The leader idea is very under developed in Civ3

[Pythagoras]

Ok so we have leaders, which I thought (when I first heard about it) was an awesome idea. But its so limited. The idea is not fully realized IMO. Armies as they are now are not as useful as they should be, and hurrying wonders is too powerful.

Here's my idea of how the leader idea can be fully realized-

Generation:
1 - Leaders should be generated in more events than combat. And they should also be generated in sea/air/other combat situations.
- Keep current combat generation, expand it to sea/air units
- Allow for potential leader generation on exceptional city events: Construction of wonder, WLTKD, high amount of culture, prosperous city. or some combination thereof.

2 - You are a leader! The leader of your nation should be a leader too!

Use
1 Each leader would have a specialization corresponding to the different roles of each of your advisor. That leader would than give that advisor a bonus in doing his 'job.' For instance if you got 'Henry Kissinger' your foreign advisor might find it easier to bend people to your will in discussions etc.
- Domestic leaders, also may act as a sort-of specialist in a city (yielding leader specific bonus's to a city, but not requiring food support)
- Leaders of armies (whos role should be expanded) would both be able to command troops and/or advise your military advisor.

[Alexander's Horse]

I heartily agree - the implementation of leaders in civ 3 was a big screw up. Linking unit stacking to "spawning" leader falls into the category of "what could they have been thinking?"

[Ijuin]

I would like to see Leaders being capable of creating Navies the same way that they create Armies. I don't support Air Armies (Fighter Wings?), because the way Air units fight is different from land and sea combat--fighter units either bombard or defend against enemy fighters.

[Coracle]

It is indeed very well known by now that not only is naval warfare handled terribly in Civ 3, but the idea of Leaders is even worse.

What we all wanted after Civ 2 were MILITARY leaders who could effect combat, the way Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander, etc, could do. Being able only to create armies is a rather lame substitute for that. Armies are of very limited effectiveness as we all know.

Naval leaders? Well, naval warfare is so poorly conceived in Civ 3 it hardly matters. But it would be OK with me if a Nelson, Hood, Farragut, or others, could be created.

[Zachriel]

I find leaders to be very useful, even decisive. Generally, I want to get at least two leaders in the early game. The first to build an army, become victorious, build the Heroic Epic and later the Military Academy. The second to rush the Forbidden Palace in my newly conquered territories. Later in the game, I build armies in the Military Academy and usually have several tank armies.



If leaders were much more effective, they would be too strong, IMHO. An early age army is virtually unstoppable.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/