Just a comment, I deliberately worded the description slightly differently than this to avoid potential problems. Arguably there is a slight advantage if a team picks another leader after they know that another team has picked that same leader. (For instance, they may know that there is at least one other team starting with Mysticism, and thus that getting another leader that has Mysticism will not give them as good a chance of getting an early religion.)Each team can submit their first choice to Ginger_Ale (or Sulla?) via PM - and if there any duplicates, they can be informed privately and given the option to submit a second choice if desired.
What will we do if BOTH teams decide to take their second choice?
They both get it, since those teams will have agreed to have duplicate leaders (since they're only picking 1 single leader).There remain a question:
If 2 teams vote for the same single leader, they get it or not?
That's exactly what I thought originally.What I don´t understand is the reason behind this discussion, what is wrong with 2 or3 Montes and a fight of Jaguars in jungle.
If we did that, then there'd be a good case for banning e.g. the Romans too and continuing like this we would quickly limit the choices severely while we wouldn't get rid of the fact that someone wanting to play the "strongest" leader would still only have a few possible choices (once some civs are removed, new ones shine through as the "best"). So while your concern is valid, I don't think banning leaders would do much other than limiting each team's choices and consequently reducing variety and flavour in the game.And though it is not relevant to the main discussion here. I would ban Civs with the financial trait.
That`s absurd.
Do you all have the meaning, that another team will be better play with your chosen leader? On the other hand if a second team choose your leader, you should be gratify that your opinion about the best leader is not so bad.
And if you have the opinion that romans and Cesar are the best, then choose him and look what will be the result.
There's a reason I put "best" and "strongest" in quotation marks... part of my point (maybe it was too subtle) is that everyone has their own opinion about who is stronger and a leader that's strong in the hands of one team might be average in the handsof another.That`s absurd.
Do you all have the meaning, that another team will be better play with your chosen leader? On the other hand if a second team choose your leader, you should be gratify that your opinion about the best leader is not so bad.
And if you have the opinion that romans and Cesar are the best, then choose him and look what will be the result.
sry Calis