Unrestricted Leaders?

[Lord Parkin]

It seems from this post that we are polling whether or not to have unrestricted leaders. With unrestricted leaders, you can have any civ with any leader, allowing for some potentially powerful combinations (such as Ragnar of Rome, where the Praetorians gain a free Combat I promotion).

So, what are everyone's thoughts? Personally, for me it depends on whether or not we have double civs. If we have double civs, I think we should stick with the default leader choices. If we only have one civ though, I'd be more inclined to allow unrestricted leaders for a bit of variation.

Thoughts?

 

[azzaman333]

I've always liked unrestricted leaders games.

 

[champinoman]

I agree with your thoughts LP, however am leaning away from double civs. I have never played with unrestricted leaders so I can only imagine the different ranges of strategy that go into picking a leader and civ separately. There could be some really good combinations depending on game strategy.

 

[fed1943]

Nothing against.
But how leaders-civs are choosed? May be used more than once? If not, some care needed not to
unbalance the game,IMO.

 

[AlphaShard]

I think it has been fun playing with Unrestricted leaders so I am up for it.

 

[Lord Parkin]

But how leaders-civs are choosed? May be used more than once? If not, some care needed not to
unbalance the game,IMO.

I presume we'll be using the same method of choosing as last time:

- Each team chooses several leaders and lists them in order of preference.
- If two or more teams share the same leader, the admins approach them and let them know, and give them the choice to change if they wish.
- At this point it is entirely down to the choice of the team: if they are happy playing with the same leader as another team, then they can keep their choice; if they want to switch to the next choice on their list that isn't doubling up with anyone, they can do that too.

For the record, I am all in favour of us keeping our leader even if someone else has the same one. No point in sabotaging ourselves just so some other team can get the benefits of a better leader and not us.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm squarely in the middle. Unrestricted on MP is ok since the personality aspects don't come into it. In SP you get schitzophrenic combinations like aggressive leaders who focus on buildings and defenders and pacifists who build tons of attack units but never declare war.

 

[Irgy]

I prefer the reduced confusion and slightly improved balance of restricted leaders. It means less things to have to think about and vote on. And it probably means more variety, people might take sub-optimal traits for a good UU/UB and vice versa.

On the whole I see unrestricted leaders as a way of increasing variety, and I see this game as enough of a unique (or at least unusual) experience already that we don't need to come up with other new ways of increasing variety. One thing at a time.

With restricted leaders, I'd prefer no two of the same civ allowed at all. If it was allowed though, then I agree with Lord Parkin, why should we be the ones that have to change.

With unrestricted leaders though we're really just picking two traits and a UU, and so allowing duplicates seems much more reasonable.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Out of interest, I had a bit of a think about what some of the best cominations for this type of game might be if we end up having unrestricted leaders. Ragnar of Rome is kind of neat, but I'm not sure that Praetorians will see much use in this type of game (they're just a little early if distances are large, though they'd be almost unstoppable if you could get them to the front in time).

I think overall probably Hannibal has the most powerful trait combo for this game if it's unrestricted leaders (Financial/Charismatic), since both traits give great benefits across the whole game. Pairing him with a civ like Egypt would be really neat, since the traits synergise well with the UU (faster promotions for War Chariots) and UB (+1 happiness for Obelisks). You could also pair him quite well with Ethiopia, giving +1 happiness for the Stele as well as allowing cheaper promotions on the already insanely promoted Oromo Warriors. Another interesting choice would be to pair him with Byzantium, which has a very powerful UU at arguably the most critical point in the game (12 strength Knights) which would only be made more powerful by the cheaper promotions - and the UB is not bad either. Or Holy Rome, which has a brilliant UB and a decent UU, but has always suffered from Charlemagne's less than desirable trait combination.

I'm sure there are other good possibilities too, and I'd be interested to hear any thoughts that other people have. Personally I'm quite liking the idea of being Financial/Charismatic and then hand-picking our UU/UB/starting techs to suit, assuming we go with unrestricted leaders.

 

[azzaman333]

You can't go wrong if you're playing as the Inca (except for the whole Mysticism as a starting tech thing which annoys the crap out of me).

 

[Lord Parkin]

True, the Incan UB is pretty decent. The UU is not exactly that useful though, apart from military police. And as I've mentioned in the other thread, I don't think Mysticism is necessarily bad (although other techs are sometimes more useful to have).

 

[Allan79]

I have never played with unrestricted leaders as I prefer historical accuracy to some extent. But could be fun in a mp game. How bout joao and Indian. building an empire faster. Size matters in civ.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I believe Joao of Inca is the oft-cited expansion powerhouse in unrestricted leaders. Double production on Terraces, Quechas for cheap and decent early defence, as well as production bonuses to both Workers and Settlers. Lacking any economic or military bonuses, though, which probably makes it less ideal for a long-haul demogame like this.

 

[pindicator]

I like your idea Lord Parkin: unrestricted if it's 1 civ and restricted if it's 2. There are some neat combinations to do with unrestricted, but I imagine unrestricted with 2 civs would just be ridiculous.

 

[Methos]

I have no experience with unrestricted leaders, but my opinion is against it.

 

[AlphaShard]

Unrestricted can be a fun experience I think, so I am for it. Plus it will shake things up some more.

 

[BLubmuz]

No restrictions for me...

i just suggest 2 different leaders... my favourite is Darius and he can nicely pair with Ramses if we don't need to be warmongers early.

 

[grant2004]

I like unrestricted leaders, but in the multiplayer games I've played it has actually resulted in reduced varriability. Not having to choose between a civ with a good UU/UB or good leader traits means that only the civs with good buildings and units will be selected and only leaders with good traits will be.

I could go either way on it and be happy.

 

[Lord Parkin]

That's a good point... the field of potential leaders and civs will be narrowed down to just the ones with the optimum traits and the ones with the optimum UU's/UB's. So in that sense it'll probably make leader picks a bit more predictable.

 

[AlphaShard]

I dunno know about that in most of the MP games I have done that have had Unrestricted I have seen a wide variety and not once I have I seen the overpowered Boudica or Rome or Lincoln of Egypt.

I mean even the poll shows that most Traits are liked, with Protective being least like, I think it's a condition of this game that Agg got no votes as well. Mostly since were planing on being peaceful mostly. At least no early wars anyways.

I don't know that there really is a BEST Trait/Civ combo since so many CAN win. It all depends on the player.