Leaderless

TheArsenal · August 16, 2003, 21:16

The facts: Regent, Large Map, 127f. About 1930 A.D. Taken the turn after winning a domination victory playing as Persia.

The impressive part of this shot is not the amount of land conquered. At Regent difficulty and a single landmass, most people on these boards could do this at a trot and win much earlier at that. What makes this unusual is that even with careful use of my Elites and every city from Egypt, the Aztecs, India, Germany, the Mongols, the Americans, Japan, China, Arabia and Babylon taken by force not one single leader was generated.

Not one.

I’ve never seen anything like that before.

vmxa1 · August 16, 2003, 23:00

Nice game anyway. I had two AU games that nearly got no leader. Both games generated two leaders with in turns of ending. I thought I was going to make it without one and this was after lots of wars. So it is hard to do, but does happen.

Theseus · August 17, 2003, 13:22

As Persia as well... high level of unit survivability in through the mid-game.

That sucks... but a good win nonetheless.

Lord_Davinator · August 18, 2003, 05:29

I certainly does not make sense... I'mplaying with Persia... had tons of elite immortals in the early game and got a great leader only when I had tanks... it certainly is a draw back in the game that leaders are only produced out of wars... and without a single leader generation you lose out on how many? 3 small wonders?

TheArsenal · August 18, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

As Persia as well... high level of unit survivability in through the mid-game.

As well as proving a leader is not a given, this game was very instructive for a few reasons: I have always treated Large Maps much like Huge Maps and accordingly have not altered strategy greatly. So the common wisdom for me going into games was I needed a civ with a fast moving UU (China, Arabia, Ottomans, etc.). This has caused me to neglect Persia with its single movement Immortal.

What a mistake. Time to state what everyone else already knows: this unit in the human’s hands is as devastating as its civ’s traits are overwhelming.

Second “duh” item: I always chase the GL on a Pyramid pre-build. Having to start by researching Iron Working, as makes sense with this civ, I ended up completing the Pyramids. This is a powerful wonder I have been foolish to neglect.

The third is there is no accounting for the AI. The red cities on the map were Japan, which I was in the final stages of taking out when the game ended. What accelerated this process was when I declared war on a 10 or so city Japan, they in turn declared war on a neutral France. If the AI was a human, I would assume France declined an Alliance or Japan thought it could stay alive by picking off less defended French cities than going after my more fortified metropolises. In the end I have assigned it to the random insanity of the more aggressive AIs (see also: Zululand).

vmxa1 · August 18, 2003, 18:45

My sense is that since PTW 1.14 and beyond is that leaders are harder to come by and being a non military civ makes it a bit harder yet. It does not seem to be a big factor the number of wars I have.

Last 3-4 games with non Mil, I got 3 or less (leaders), jumped to China and got 15. I fought about the same number of wars. Again this is just my perspective, nothing more.

Lord_Davinator · August 19, 2003, 13:12

the number of wars definitely make a difference... if you are constantly at war with different civs the chances of getting great leaders is much higher... being at war with the same civ for an extended period of time decreaes the number of great leaders produced... but this is what I have expereinced in my games... not something that I would call fact... only opinion...

gunkulator · August 19, 2003, 14:54

I'd speculate that PTW monkeyed with the odds of getting a leader, especially for non militaristic civs. Not necessarily a bad thing since militaristic ranks only slightly above expansionist in most people's book. I'm playing the Ottomans now and despite many centuries of war up to the current time, 1800, I have yet to get a single leader.

bongo · August 20, 2003, 04:06

I don't think the odds have changed, it's just that when the odds of getting a leader is so low in the first place you are bound to get some games with 'strange' numbers of leaders(either very few or very many, I've seen both) You're just witnessing randomness behaving....random?

GhengisFarb™ · August 20, 2003, 14:10

I have definitely noticed a difference in the amount of GL's I get pre and post PTW.

bongo · August 21, 2003, 08:04

Well? More or less?

vmxa1 · August 21, 2003, 11:05

Less

Oerdin · August 21, 2003, 11:25

I concur. Less.

GhengisFarb™ · August 21, 2003, 11:41

Less, Not as in Les Miles of WKRP in Cincinatti though.

TheArsenal · August 21, 2003, 11:47

Nesman.

Panag · August 31, 2003, 11:47

hi ,

the arsenal , can you attach a save or so , .....

have a nice day

pauli · August 31, 2003, 15:21

help out a colorblind reader here: is that one green and one yellow civ intertwined, or just jpeg artifacting?

Panag · August 31, 2003, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by pauli
help out a colorblind reader here: is that one green and one yellow civ intertwined, or just jpeg artifacting?

hi ,

green pink and red , maybe one or two others on the small island on the left , ......

copy the screenshot and blow it up , ......

have a nice day

Paddy · September 1, 2003, 06:52

great looking game....