What does "fair" have to do with it? If you're talking "fair", then Praetorians are out to begin with - I can't recall a single player who doesn't agree they are overpowered. But "fair" has nothing to do with "cheating".
Of course it does.
As soon as you're twisting the original rules to your advantage, it is not fair and you're dangerously going down the slope to being a cheater (read the last part of this long post, I wrote my personal continuum from a 100% fair game toward a cheat).
If you use the world builder to add troups, ressources, etc., or if you reload when you lose battles, you are abusing the game option to get unfair advantages. You are cheating.
Unrestricted leader is not like using the worldbuilder, but it is not so far.
what do you mean, "not designed to be played that way"?
The fact that it is a late addition-option to an already established game.
So don't tell me that:
Whether it was in any previous version is irrelevant to the fact that it IS in this version. And not as a player mod, but put there purposefully by the game's creators.
In the history of CIV, unrestricted leader is a marginal option, added very late to satisfy certain kind of players. It is not the recommended setting if you want to experience CIV4 as it was meant to be from the start.
Do you get it? It is just a flavor option. Something to add some spice on an already established game mechanic. This original (and warlord) game mechanic didn't permit Unrestricted leader. The game mechanic of CIV4 WAS NOT DESIGNED WITH THIS OPTION IN MIND.
Therefore, this is not the default and normal settings. This is not how you test the balance of a combo like Ind/phi. You test that balance with default setting (that is the original issue here, you remember?)
As to how the game "should be played", how arrogant a statement is that? Are you suggesting that you alone determine how the game should be played? That some how your opinion is more valid than mine, or even the developers?
I'm suggesting that CIV4 Vanilla and Civ4 Warlord are good indicators as to how the designers wanted us to play the game. I base my observation on how the game "should be played" on their design.
Therefore, I repeat Unrestricted leader is a late addition, a flavor option, a marginal option. It doesn't represent the average Civ4 game.
To make things clear in your mind, if anyone wanted to show someone how Civ4 games are usually played (on the average), he would be well advised to use the leaders and civilization as they were originally intended (each leader with its civilization). Otherwise, it wouldn't be representative of how most games are played.
Would you have a guy play a one city challenge or an always peace or always war game to show him how CIV4 usually works. Of course you would not. These are marginal option to add new flavors to the game. They do not rerpesent the game very well, just like Unrestricted leader doesn't represent CIV4 very well.
Another thing which proves my point, if you select "play now" instead of "custom games", all these marginal options are not available. Why do you think this "play now" with fewer marginal option even exists? This clearly tells us, "here is how the normal gaming experience of CIV4 should be played.
Want another proof?
It is well known that any new features (espionage, corporation, etc) added by Firaxis on BTS were FIRST tested for the NORMAL speed first and then tested for other speed. This lead to mistakes and unbalance on marathon (poison water anyone?)
The closer you get to the normal and default setting, the closer you get to how the game was FIRST designed, the closer you will experience the game "as it was originally meant to be played".
Now, if you want to test the balance of Ind/phi, you should first test it with the default setting. Hence my comment about how it "should be played".
No, I'm not joking. Fractal maps are selectable via the Custom game screen. Aggressive AI is selectable via the Custom game screen. Unrestricted Leaders is selectable via the Custom game screen. Therefore, they are all equivalent in terms of acceptable game choices.
I already told you the difference. Aggressive AI applies to every player/AI, fractal map applies to every player/AI.
Unrestricted leader's advantage is only for the player to grab... Don't tell me you can't understand the difference!!!
Again, so what? Many things have the potential to allow great things for the player. Or are you suggesting that if I happen to start a map with 3 gold mines in my BFC, I'm somehow cheating because I have an advantage?
Don't you see the difference between
choosing and getting an advantage through
random generation.
The 3 golds you're talking about were randomly attributed to you. Random is fair, because all players/AI are submitted to it. If you got 3 gold, maybe another AI got both marble and stone or maybe another guy got another good ressources.
The point is you didn't chose the three golds. Random generation did it for you. Chosing an overly advantageous Leader/civ combo is an advantage you CHOSE. The AI doesn't get the same ability to CHOOSE his "advantageous combo". Do you see how this choice you decide to get through unrestricted leader can lead to cheating?
Unrestricted leader (UL) permits the player to decide if he wants to grab an unfair advantage over the AI.
Wait, after all that above, suddenly you've done a 180? "It's cheating, it's cheating, it's cheating. Well, ok, no, it's not really cheating".
Divinding my sentences in little tid bits ends up diminishing the context and the meaning of my text.
If you read the whole paragraph you'll understand my position. It is not an 180 and you know it. It is called nuance.
Ever heard of this word, NUANCE.
BTW, If you read my original post on this, you'll notice that I said UL was "kind of a cheat".
Nuance, my friend, nuance is the key here
Right, we're back to "if the player has a choice, it must be cheating!" Tell me this - do the AI get to pick which Civ they play? Which leader they play? No? Then you must be cheating when you choose your leader! You nasty cheater you!
Actually, I often use the random generator to choose which civ and leader I'll be playing. Try it. It is fun, you really don't know what you'll get. I do it with all kinds of feature. Not knowing which kind of maps you are on is also quite fun. It adds surprises.
Now to be more on your point:
NUANCE again is the key here, because whether or not a choice is cheating
idepends of the choice
Using the WORLDBUILDER is a choice is it not? Still it's cheating.
Now on choosing your own leader (which I often do), since the normal leader civilization combos were designed by Firaxis, you can reasonably assume that they respect a certain standard of balance. No leader is completely and overly more powerful than the others.
For instance, Boudica, the best warmonger combo of all, has a lower than average UU...
The Roman leaders don't have the aggressive trait and their UB.
etc.
Of course, they are not all the same, some are better than the others, but none gives an overly advantage over ALL other leader.
Even if you taking Fin/org or Fin/phi, which are considered some of the best combos out there, you're definitely not getting any player-created artificial advantage that was not originally designed by Firaxis.
Right, so when I beeline Machinery, because I'm trying to "deliberately accumulate an artificial advantage", I'm cheating? Because the AI can't do it, so I shouldn't!
Beelining machinery is not an "artificial advantage". You didn't change the game mechanics to get it.
You just chose this particular strategy. It's a simple choice during the course of the game. A choice available to all players/AI.
You really don't see a difference between an artificially created advantage and a strategy?
It's funny how often you keep coming back to Boudica of the Romans. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it just happens to be a very powerful combination? And maybe that has something to do with the fact that the Roman UU is overpowered?
It has to do with the fact that it is obviously the most easily identifiable absurd combination a player can come up with. It is absurdly more powerful than the others.
Praetorian is already considered overpowered and unbalanced by many. Adding Boudica on top of it is clearly going beyond the threshold between getting advantages and cheating.
A Roman Boudica is clearly the best illustration as to why Unrestricted leader can giver unfair advantages to player. It is the best illustration of why Unrestricted leader is "kind of a cheat".
There is also the fact that I don't use unrestricted leader. Therefore, I don't know all the wicked artificial combo a player can come up with if he starts looking for it.
Just answer this question: if you were to lose a war against Boudican Praetorian in a multiplayer game, would you feel like you just played a fair game? Do you think the winner has any merit for his win? Do you think this player is just as good as another who would have just defeated you with Gandhi?
You really need to make up your mind. So now if something is unbalanced, it's cheating? So since the original Russian UU in vanilla was considered unbalanced, I was cheating every time I played the Russians? Or the fact the Praetorian is unbalanced means I'm cheating every time I play the Romans?
Nuance, my friend, nuance.
Something that is unbalanced can
lead to cheating. Ever heard of the word
exploit.
The whole question in the end is when does an advantage becomes a cheat. I think their is a continuum that goes like this
playing with everything on random [no advantages of any kind], chosing a designed by firaxis advantage [simply chosing the map is a slight advantage on the AI, but it can also be chosing your leader based on your play style or on your taste at the moment], deliberately choosing a rather unbalanced advantage designed by Firaxis [vanilla Cossaks, Praetorians], a player created advantage [through toying with the usual options: taking Wilhelm and playing on Archipelago], a player created advantage through toying with marginal options like unrestricted leader, reloading during the game to alter the course of known events, and finally using the world builder.
For me the last two are clear cheats, while the one just before [the one with unrestricted leader] is quite close to cheating: "kind of a cheat"
That is my opinion, based on the fact that the game was not designed to permit these kind of advantages, advantages that go far beyond the ones originally intended.
For my part, I accept the fact that some Leaders or civ can make the game a bit easier to win. If the only reason a player can win on a certain level is by choosing a civ like the Romans or by playing with the original Russian Cossaks, then, yes, it gets close to cheating.
), continuing the "cheating" discussion is off-topic for this thread, so I've removed my arguments. Suffice it to say that UnspokenRequest didn't convince me of his/her viewpoint. 
