Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
I agree with Niklas, duplicates would be detrimental to roleplay, and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.
and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.
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.so have random leaders then?
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.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.
... 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.
... 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.
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?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 don't quite understand what you're saying. Can you clarify?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.
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.If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader.
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.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?
Very well said.The reasons for duplicates:
- 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.
- Duplicates are the fairest way to make both teams happy if there is a clash over duplicates.
The reasons for not allowing duplicates:
- 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.
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.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.
It sounds like this whole issue might be resolved very easily, in that case.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?
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.
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.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)?