A peaceful way to get a Great Leader !!

[Cerryl]

Originally posted by Troyens


And how many battles did FDR, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or even Lincoln fight in??? Or Catherine of Russia, Gandhi of India, Elizabeth of England, etc.

Rushing Wonders? Maybe yes; maybe no. But the entire production of hundreds of shields should NOT go down the toilet if another civ beats us to the punch and builds it first. Some (not all) should go to Wealth.

How often do you see these people as GL's in the game? A great President or 'Civilization' leader, is much different from a Great Battle Leader. Patton, Yes. Reagan, absolutely not.

The AI loses shields, just the same. Maybe you don't like it, but I like the challenge of building them just as they are, makes getting them all the better, nothing's fun if it's easy.

 

[Cerryl]

Yes, with Reagan in the game maybe I'd get Deficit spending, I could spend more per turn than my treasury could cover and not lose any improvements, yes what a great leader indeed!!

 

[Sarcastro]

Originally posted by Cerryl
How often do you see these people as GL's in the game? A great President or 'Civilization' leader, is much different from a Great Battle Leader. Patton, Yes. Reagan, absolutely not.

Hold on, though - they're not called "Great Battle Leaders" in the game, though perhaps they should be. There have been plenty of "great" leaders in history who were considered great for other reasons than battle.

(on a side note, how anyone could rank Reagan ahead of FDR is entirely beyond me. On what basis?)

 

[Cyrai]

War is not the only way to lead. Can't you lead a country and not be at war? Have you never heard the term, "The Leader of the Free World" applied to the US President, even when he is not at war? In the dictionary, lead means "To guide or direct in a course." How does this not apply to leading a nation?

 

[Cerryl]

Originally posted by Sarcastro


Hold on, though - they're not called "Great Battle Leaders" in the game, though perhaps they should be. There have been plenty of "great" leaders in history who were considered great for other reasons than battle.

(on a side note, how anyone could rank Reagan ahead of FDR is entirely beyond me. On what basis?)

Correct, but you only get them THROUGH battle.

Ya'd think people would whine about the real issues of the game and not just want things to be EASY. That there's any way at all to hurry a wonder should be enough, especially if you're gonna tout realism as a factor for getting leaders, realism would be NEVER being able to hurry wonders.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Well - looking at the playability of the game as the first goal ( as normal to be ) - you're right - GL are usefull for a civilisation in war.

Maybe you're right ...

Regards

 

[Cerryl]

Here's something to placate the whiners:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9955

Of course, the editor cannot make you good at the game no matter how much you use it

 

[Howard Brazee]

I am thinking about the real world:

Certainly there have been nobels who have started off with armies.
Einstein may have rush built a wonder. How do we produce an Einstein? Well, the U.S. got him through cultural expansion.

Galileo could be used - but he was home grown.

Churchil and Roosevelt were "great leaders" for game purposes - without the required number of victories.

But "great leaders" don't disappear when they accomplish their goal - they get re-used in real life.

Maybe we could have a new unit - like a soldier - with zero attack, and zero defense - but with a cultural value and possibly a life span. Being built in a university town makes it a veteran, as does being around when a city expands its cultural borders. Being around when a city's culture conquers its neighbor makes it a great leder. No, that's too rare - don't make it be at the city to become a great leader - but do make it be at the city to advance to veteran or elite.

 

[ChumChum]

Originally posted by once_an_emperor
For what it's worth I totally agree!

- literacy rate / life expectancy (which I assume are tied to number of libraries, aquaducts per city) which you currently see (only?) at the end of the game.

hit f11
likewise F7 is useful too, especially when combined with investigate city / industrial sabotage.

later,
-ChumChum

 

[Warlord Sam]

Originally posted by Cerryl
How else does a leader become great if not through battle?

I've always felt that Wonders shouldn't rushed at all.

Simple. He leads through tough times. FDR was a great leader in America long before we entered the war; his programs were slowly bringing us out of the Depression. Bush has distinguished himself as a great leader, and there is not a real, actual war going on. (And if you disagree, that's fine. I'm not trying to start an argument, but 80% approval rating seems like a great leader to me.) Even Clinton, despite his "exploits", was a great leader, keeping our economy booming for most of his terms.

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Psychlone


Well, what about a Ronald Reagan? He was a cultural figure and then a great leader. IMO he was arguably the greatest US president of the 20th century.

I think we actually agree. But FDR is right up there, even if he was too liberal and should not have run in 1944.

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Cerryl


How often do you see these people as GL's in the game? A great President or 'Civilization' leader, is much different from a Great Battle Leader. Patton, Yes. Reagan, absolutely not.

How in Civ III does a great MILITARY leader (who should also give a combat bonus in battles) end up a political, scientist, or cultural leader being able to rush improvements as diverse as the United Nations, SETI project, and Shakespeare's Theatre??

Like a lot of Civ III, it makes no sense.

 

[Cerryl]

Originally posted by Troyens


How in Civ III does a great MILITARY leader (who should also give a combat bonus in battles) end up a political, scientist, or cultural leader being able to rush improvements as diverse as the United Nations, SETI project, and Shakespeare's Theatre??

Like a lot of Civ III, it makes no sense.

Who knows, I've already said it makes little sense that wonders can be rushed at all. But it's fairly challenging enough the way it is. My rant was against people who want it even easier to do, bah.

 

[MrFrodo]

Is a great idea. There definitely needs to be more incentive to be peaceful. Right now the incentive is to be a despot-rush, war-monger cranking out lots of leaders so their brutalized laborers can make beautiful wonders. Its kind of
silly that a city that has had slave labor pumping out war
units for millenia has a leader come along and make
"United Nations". I wonder what the UN labor regulation department would say about the whip?

I like the idea someone mentioned of specialized leaders.
Since each wonder is associated with
a civ trait you could have leaders associated with each civ trait as well. They could only rush wonders associated with that trait.
So a military leader could rush Sun Tzus, but not Pyramids while an expansionist leader (created by having X number of cities or
exploring X% of the map?) could rush Pyramids, but not Sun Tzu's.
Does this make sense? It might be too complicated and it
would take time and playtesting to see if it were really fair. But
I have a feeling that multiplayer Civ3 will have no room for peace the way things are now.

The thing about civ3. Its a great game, but it has so much potential to be even better. I hope the expansion pack allows
even more flexibility with the rules. Ideally, it would be open-source and random people would be coming out with new Civ3
variants all the time that focus on different aspects of the game.

 

[Loopy]

I'd love to see different leader types with the ability to rush only their specific type of wonder. One big problem there is that you'd have to then balance your leader generation rates to your wonder types. The mix of wonders to types might not also be a good ratio.

For example, we get military leaders through battles. They can be generated pretty easily and through a known set of steps -- if I know I want to rush a military wonder like SunTzu's in 30 turns, I can build up my military strength over the next 20, and fight tons of battles over the last 10. You'd want to be able to plan for scientific leaders or religious leaders the same way.

Plus right now, I can get a GL this turn, rush a wonder, fight another battle this turn, get another GL, and rush a second wonder. I think you'd either have to up the percentage chance of getting a peaceful GL, or cripple the military percentages to even things out.

Timing of leader generation also becomes a problem. I can pop a military leader in any age. If you tie scientific leaders to research numbers, then it's possible you'll be more likely to get one later in the game then earlier (unless the ratio per age changes). If late game leaders are more probable, early game wonders of that type will be impossible to rush. That's another balance issue to think about.

I guess you could do most non-miltary leaders just based on output numbers.

Militaristic leaders -> Same battle based, maybe lower rate? (non-age dependent)

Scientific leaders -> Science output that turn / literacy rate / number of research buildings (all age dependent)

Religious leaders -> Number of happy people (?) / number of religious buildings (again age dependent)

Expansionistic leaders -> Perhaps % map explored / % total territory / being the first to reveal a square / being the first to map out a land mass / being the first to discover an uninhabited continent (strictly compared to other civs)

Commercial leaders -> Trade output or network / number of trades with other civs (first part age dependent)

Industrious leaders -> Total shield output / GNP ranking (age dependent)

Six different types of leaders, all able to rush normal production and small wonders but only able to rush their specific types of Great Wonders. I suppose you could link some small wonders to type leaders. Like you need a commercial leader (Alan G.?) before you can build Wall Street or the converse where building Wall Street increases your chances of generating a commercial leader. I don't know how many small wonders like this already exist or would have to be added though.

Naming them wouldn't be a problem though. Just start up a couple of threads asking for the great type of leaders. Sure you'll get people suggesting people like Ronnie as a GL, but you'd also get people suggesting say Henry Ford for an industrial GL.

 

[Emperor Scragg]

Great leaders are often just slightly above average people that have greatness thrust upon them in trying times. Look at "great leaders" in the past of mankind. People like Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill. All people who achieved the title of greatness during the course of human conflict.

Good leaders manage a society well in peacefull times and sometimes achieve great things. Great leaders LEAD nations in order to overcome threats to their very existence.

You can't manage armies into combat you must lead them. There is a big difference.

 

[hzm]

There could also be things like religious leaders. If you had enough culture a religious leader could randomly pop up. (If you think about it many religious leader were born in culturally rich nations like Jesus (Rome), Moses (Egypt), Buddha (India), etc…).

"(insert name) has been born in (insert city). He is bound for great things!"

 

[donsig]

I agree that there should be some type of peaceful and/or cultural great leader. There are many historical examples of non-war time 'great leaders'. Ghandi jumps to mind immediately. Ronald Reagan has been mentioned in an earlier post. (I never did agree with Ronnie's political philosophy but must admit he was a great leader.) FDR guiding the US through the Great Depression (before WWII) is another example.

Gamewise, I think there is a reason for having a non-military GL. IMHO the only way to build a useful Forbidden Palace is with a GL. By USEFUL I mean one in a city that loses all but one shileld to waste/corruption. One shield at a time takes 300(?) turns. A GL makes it in one. The second capital can make for twice as many productive cities and that can be a large factor in the game.

I'm beginning to think that it is imperative to conquer your first neighbors early, in order to get a GL and build the Forbidden Palace. From there it is quite easy to become a republic and continue to wage war or become peaceful. Without a peaceful way to build the second palace quickly it can be very difficult to play a complete game at peace.