Duplicate leaders?

[Lord Parkin]

People, this was already decided quite a while ago. There's no need to keep posting votes and opinions on the matter.

With these settings in place, your team should now be able to finalize your choice of leader. We will be using Lord Parkin's suggestion of how to deal with duplicate leaders:

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.

Thus, your team will need to decide on two things: your leader pick(s), and are you OK with having duplicate leaders? If you are OK with having duplicate leaders, then you will simply get your first choice. No further discussion needed. If your team would prefer not to be playing a duplicate leader, you will need to come up with a top five list. Then, if a duplicate arises, you have the option of swapping to the next leader on your list. I hope that makes sense.

The deadline for picking your leader(s) will be Monday, November 24. Please also finalize your team name and any other appropriate nicknames/description by that date. Once I have all of that information, I will create the map and we will get started, hopefully around the end of next week. I will also post this same message in each team forum, for those who might miss it in the general forum.

Good luck!
- Sullla

 

[Indiansmoke]

Hi,
this is my first post here (apart from the post asking to register for a team).

May I suggest something that we do in multiplayer...it might be of soem use.

The ssytem is called reverse pick, with unrestricted leaders.

After a random draw teams get a pick order. So lets say team 1 picks first, team 5 second, team 4 third, team 2 fourth and team 3 fifth.

So team 1 picks civilization then team 5 picks civilization etc, until all teams have picked civilization. After all picked civilization the pick order is reversed and teh team who picked last civilization picks first leader etc.

This has 2 benefits.

First you have no dublicate leaders...
Second The team that picks the best civ will (ie picks first) will pick fifth a leader so it has no great advantage by picking first.

Also this makes choices quite strategical, so for example if you plan to take ragnar of rome and you pick first civ (ie picking rome) you might not be able to pick ragnar by the time it is your turn to pick a leader..

 

[oyzar]

Hi,
this is my first post here (apart from the post asking to register for a team).

May I suggest something that we do in multiplayer...it might be of soem use.

The ssytem is called reverse pick, with unrestricted leaders.

After a random draw teams get a pick order. So lets say team 1 picks first, team 5 second, team 4 third, team 2 fourth and team 3 fifth.

So team 1 picks civilization then team 5 picks civilization etc, until all teams have picked civilization. After all picked civilization the pick order is reversed and teh team who picked last civilization picks first leader etc.

This has 2 benefits.

First you have no dublicate leaders...
Second The team that picks the best civ will (ie picks first) will pick fifth a leader so it has no great advantage by picking first.

Also this makes choices quite strategical, so for example if you plan to take ragnar of rome and you pick first civ (ie picking rome) you might not be able to pick ragnar by the time it is your turn to pick a leader..

Unrestricted leaders are rather unbalanced though, and ragnar of rome is not really any worse than shaka or kublai or boudica of rome...

 

[Indiansmoke]

Unrestricted leaders are rather unbalanced though, and ragnar of rome is not really any worse than shaka or kublai or boudica of rome...

Personnaly I don't think (anymore) that rome is overpowered (even with aggressive leader).

I also think that in this kind of map 5 players on standard size it will be much more important to pick economic and developing traits than aggressive....but that is just me...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Indiansmoke - while that's certainly an interesting idea, at this stage we've already decided how we're going to pick the leaders, and the process has already begun. Going backwards and down a different route at this stage would delay us by a couple of weeks at least, which I don't think is sensible.

Besides, I don't think that many people are keen on unrestricted leaders. Personally, I prefer the original leaders for a game like this.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Indiansmoke - while that's certainly an interesting idea, at this stage we've already decided how we're going to pick the leaders, and the process has already begun. Going backwards and down a different route at this stage would delay us by a couple of weeks at least, which I don't think is sensible.

Besides, I don't think that many people are keen on unrestricted leaders. Personally, I prefer the original leaders for a game like this.

Ok...did not realize that the process has been detrmined...saw the thread and though this idea might be usefull.

 

[oyzar]

I also think that in this kind of map 5 players on standard size it will be much more important to pick economic and developing traits than aggressive....but that is just me...

You are certainly not alone thinking this ... However this is a discussion for the teams.

 

[Ronnie1]

I don't like the idea of duplicates. For all we know, we could wind up all picking the same leader! And that would just be weird.

If ALL the teams played the same leader....it would sure be easy to compare strategies after the game is complete.