Duplicate leaders?

[Diamondeye]

I agree with Niklas, duplicates would be detrimental to roleplay, and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.

 

[Joe Harker]

and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.

so have random leaders then?

 

[azzaman333]

With only 5 teams, I see no problem with no duplicate leaders.

Also, I would like to point out that I don't mind duplicate civs, as long as the leader is different (traits are more important than uniques for almost every civ)

 

[Niklas]

so have random leaders then?

Some leaders are undeniably worse than others. The point is that a team should have no problem pointing out five leaders they would have fun playing, not that they should play just any leader.

But if you meant that each team submits 5 leaders and one of them is chosen at random (with rerolls on duplicates), then I definitely wouldn't mind.

Actually, I wouldn't mind full randomness either, but that's a totally different beast, and I don't think we should do it for this game.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Actually, I wouldn't mind full randomness either, but that's a totally different beast, and I don't think we should do it for this game.

No, the teams need to have at least some control over their leader pick - that way no-one can complain about being hard done by with their leader. Besides, picking a leader is part of the pre-game fun anyway.

 

[Diamondeye]

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.

Works for me...do teams think Wednesday is a reasonable deadline (along with the map discussion, which Sullla has led)? You can look at the "To Do" thread for more things to discuss if you want.

 

[HUSch]

Duplical leader are better, because then we don`t know the other civ.
If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader. That`s an advantage for team1.

 

[Lord Parkin]

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.

Works for me...do teams think Wednesday is a reasonable deadline (along with the map discussion, which Sullla has led)? You can look at the "To Do" thread for more things to discuss if you want.

I for one would really prefer that we didn't do this. I thought the purpose of this thread was to vote on whether the majority of people actually want no duplicate leaders, rather than just deciding to do it that way?

Duplical leader are better, because then we don`t know the other civ.
If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader. That`s an advantage for team1.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Can you clarify?

 

[oyzar]

First we should have a vote on if we want duplicate leaders or not... Though sulla/yourself could just check if the leaders the teams have decided on are the same or not...

 

[Krill]

Aye, and the voting should be by each team, all this thread is for is reasoning why we should take a particular course of action. So far there hasn't really been any reasoning:

The reasons for duplicates:

1. Each team can have whichever leader they want, so that no team is unduly handicapped by being forced to have a subpar civ for the given map type.
2. Duplicates are the fairest way to make both teams happy if there is a clash over duplicates.

The reasons for not allowing duplicates:

1. Personal choice; not liking the duplicate leader heads in diplomacy

You can roleplay with duplicate leaders, each team is going to have a different name, different border colours, and are going to be different entities, so claiming that you can't roleplay with duplicate leaders is a complete non sequitur.

---

The downside to not allowing duplicates is that one team gets the good leader and others have to make do with worse. Which is tantamount to saying they want good luck for the game such as beneficial hut pops, events, or getting lucky in combat. Duplicating the leaders allows us to level the playing field that little bit more, just as we have a good map maker balance the map for us. If it were possible to make a mod so that each civ had a different leader head, would those who dislike duplicate leaders for roleplay reasons be happy?

 

[Earthling]

If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader.

We were discussing this in our team forum; I believe the conclusion was that we wouldn't be able to keep leader choices secret when logging into pitboss. In other words, everyone is going to know the other team's choice from the start of the game, there is no surprise. That said, if somehow a way was found to set up the game, which allowed each team to be kept in the dark, I would completely support this.
Given the current situation, I would vote for NO duplicate leaders because I think it does limit gameplay with only five teams. Personally, if my team's leader was the same as another team, I would want to change anyway, to get a leader who won't have to compete with a clone for everything. I think that if two teams chose the same leader they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc... I think it's very likely each team has a different choice anyway, but if it comes down to some other team dead set on a leader I would be the one supporting change on my team just for the sake of variability.

 

[Niklas]

Earthling, that's a very good point, I hadn't even thought that far. If we decide to allow duplicate leaders, and if another team happens to choose the same leader that we have, then I would want to change our leader. I don't really care if all the other four teams have the same (I could think of them as the evil alien clones that we the heroes need to rescue the world from), as long as we can play a unique leader.

Krill, how nice of you to completely omit the reasoning I actually have done.

My whole point is that no team will end up with a subpar leader, and in particular not for a given map type since we likely won't know much about the map anyway. If a team has a problem naming 5 leaders out of the 52(!) available choices that they could actually consider playing, and that they wouldn't consider subpar, then I'd be really really surprised. So saying that anyone is unduly handicapped by not getting their first choice, that's a complete non sequitur.

Also, I also refute the claim that giving duplicate leaders is the fairest way to resolve a conflict of interest, by the reasoning I gave in my answer to Earthling. I'd rather play a "subpar" leader than the same as someone else. How is it then fair to assign duplicates, when that is what I wish least of all?

 

[Niklas]

If it were possible to make a mod so that each civ had a different leader head, would those who dislike duplicate leaders for roleplay reasons be happy?

I missed this on the first read through. No, I would not be satisfied, for the reasons Earthling gave. There's a reason no two leaders in BtS are given the same traits, as it promotes different play styles and a more varied game. It's not only about the aesthetical part of roleplaying, it's just as much about actions.

 

[Lord Parkin]

The reasons for duplicates:

1. Each team can have whichever leader they want, so that no team is unduly handicapped by being forced to have a subpar civ for the given map type.
2. Duplicates are the fairest way to make both teams happy if there is a clash over duplicates.

The reasons for not allowing duplicates:

1. Personal choice; not liking the duplicate leader heads in diplomacy

You can roleplay with duplicate leaders, each team is going to have a different name, different border colours, and are going to be different entities, so claiming that you can't roleplay with duplicate leaders is a complete non sequitur.

Very well said.

Given the current situation, I would vote for NO duplicate leaders because I think it does limit gameplay with only five teams. Personally, if my team's leader was the same as another team, I would want to change anyway, to get a leader who won't have to compete with a clone for everything. I think that if two teams chose the same leader they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc... I think it's very likely each team has a different choice anyway, but if it comes down to some other team dead set on a leader I would be the one supporting change on my team just for the sake of variability.

What you've said is absolutely incorrect. Just because two teams choose the same leader does NOT mean that their gameplay and strategy will be clones of one another - nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the geography and resources of the starting position affect the gameplay and strategy far more than the leader choice.

I don't understand at all how you arrived at the idea that "they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc...". That is completely untrue. Each team will have unique approaches to the game, and will be affected more by their geography and diplomatic relations than anything else for their wonder and tech choices. Even computer controlled AI playing duplicate leaders will follow entirely different strategies, so it boggles my mind how you can think that human controlled duplicate leaders will play the exact same game - or even anything close!

 

[Lord Parkin]

Also, I also refute the claim that giving duplicate leaders is the fairest way to resolve a conflict of interest, by the reasoning I gave in my answer to Earthling. I'd rather play a "subpar" leader than the same as someone else. How is it then fair to assign duplicates, when that is what I wish least of all?

It sounds like this whole issue might be resolved very easily, in that case.

Step 1: All teams make a list of five preferences for leaders.

Step 2: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are happy with this, then they are allowed to keep that leader.

Step 3: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are not happy with this, then they have the option to change their leader to the next-highest preference on their list that is not a duplicate.

That sounds to me like something we can all agree to. Thoughts?

 

[Krill]

Personally I'd be happy with that.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Isn't that essentially what Niklas wrote earlier, except with the clause regarding duplicates (essentially allowing the two teams with duplicates to decide for themselves)?

In the Civ3 MTDG, each team submitted an ordered list with 5 choices. Then the decision process was:
1) Those teams that have chosen a unique leader as their 1st, give them that leader.
2) For all duplicate choices, roll the dice to see who of them gets their choice.
3) For the teams that did not get their 1st choice, move to the next viable alternative in the list.
4) Rinse and repeat.

I think this is the model we should adopt.

edit: But yes, it is fine with me...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Isn't that essentially what Niklas wrote earlier, except with the clause regarding duplicates (essentially allowing the two teams with duplicates to decide for themselves)?

Precisely. The main difference is that those with duplicates get to choose for themselves whether or not they want to keep their leader or change it. That way we avoid both teams being forced into picking an alternative leader, possibly against one or both of their wills.

What I'm proposing is to let the individual teams choose if they are happy to keep their duplicate leaders (if they have any) or not. That seems the most fair thing to do, and it avoids any arguments with one team telling another how they have to react to duplicate leaders.

 

[Niklas]

I would personally be happy with Lord Parkin's amendment. Good thinking Lord!