Simple Question ... Do we want Scientific Leaders in the game ???

Yes
No
Abstaian

I'm fine either way, so I'll abstain. Having them in would certainly benefit us if we plan a research game, but I do realize their general unfairness.

General unfairness sounds cool to me, especially with so many scientific civs populating our list of preferred civs. ;)

It cuts both ways - other teams may be angling for scientific civs as well. I would hate to have one team get great lottery ticket results, while another team doesn't.

Therefore I vote NO (subject to change upon convincing arguments from the other side :))

It's one of the advantages of a scientific civ.

If we choose a scientitifc civ, then yes. Otherwise no. (Opportunistic? Sure!)
It might be "unfair", but then so is the higher promo probability of militaristic civs, or the lower shipwreck probability of seafaring civs, etc.

I voted YES

Reasons
... if we are scientific then it is a slight benefit
... if an ally gets one it is good for us.
... if a rival gets it then it is good if we have Great Library
... only slight chance of generating one so WTF, why one.

Reasons
... if we are scientific then it is a slight benefit
... if an ally gets one it is good for us.
... if a rival gets it then it is good if we have Great Library
... only slight chance of generating one so WTF, why one.
I understand reason #1 but could you explain the other three? :confused:

Do we want to build the Great Library? Is that common usage in PBEM? :hmm:

I guess I should read a spoiler soon. My nescience is annoying... :blush:

I like sci GL... but the effect is *so* huge and the chances are *so* random, that I think it's a bad idea to have them. If we have them, there is a pretty good chance that someone will get Pyramids or leo's or something pretty big for free.

The impact of an SGL can be just too big, in my opinion, to allow them in a game like this.

I have voted NO to science leaders in the UN

Oh boy. Scientific Leaders are ON. :ack: :hammer2:

The others really want to force us to take a scientific civ. Or don't we have any choice anymore once our top-5 choice is submitted? :hmm:

IIRC they can be used to rush great wonders, right? I guess that's the best choice or has anybody any experience with this "research acceleration"? I was too lazy to monitor the effect in the only game I played with SGLs turned on :mischief:

Well, our top 3 plus our fifth choice are all scientific, so we don't really need to change anything. ;)

well, I am assuming that a bunch of teams are going to be scientific. Greece, for instance, is probably popular.

The only thing an SGL is good for is rushing a wonder. The "scientific golden age" doesn't work.

I assume we can change our list, basically up until the admins say we can't. But I think we shouldn't.

I'm happy with our choices

I wouldnt worry too much. Only about every 5th game i have played with a scientific civ, I have gotten a Sci leader.
They are not that common....unless you make a strategy to get them... ;)

It depends on how far you go into a game, what your traits are and what the starting traits for your opponents.

Overcoming an SGL by the AI is not hard - overcoming an SGL that human opponents get might be more difficult.

There are 14 AA techs that no one will start with for sure (including lit, republic and monarchy), plus the wheel (I assume no one will be japan). Assume at least 4 scientific civs (the 3 who voted for SGL's and us) and lots of people emphasizing alphabet, and you get 4 BW and probably 3 or 4 Alphabet out of 10 starting traits, with the other two or three being pottery or masonry, so there are 20 AA techs that need to be researched, and about 20 MA techs. Somewhere in that, someone is going to pop an SGL or two, so someone is going to get pyramids/leo's/sun tzu's for free.

I'm not as familiar with C3C as some of us here (I'm looking at you, AT ;)), but I can say that in the last game, MIA, playing a scientific civ, didn't pop a SGL.

We had achieved Amphibious Warfare the turn before the game ended.

We were running 4 turn research from roughly the middle of the Middle Ages on.

So for what it's worth, SGL's didn't factor at all in that game. However, in our Diplomatic Negotiations, other teams (one in particular) wouldn't stop harping on it... we kept saying that they had an advantage because they were agricultural, and they retorted that we had the chance to pop a SGL.

Although I respect some of the reasoning behind AT's analysis, my gut tells me that he's only got a 5% chance of being correct. :crazyeye:

Are you all going to tell me my gut is wrong??? ;)

oh, it can certainly happen that a civ doesn't pop an SGL, even an scientific one. Heck, it's possible that *no* civs pops an SGL, even if they are all scientific.

About 35% of the time, no SGL will be popped in the ancient age, given the conditions I gave. There are about 50 techs (required, plus lit, monarchy, republic, chivalry and Mil tradition). there is about a 7% chance that no SGL's will be popped from 50 techs.

In the last game ... MIA was constantly ahead in tech research and most of the non-Ancient Age techs were discovered by us ... No Scientific Leader :(

But we were aware of them and sometimes even discussed what we would do if we got one.