leader strategies

embermage · February 2, 2002, 21:50

who has some good stratergies that always earns them a leader? i, for one, would like to hear because i never seen to get one...

Aeson · February 2, 2002, 22:59

Use Horse units almost exclusively for attacking, they survive most of the time, even when they lose. Protect your Elites for easy targets. Using a militaristic Civ with an early UU helps too, and stay at constant warfare throughout the game (or until you want to switch to Republic or Democracy). Use any leaders you get as soon as possible, using the first one to make an army so the heroic epic can be built. Large/Huge Pangaea games are perfect for generating lots of leaders. I can consistantly get 5-8 leaders per game playing this way, it takes lots of battles though.

Also if you dont mind saving/reloading to get leaders, fight only with veterans/regulars, saving before the battles. Then reload and use an Elite of the same type of unit to win any fights that the veteran/regular gets an upgrade from. There is a decent chance that a leader will be generated from that fight.

Dimension · February 3, 2002, 05:19

In my current game I just got my 11th leader in 980 AD (Aztecs, Monarch, standard size map, all standard settings except Raging Hordes). I've used 8 to rush wonders in my capital, 1 to build an army, and 2 to rush courthouses in distant cities.

Obviously the simple fact is that you generate leaders by winning battles with elite units. You have a basic 6.25% chance of generating leaders. That goes up to 8.33% if you are Militaristic or have the Heroic Epic. You have a 10-11% chance if you are both Militaristic and have the Heroic Epic.

Your leaders mostly come from Horsemen/Knights/Cavalry. You don't get many leaders from defensive units because the AI isn't usually stupid enough to attack a defender it can't kill. So, you build tons of Horsemen. You want a barracks in almost every city (or preferably Sun Tzu's). It is important to have every city making veteran units, but it is even more important that you can sustain a constant siege with a mid-sized army because you only need three groups of units (1 going to combat, 1 returning to the closest city, 1 being healed in a single turn). The best thing about being Militaristic isn't the extra 2% chance of getting a leader, it's the fact that all your units are elite after just one or two battles, and therefore almost every battle has the potential to make a leader. Don't go sending your units on suidice missions. Keep your elites alive. If they've been in one battle and lost one HP, return them to the nearest barracks. Don't keep them fighting till they die. The wonderful thing about your Horsemen/Knights/Cavalry is that they can retreat, so even if the enemy is fortified on a mountain, you can kill him without losing a single unit.

Your biggest opportunity to make leaders is when you get an offensive unit tech and then start a war with a civ that doesn't have it. If you have Horsemen and they don't, just beat the hell out of them building nothing but Horsemen. The same goes for Knights and Cavalry. You don't have to use much tact. Just run them down. The times you have to slow down and be careful is when you've both got the same units. These are good times to be in Republic/Democracy and focus on peaceful tech and trading.

For example, say every civ in the game now has Knights. You can't help losing some units if you keep fighting, but Cavalry is a ways off. You should probably be going straight for Gunpowder. Once you have that, even though you're still fighting Knights vs. Knights, it's a good time to start a war, because you want to control the Saltpeter before they get Cavalry. Then you can start using some strategy. Attack with your Knights, but keep fortified Musketmen on the front lines (preferably on hills). You can end your turns stacked with the Musketmen, so the AI can't pick off your damaged Knights. This becomes very effective once you get Cavalry, because when Cavalry fights Cavalry, the attacker wins, and you just need a fortified defender to end your turn on. If you're playing aggressively, you should be able to kill everyone pretty quickly once you get Cavalry -- at least your whole continent. By the time you get tanks, a lot of civilizations have either been destroyed or are reduced to almost nothing. You aren't getting as many leaders because there isn't as much fighting going on.

Remember to build a massive road network. Keep stealing workers and razing cities, and build roads on almost every square in your territory. As your troops advance, your workers should be pretty close behind building quick routes for them to get back to a Barracks. This is also a big help defensively, because you can put your whole army where the action is and still quickly get them to the other end of your empire if someone declares war on you. If you haven't already killed everybody, your biggest opportunity to beat up the AI and get some leaders comes when you get Steam Power. The AI is not very good at quickly setting up railroads, and the ability to concentrate your military and heal them quickly lets you cut right through the AI.

And about the AI declaring war on you... If you want to get a lot of leaders, you will definitely have to accept the fact that every single civ will always be "furious" with you. The only exception to that is if there are a few isolated ones that you don't have contact with. That's just the way Civ3 works, and I suppose it's obvious to most people pretty quick, but after playing Civ2 and SMAC a lot, I spent a long time trying to make everyone happy in Civ3. Well, that's pointless (unless you're playing OCC). Don't worry about the AI being furious. It doesn't actually mean much, and they'll still be perfectly happy making peace, trading luxuries, and forming military alliances with you even though they say they hate you and your advisors tell you they are liars and cheats.

The best thing about leaders is that they get you Ancient Era wonders on harder levels. It's ridiculous to miss getting The Pyramids or The Great Library because you used your 1st leader to build an army (so you could build the Heroic Epic). Building the Heroic Epic also takes several turns itself (unless you use another leader) just to slightly increase your chances of generating leaders. I never use a leader to make an army unless there are no available wonders.

On a side note, it's not very practical to tie up your capital's production throughout the game building wonders, but if you use leaders for all your wonders, you can easily put all the wonders in your capital, which will give it 100+ culture/turn and a culture win in the early 1900's if your domination or spaceship plans aren't going well.

When you get a leader, it is important to use it immediately. People have said they have gotten more than one leader at once, but it has been proven that your chances of getting a leader are much lower if you already have one. So, if you get a leader, rush a wonder with it that turn. At the very least, decide what city you want to build the wonder in, then rush that city's current production and rush the wonder next turn. If there are no wonders you can build, put together an army if you haven't built the Heroic Epic yet. If you've already done that, consider the placement of your palace and see if relocating it would boost your empire's production. If that's not the case, use it to rush the improvement that will take the most turns to complete (this will usually be a courthouse/university/cathedral in a new city). Only rush temples/libraries as a last resort, since those only take a few hundred gold. I can't stress how important it is to use leaders immediately if at all possible. The busiest part of a war (where half your offensive units are engaged) only lasts a couple turns, and if you use your leaders immediately you will find yourself getting multiple leaders in a turn sometimes.

embermage · February 3, 2002, 13:16

wow thanks guys.

vmxa1 · February 3, 2002, 14:57

Dimension, have you been watching my games? I do it just like you said. Don't sweat the furious, can not be avoided. Don't hold leaders for long (will hold for a few turns if a new wonders is coming from a tech or I am now going to peace for a while). Hold off on EPIC and army for awhile.

Dimension · February 3, 2002, 15:07

Yeah, I would definitely hold onto a leader if I was going to make peace for awhile and had a big wonder coming up. It just doesn't seem to work out that way very often, though.

For example, in the early game, you've generally got the tech to build a wonder as soon as you get a leader. I usually get Pyramids, then Sun Tzu's, then by the time I get a 3rd leader I've got Literature. After that, there's not much worth holding onto a leader for until you get to Theology. I'll usually get Chivalry before Theology, though, which means there is massive Knight fighting going on and I won't have to worry about saving a leader to build Sistine.

Pilfur · February 7, 2002, 23:32

I hate leaders. Leaders are the absolute worst problem with Civ3. Sorry guys, not like me to whine about these games, but is there any way to turn leaders off? And does the AI use leaders?

Leaders just force me to play a militaristic game when I'd rather play a more realistic peace/war balanced game. I like to have a reason to go to war, not just to hope for a leader.

Dimension · February 8, 2002, 02:49

Leaders are the worst problem with Civ3? I'd like to hear you explain that. I mean, of all the ridiculous things to whine about.

No, the AI does not get leaders. That means that if you want to "turn off" leaders, then all you have to do is forget they exist. If you get a leader, disband him. There you go. Leaders are effectively removed from the game entirely.

You have chosen to pick the single thing in the game that you can't possibly complain about, because Leaders are a free unit which the AI does not get.

Leaders aren't what force you to play a militaristic game. The simple fact is that the AI is very strong on harder levels, and you just have to crush your neighbors in Ancient Times to have much of a chance. Maybe you should be complaining about the ridiculous bonuses that the AI gets on Diety instead. Without massive Horseman rushing and getting leaders, you'll be lucky to get one or two of the ancient wonders.

So, if you want to complain, perhaps you should complain that the AI gets way too many bonuses on higher levels. Maybe you could argue that wonders are too hard to build. Leaders are not the problem -- they're actually a very good new aspect to the game that balances things out and can give you wonders you would never have a chance at otherwise. The most valid complaint is that Civ3 is difficult for strict builders, which is quite frustrating for people who did well in Civ2 and SMAC/SMAX with builder styles.

I've seen plenty people arguing that they never get leaders. I think that's a little odd, because even in my first builder games I've gotten a few.

In my current game, it is 1794 AD and I've gotten 20 leaders. They've built 14 wonders, 1 army, 3 courthouses, 1 was destroyed in combat immediately after being produced, and 1 is waiting to make SETI. I've been playing pretty aggressively, although I only have 26 cities and my current army consists of just 4 Transports, 4 Battleships, 16 Artillary, 32 Infantry, and 64 Tanks (with over 200 captured workers this game). Although everybody is "furious" with me, I am currently at peace with the three remaining AI's, and I have actually spent the majority of the game at peace. I would still consider myself a builder, as 14 of my cities have all possible improvements and are running Wealth, and the other 12 only have a couple things left to build.

Civ3 actually favors builders to a large degree. Enemies can't use your roads, and your borders increase with culture the more you build. This makes it very hard to take territory unless you have a huge tech lead and very superior units. You can't just be a builder, though. Look at any country's history. History is full of wars. Where do you live? Somebody had to fight for that land. The whole idea of a Civ game where you could get by peacefully in ancient times is asinine.

I love the way leaders encourage you to mix your playstyle. They make builders want to fight. They make fighters want to build. In my current game, I got into two wars to claim a big chunk of land for myself (I eventually had to totally destroy my two neighbors). After that I was mostly peaceful, and didn't fight anybody until I decided to exterminate the Egyptians since they were the most powerful civ and had a ton of culture. Those fights gave me enough leaders to build almost every wonder, though, and now I've got a capital with 17,000 culture making 100/turn, so I'm going to get a culture win from fighting.

Worthingtons · February 8, 2002, 03:05

I think i must have a record, that for every game I've played, My first leader has been destroyed

Piety · February 8, 2002, 07:06

The AI gets leaders!!

In my ongoing game I've had both Roman and American leaders wandering over my territory, returning from some far off victory

Piety

Dimension · February 8, 2002, 07:26

Really??? And does the AI make wonders with them when they get back?

Aeson · February 8, 2002, 08:12

I've never seen an AI leader, but I've seen lots of AI armies. I can't be sure that they've ever used a leader for a wonder though. Maybe this is how the AI often builds a wonder 1 turn before the player can finish it. It seems every time I'm beaten to a wonder that I should have gotten, it's by 1 turn.

Harovan · February 8, 2002, 09:54

I saw the AI Zulus making a leader yesterday, when they ambushed a wounded MechInf of mine with a tank. One turn later they had a new army (spy view), but I did not yet face it, so I can't say what they stuffed in.

SanPellegrino · February 8, 2002, 10:09

I saw a lot of AI Leaders, too. You can even see them in the military advisor screen, if you planted a spy. They make always armies with them (often very stupid, e.g.: one musketeer, 2 cavalry), one time I saw a persian leader which they spared over 50 turns, til the end of the game.

Harovan · February 8, 2002, 10:37

Yea, the AI stuffs really weird combinations of units in it's armies. I saw a Zulu army yesterday (before the mentioned leader) with a mixture of a cavalry (medieval), an infantry (industrial) and a swordsman (ancient) yesterday.

JohnE · February 8, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
Leaders are the worst problem with Civ3? I'd like to hear you explain that. I mean, of all the ridiculous things to whine about.

I think I know what he means.

Leaders aren't a problem, really, because they let you do really neat things. But they are an entirely artificial add-in to the game that gives an incentive for warfare. It seems really backwards to try explicitly to make the game revolve less around warfare, and throw this fly into the ointment. If the game has great leaders, why not great statesmen, artists, and etc? I get very few of them ( less than 3 per game despite having earned the nickname "Genghis John" for my hyperaggressive style ) but the bottom line is that they just don't make much sense.

Aeson · February 8, 2002, 22:32

I agree that warfare is already overpowered, even without great leaders. Waging a successful war gives a double chance at new wonders, capturing them or rushing with a leader. Not to mention the territory aquisition, disabling of the AI, and free workers.

Having a way to generate leaders (statesmen, artisians, inventors) during peacetime, like JohnE suggested, would be a great addition to the game.

Perhaps military leaders should only be able to rush military type wonders (Sun Tsu's, Lighthouse, Great Wall, Leo's, Magellans, Sufferage) and build armies.

Statesmen could have a chance to be generated based on how happy the AI were with the player. They would be able to rush political/administrative type wonders (Palace, Forbidden Palace, Adam Smiths, Collosus, UN) and buildings, perhaps even allowing for instant revolutions.

Artisians would be generated based on cultural value. They would be able to rush corresponding wonders (Hanging Gardens, Oracle, Michaelangelos, JS Bachs, Sistene, Shakespeares).

Inventors could be based on science rate, giving more reason to have it high instead of hording money and buying/trading techs. They could rush all of the scientific buildings and wonders (Copernicus', Great Library, Newtons, Cure for Cancer, Longevity, ToE, SETI, Manhattan Project), or be turned in for a free tech.

A couple of the wonders (Pyramids, Hoover Dam) don't really fit in those categories. The small wonders would be split up as well.

Pilfur · February 9, 2002, 03:09

It would balance the game out and make it far more interesting to play, good ideas. Especially for those of us who enjoy civ games more as a roleplaying experience than a war game.

Ironikinit · February 9, 2002, 06:57

I'm not seeing how the leader feature forces you into war. Encourages war, yes, but it doesn't force it. My last game I had one war. Although it was a pretty big war (the leader in points got whacked) and I had a lot of elites and can usually get several leaders in a game, I didn't get one that war. I was tempted to provoke a war with the English on principle and to try to get a leader to rush a palace in the new territory, but I wasn't forced to do it.

War is important. It's possible to win a game of civ without it. I've yet to do it. However, leaders are a bonus of war, not the aim.

It might seem like warmongers get all the breaks, but we have to push all those dang units around and it gets tiresome. Leaders provide excitement, for me at least.

Aeson · February 9, 2002, 08:00

Quote:

It might seem like warmongers get all the breaks, but we have to push all those dang units around and it gets tiresome. Leaders provide excitement, for me at least.

That's the whole point. Adding some excitement for everyone, not just in wartime situations.

Ironikinit · February 9, 2002, 09:42

OK, but the scenarios you suggest don't have the ingredients of the battle leader situation. The way it is now, you attempt to get a leader in a concrete way, you have a battle that is of consequence in itself. Then comes the random reinforcement of getting a leader.

Not that there's anything wrong with your suggestions. I enjoy the random element, I'm just saying that I don't see the excitement of getting a leader when you hit 20,000 culture points or whatever.

Further, a peace leader you get for doing what you might do anyway, building improvements, etc. Possibly they could be easier to get AND ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN NOT AT WAR but with a smaller reward. For instance, a scientist might give a free tech. That might save 40 turns or it might save one, and it overlaps the ToE, but it's a bit smaller than a wonder, which to me is quite sensible.

I'd also like it if random events favored those who've fallen behind. Obviously, the GreaLea as it is today doesn't really weak civs, but doesn't actively disfavor them. However, keep in mind that the militaristic attribute is generally considered one of the weaker ones. Personally, I favor it, but if other attributes begin to yield leaders, then militaristic is weakened.

Isn't this pretty much a moot point anyway? Fun to talk about, tho.

Taxidopolis · February 11, 2002, 09:58

Just to confirm that the AI does get leaders. Not too sure about the AI leaders being able to hurry wonder building...there was a hint of this in a recent game when I checked a civ to see how far it was getting on with building a wonder, continued building mine and then wham bang thank you mam the same AI civ has suddenly built the wonder. I put this down to it hitting a Golden Age. Can't check the game since it was the last tournament one and so wasn't saving anywhere.

One very annoying thing with armies...they can't pillage. Carefully snuck one behind enemy lines in my last game with the set intent of letting it pillage until destroyed, and it couldn't pillage. This was a scenario, is it the same for undiluted pure funky fun Civ III ?

On larger maps I'd think about saving a leader for rush building the Forbidden City. It's so important to plan for future expansion and reduce corruption in the expanded empire.

Taxi

JohnE · February 11, 2002, 14:22

Quote:

[SIZE=1] However, keep in mind that the militaristic attribute is generally considered one of the weaker ones. Personally, I favor it, but if other attributes begin to yield leaders, then militaristic is weakened.

Isn't this pretty much a moot point anyway? Fun to talk about, tho.

You're right, I hadn't thought about that. And yes, it is a fairly moot point.