Very Simple Change Involving Leaders

[elfstorm]

For a slightly different gaming experience try making the following small change to the game.

Simply create a scenario in which every Civ starts with a Settler and a Great Leader (as oppose to a worker).

You can do this in the General Settings section. Just change 2nd start unit from Worker to Leader.

It's just a little thing but it has some interesting side effects.
Firstly all the computer nations instantly build armies.
Then if you dont, either because you want a wonder quickly or because you're being clever and want to wait for Immortals (or something) the computer considers you militarily weak and threatens you.

It makes more a slightly more aggresive game and it solves the problem of great leaders never appearing. This way you will get one.

Try it, I found to be jolly good fun.

Appologies if someone else has already suggested this...

 

[Dutchman]

Nice tought, but I think it would be more fun to make a scenario where you can get a GL from goodyhuts, so not everybody gets a GL at the start, but maybe the expansionistic civ's are to strong then but hé, just play an expansionistic civ!!

 

[Optimizer]

The idea that you could get a Leader instead of a Worker seems great, but getting Leaders from huts might be a bit unbalancing.

 

[elfstorm]

I don't think you can set leaders to appear from goody huts can you?

Anyway I've played about 4 games starting with a great leader and in the long term it has little effect - other than you're certain to get the Heroic Epic and Military Acd, etc.

In the short term it makes things slightly more interesting. EG. When you go to war you've got to be constantly on the lookout for the enemies army and protect you're own until you've located and destroyed it.

It seems quite balanced. If you enjoy the combat side of Civ then you should definately try it.

 

[Madeira]

I think its a great idea!

 

[Kilroy]

The only problem is that if your army loses it's first battle, you're screwed. Of course a human player would have little problem with this, but in my experience about one-third of the AI players lose their army.

 

[elfstorm]

Agreed, thougth from the various games I've played this way it's not been a problem. Because of the sheer number of warriors the computer produces early on there's always something for an army to kill.

If a civ lost it's army straight away it would be in trouble, but then in any game one of two civs always do badly anyway.

It comes down to this: If you want more combat earlier give it a try. Personelly I only play this way now.