 |
|
djafrot
|
|
I only seem to get leaders from battles that are difficult. Is this just my imagination? I've also heard that the odds are something like 1 in 12, but there's no way this can be true (at least from my games).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
People often complain about leader odds, the difficult battle thing is not true tho.
The odds are 1/16
increased to 1/12 for a militaristic civ
increased further for a civ with Heroic Epic
I know they seem rare, i only have ONE in my current modern age game with England, which is dissapointing, but they are possible. In a game with Rome, i got 20(twenty) GL's in a game which didnt even reach the modern age.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
Sorry for the mis-info then, although i was almost certain that it increased the leader odds. When I was playing the game with Rome, where i got 20 leaders, i can assure you it happened a lot more often than 1 in every 12 battles, must have been luck.
Cheers
Matt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
djafrot
|
|
1 out of 16, huh? There must be some other variable, because in this game I must have knocked off at least 100 dug-in infantry with my tanks, and only got one the whole game. Playing the aztecs, too.
Oh well... it's stealth bomber time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
I was having the same problem, so I decided to conduct an experiment.
Japan, Pangea, Sedentary Barbs.
The entire goal of the game was to get 5 leaders.
Seemed impossible to me, as I usually get 0, 1, or 2(wow!).
Anyway, if you want leaders, you have to make them a priority. I got 4 before Military Tradition...
...but that was my entire goal. I didn't care about culture - well, not any more than was needed to hold my own cities - I didn't care about Wonders(except Sun Tzu's, which actually helps with leaders peripherally), and I didn't care about winning.
As such, my empire was a mess by the time I was done, but I got my leaders, experiment was a success.
If you focus on getting them, you can.
Just remember that any given Elite victory has a distinct and unrelated-to-any-other-factor chance of 6.25% to generate a leader. It doesn't matter if you have had 1 elite victory or 100, each chance is distinct.
You can maximize the odds, though, by having lots of Elite victories.
Also, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that 1/16 (6%) is the chance for an offensive elite victory and that defensive victories actually have even lower odds.
Go to the Strategy forum and check out "Getting the Most out of your Elites" by (I think) Theseus. It's a really good thread with good info on leader generation and other stuff.
HTH
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tiberius
1/16 for victorious elite units. These are your chances, which means you can get 3 leaders in a row if you are lucky or don't get any if you are very unlucky.
(It's like rolling dice: you have 1/6 chances to get a 6, yet sometimes you get several in a row, while some other time none; imagine now a die with 16 sides ) |
Yep. DnD dies always made my head spin. I always play a Militaristic Civ, so I can assure everyone I've never had a problem getting GLs. There's just no way they can adjust the odds to be better, because it would be way too unbalancing. As it is I always end up building 1/2 the Wonders with leaders anyways. You just never know when you're going to get the leaders... It just so happens that I built every IA wonder with GLs as the Celts, and a few more to boot.
Now the one thing I have noticed is that you can never have two GLs simultaneously existing in your Civ at any one time. You can, however, get more than one GL per turn if you use one of them up before you start fighting again (which I've done a couple times). I tested my theory out last game when I kept one of my GLs through the late IA and the rest of the game, and I guarantee I would've gotten another one if I had used him up (because I proceed to conquer 3/4 of the world with Domination turned off, and as the Germans).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
Yeah, only 1 leader at a time.
1/16 on attack, 1/32 on defense - 1/12, 1/24 with the HE. Difficulty of battles has no effect. It's all about the RNG. Sometimes it's nice to you. Sometimes it's not.
I played back-to-back games as the Celts recently (well, I finished the first one and have put the other on indefinite hold). The first game generated 4 leaders by the early middle ages (army, sun tzu, sistine, leo) and several more later on. Suffice it to say I did rather well in that one. The second game generated 2 by the early middle ages, but that second one was REALLY hard to come by (I had again used the first for an army). Result: I have an optimal Palace/FP setup, but have lost Sun Tzu, will lose the Sistine, and probably Leo's. Great Library was built on the other continent (in game #1, I captured that from a neighbor).
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
djafrot
|
|
oh for cryin' out loud... if I'd known you could only have one leader at a time that would make a lot of difference. I usually try and stash the suckers for a time of good use.
Good to know.
Maybe a good strategy for generating GL's would be to set the barbarian ratings high and sit there waiting for them with your elite units. Has anyone tried this? I'm also assuming the high numbers of barbarians would beat down the other civ's.
A seperate question: does the AI adjust for the world type and # of civ's?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by djafrot
Maybe a good strategy for generating GL's would be to set the barbarian ratings high and sit there waiting for them with your elite units. Has anyone tried this? I'm also assuming the high numbers of barbarians would beat down the other civ's.
A seperate question: does the AI adjust for the world type and # of civ's? |
Actually barbarians are pretty much non-threatening in Civ3, vs. the previous Civ games. They never really do much of anything to either you or the AI. I always set it on Raging Horde, or whatever the equivalent in Civ 3 is. But they're nothing more than a nuisance at best.
I don't know if the AI adjusts for the world size and # of Civs. But I always play on a random, huge map with 16 Civs on Emperor (Deity is coming soon), and I can tell you that that in itself helps to generate a lot of leaders.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Explorer579
|
|
Chicago
May 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
It is frurstraing to make leaders! I can play 3 games before seeing one (and yes I have lot of elite units with many winning battles). I do not play militaristic usually. So it is odd that only militaristic societies get leaders. Ghandy was a leader and Christ was a leader, yet they did not engage in warfare.
I do not like leaders. They make armys, which are ususally useless. ( I would rather attack with 3 swordsmen then attack with 3 swordsmen stacked in an army unit).
Or leaders finish a wonder. Yeah, immgine sacrificing a pharoh to finish the pyramids. How realistic!
I am going to see if I can use the editor to turn leaders off!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Explorer579
I do not like leaders. They make armys, which are ususally useless. ( I would rather attack with 3 swordsmen then attack with 3 swordsmen stacked in an army unit).
|
I have to disagree on your assessment of GLs. I find them crucial in the following situations:
1. Building Wonders on Emperor and Deity.
2. Building MI modern armies, which are amazing on defense.
3. Building MA modern armies, which are awesome to crack tough MI defenders.
4. Building ancient armies as deterrents to AI expansion.
I'd say number 1 is most important. There's almost no way to keep up with the AI wonder building on higher levels without GLs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Explorer579
I do not like leaders. They make armys, which are ususally useless. ( I would rather attack with 3 swordsmen then attack with 3 swordsmen stacked in an army unit).
Or leaders finish a wonder. Yeah, immgine sacrificing a pharoh to finish the pyramids. How realistic!
I am going to see if I can use the editor to turn leaders off! |
Very bad luck, I guess as I have never had a game that did not get a leader or 2, even when non military civ.
Armies are not useless, that is just a fact. You may not care for them and that is fine. To say that are useless does not stand up to scrutiny. Consider the case you mentioned. The swords attack individually. They could lose each and everyone, without killing the unit they atacked. If they are vets they have 4 HP each. That mean only four rolls are required to beat them. If in an army they have 12 HP. I presume you are not attacking a unit that they can not hope to beat, so they now need 12 rolls to win, before the army get its 4 or 5 rolls. Say it is an elite pike. The pike could win in either case, but I do not like its chance against the army.
As to the hurry build, it is just a contrivance for the game, not mean to be raionalized, just used.
Armies are very handy for cracking cities with infantry. If you now the Pentagon, you will have 4 members in that army. Likely used elies, so 20 HP's. Makes taking down that dug in unit, much safer. (Yes I know about combined arms, but that is out side of he scope of this issue).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|