush building purposes. This would not be a problem except for needing one to build a Palace / Forbidden Palace in a good position.

Changmai Beagle · February 26, 2002, 22:32

It might not be too hard to program a change that would provide one (just one) leader with the Military tech. (Optional to turn off, of course)

That would allow non-combatative players to experience Armies or rushing - but wouldn't likely put balance off too much, since all civs would then be running around with one army.

I've had a few leaders, but often they don't survive long enough to start an army.

It's not bad, though. If they were really easy to obtain, it wouldn't be a much fun.

Aeson · February 26, 2002, 23:09

I voted for bananas, but on the condition that they only spawn in size 1 jungle cities!

Having Scientific, Industrial, Commercial, Cultural, and Diplomatic leaders in the game would be a great touch. Warfare is too powerful even without the leader generation advantage.

MOHonor · February 26, 2002, 23:28

You know what I like. I like when tards start polls that completely disprove their fevered theories.

That's what I like.

Dis · February 26, 2002, 23:31

I love it when tards don't know what the purpose of polls are

Dis · February 26, 2002, 23:32

have you graduated elementary school yet? Do you know why I put this poll here? You could say it's spam, but I could say the same about your posts.

It is to find out how the people in civ3 general view leaders. I don't expect them to agree with me. In fact I believe most people would disagree with my theories about what makes a game fun.

Some people need to get some more forced schooling. They aren't intelligent enough for these boards.

Slax · February 26, 2002, 23:33

MoHonor - Too bad thats not the case here. Currently its 13 "Yes" vs 12 "No".

MOHonor · February 26, 2002, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
have you graduated elementary school yet. Do you know why I put this poll here.

It is to find out how the people in civ3 general view leaders. I don't expect them to agree with me. In fact I believe most people would disagree with my theories about what makes a game fun.

Some people need to get some more forced schooling. They aren't intelligent enough for these boards.

Double post. 12 year old alert.

MOHonor · February 26, 2002, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Slax
MoHonor - Too bad thats not the case here. Currently its 13 "Yes" vs 12 "No".

You're counting Bananas as con? Fine. Good luck with that.

Dis · February 26, 2002, 23:35

You don't get it.

I made the second post minutes after the other one. I realize many people like you have short attention spans, and would just disregard my original post if I had edited in the information.

I do that to get my point accross. I'm usually ignored. Why don't you do the same and put me on your ignore list.

goodbye

MOHonor · February 26, 2002, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
You don't get it.

I made the second post minutes after the other one. I realize many people like you have short attention spans, and would just disregard my original post if I had edited in the information.

I do that to get my point accross. I'm usually ignored. Why don't you do the same and put me on your ignore list.

goodbye

Why? You're too easy to freak out. Anyways, I love sinking threads like this.

Congrats. You're my hobby till lib starts posting again.

Dis · February 26, 2002, 23:39

sinking?

I'd say it's staying near the top

ole' lib. I don't know where he went off to. He'll be back

Tingkai · February 27, 2002, 00:50

The leaders system is okay. It would be better if you could unload units from an army.

Yes, it forces you to fight a war if you want the benefits. But if you don't fight wars, why do you need an army?

nato · February 27, 2002, 01:13

MOHonor, you never say anything on topic about Civ3.

Every post you have made is just an attack on someone.

You are the only person I have seen on Apolyton who doesn't at least occassionally say something worthwhile.

You are now also the only person on Apolyton on my ignore list.

Right where you belong.

Worthingtons · February 27, 2002, 02:02

MO , THere has to be a Bananas option in a poll!

Slax · February 27, 2002, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by MOHonor

You're counting Bananas as con? Fine. Good luck with that.

No way, bananas are a great source of potassium.

But no, it seems the poll on my screen has 'No' as the 2nd and 3rd options. Hmmm....?

kailhun · February 27, 2002, 04:13

Again I went for the bananas.
There are a couple of problems with leaders:
- the only way to get them is through combat. So peaceful players are penalised and need them just as badly for building wonders. But what peaceful action should trigger a leader?
- They don't show up often enough. Kidding. 3 or 4 leaders a game is good. I would like more, but that might be unbalancing.
- They die when 'captured'. Spies should be able to ferret them out and attempt to kidnap them.
- Can't think of another one. Leaders must work quite well for me then.

Robert

Pius Popprasch · February 27, 2002, 04:54

They should give a combat bonus, e.g. +1 attack, + 1 defense. And there could be a rule for getting them(e.g. 6 fights won by an elite unit). And they should not hurry Wonders.

notyoueither · February 27, 2002, 05:07

I voted *Yes: any feature in a game with Sid's name on it must be good.* Does that mean I'm hopeless? I'd vote for bananas again, but I'm full.

But seriously, Leaders for culture? I don't think so.

Leaders alow the military civs the chance to catch up with the Scientific and Industrious civs. You build, we make war. We used Maximus to rush the Great Library and steal it from you? Hah! The Peacenik life does not lead to all happiness.

Also think about what a civ does to make war. It gives up many, many turns of useful production of building up its cities to build up it's armies. The Leader system is one of the major things that keeps the military strat on track. IMO.

Salve

SirPleb · February 27, 2002, 06:32

On smaller maps I find them somewhat imbalancing. Their impact (building wonders instantly) seems out of proportion for something with such a large luck element. Because of the low numbers involved (number of wins with elites, and per-win chance of a leader) it is not unlikely to get anywhere from 1 to 6 of them from the exact same number of elite wins. The range of normal results is too variable (too large) for something with this much impact.

On very large maps, especially with a militaristic Civ, leaders are easy to get. In a huge/militaristic game you can reach a state where you can be nearly certain of getting a new leader within 1 or 2 turns every time you want one. Just like that, any wonder you want, when you want it. Kind of fun when you do it, but it does feel a bit imbalanced/unintended.

Grumbold · February 27, 2002, 06:48

Leaders are too random, too good at building wonders and useless at everything else.

I believe Lib is spending more of his time discussing EU2 these days since we persuaded him to give it a try. I recommend it as an alternative for anyone who thinks they need a change from Civ 3.