Civ3: Ranking the Civ traits
Code Monkey
ranking of the civ traits:
1. Commercial. I love Commercial. More money means more research and
bigger armies. The lowered corruption doesn't hurt. Properly played,
you can use the Commercial trait to come back from the slowest start
because once you get your economic machine started you can become an
unstoppable force through wheeling and dealing.
2. Religious. There are two things that make Religious an awesome trait.
First, you only miss one turn for changing governments, that can really
make a difference in tight races. It gives your civ the freedom to
switch governments as needed depending on the situation; e.g. declare
"martial law" (communism) during an extended military campaign if the war
weariness is out of hand and almost instantly switch back to democracy
when the war is over. Second, cheap religious structures rule because
they generate both culture and happiness. Makes keeping the populace
happy (or pacifying a conquered populace) so much easier.
3. Industrious. The extra shields is only nice, but the faster workers
in the early game can make a big difference if you like to micromanage
them for maximal effect. Even though the shield bonus doesn't really
compete with commercial, extra production is never something to sneeze at
either.
4. Scientific. Cheap scientific structures help with the culture boost
and the free tech is decent. Still, it's not very good compared to say
Religious or Commercial. Religious structures generate both happiness
and culture, and a well run Commercial civ can out research the
Scientific civ any day of the week.
5. Militaristic. Now we're getting down to the crap. If you're going
for conquest this probably is an OK tech. Otherwise, it's purely wasted.
Barracks don't cost that much to begin with and coastal fortresses are of
dubious value next to just sticking some artillery in the city. Since
anyone can get barracks and start their units at Veteran, the fast
experience gain is also of dubious value. If playing agressive, it can
make a big difference in the early game, but its utility is definitely
watered down as the game progresses. Since my experience of early game
wars has been bad, I put this one near the bottom.
6. Expansionist. I hate this trait, it's purely a crapshoot. If you can
find lots of goody huts and quickly make contact with lots of civs, it
can be a great way to jump start your civ. OTOH, miss out on finding a
lot of goody huts or not make contact quickly enough and it will be a
complete waste of a trait. Worse, once outside of the ancient era, it
does absolutely nothing.
LarryLard
news:156fcaae8bec88bb...@meganetnews.com...
> Based upon my playstyle and ingame experiences, here's my thoughts on and
> ranking of the civ traits:
> 2. Religious. There are two things that make Religious an awesome trait.
> First, you only miss one turn for changing governments, that can really
> make a difference in tight races. It gives your civ the freedom to
> switch governments as needed depending on the situation; e.g. declare
> "martial law" (communism) during an extended military campaign if the war
> weariness is out of hand and almost instantly switch back to democracy
> when the war is over.
Absolutely. I love this one, especially as otherwise inter-regnum times seem
to be much increased over Civ 2. Going to a war footing (Monarchy) in a
Regent game (haven't won one yet :() as the Zulus, I noticed that I seemed
to have been in Anarchy for ages; checking F1 told me I had another five
turns to wait (would be nice if this info was on main screen in bottom-right
info box). I'm sure it didn't used to take that long.
--
Larry Lard. Replies to group please.
Ex Mudder
> ranking of the civ traits:
I don't have the game, and am waiting for it to be serious patched
before I get it - I'm not going to pay $50 to participate in a public
Beta. Could someone post the details of the 6 civ specific
attributes?
>
> 1. Commercial.
How much free commerce and when?
How much is corruption reduced?
Is starting with Alphabet all that useful?
>
> 2. Religious.
How long does anarcy normally take?
Which structures are half price? (Temple, Cathedral?)
How useful is starting with Ceremonial Burial?
>
> 3. Industrious.
How much faster do workers work?
How many more shields and when?
How useful is starting with Masonry?
>
> 4. Scientific.
Which structures are half price? (Library, University, Research
Lab?)
How many free tech advances? 3 or 4?
How useful is starting with Bronze Working?
>
> 5. Militaristic.
How much more likely is a promotion? And does that mean Great
Leaders happen more often?
How many structures are half price? (barracks, coastal fortress,
walls, harbor, airport?)
How useful is starting with Warrior Code / The Wheel - and which do
you start with?
>
> 6. Expansionist.
How much better are the goodie huts? Could someone play a few games
and keep track of what they get under expansionist and whet they get
when they're not playing expansionist?
How useful are the Scouts? Is it worth building more?
How useful is it to start with Pottery?
On another note, anyone think "Printing Press" is more appropriate
for cancelling the effect of the Great Library than "Education" is?
Code Monkey
> before I get it - I'm not going to pay $50 to participate in a public
> Beta. Could someone post the details of the 6 civ specific
> attributes?
>
I will simply answer as best I know: who the heck knows the specifics for
many of these effects? It isn't documented anywhere and I'm not going to
spend my time doing comparison tests for someone who's going to spout
beta nonsense. The game has only about 2 confirmed bugs, neither of
which are very significant (air superiority missions don't trigger
properly against bombers and there is an integer overflow bug in gold per
turn with the AI that will let you demand millions and the AI agrees).
Anything else is a lack of polish to the interface or whining about
intentional game design choices the poster doesn't like. I'd be mad
crazy if every game I bought played this well out of the box.
That said, from trying them out, I'd dare say that the bonuses appear to
be about 50% more or faster than the normal for a city (or unit) of that
size. It's more, what more do you need to know? It's not like there's a
choice of traits that influence commerce or corruption lowering.
Some specific answers:
> Is starting with Alphabet all that useful?
Not particularly other than that you can trade it to another civ for
something else.
> How long does anarcy normally take?
I don't know if it varies according to total culture or difficulty level,
but it takes somewhere between 5-10 turns for a non religious society.
> Which structures are half price? (Temple, Cathedral?)
Exactly
> How useful is starting with Ceremonial Burial?
Quite, it lets you build temples as soon as you get other cities up and
running which lets you expand your borders quickly (starting research is
about 32 turns a tech, trading tech is a must to get going quickly).
> How useful is starting with Masonry?
Eh, you can build walls, but it's more important for trading it.
> Which structures are half price? (Library, University, Research
> Lab?)
Exactly
> How many free tech advances? 3 or 4?
It's only 3, one at the beginning of each era after ancient
> How useful is starting with Bronze Working?
Very. You can start with spearmen which never become obsolete because
they are upgradeable throughout the ages. Second, you can leap into
researching ironworking which is one of the most important techs because
it lets you see where the iron is which is essential for a strong civ.
No iron and you will probably be sacked by raging hordes of swordsmen
when the best thing you can field is an archer.
> How much more likely is a promotion? And does that mean Great
> Leaders happen more often?
See my "it looks to be about 50% more likely" bit above for promotion
rates. Great Leaders don't seem to be affected by militaristic but if
you're using your civ to its full potential you'll see them more just
because you'll have more elite units involved in more combats.
> How many structures are half price? (barracks, coastal fortress,
> walls, harbor, airport?)
It doesn't affect harbor or airport because they are considered
commercial structures.
> How useful is starting with Warrior Code / The Wheel - and which do
> you start with?
It's warrior code (no one starts with the wheel because that would let
you see horses from turn 1). It's not the greatest but you can build
archers instead of warriors which is sort of a good thing.
> How much better are the goodie huts? Could someone play a few games
> and keep track of what they get under expansionist and whet they get
> when they're not playing expansionist?
You frequently get settlers from huts when expansionist while at best you
get a free tech if not expansionist.
> How useful are the Scouts? Is it worth building more?
I think the scouts could be useful on a large or huge map, on standard or
smaller they're useless. You will run into your neighbor (who will have
already scooped up all the goody huts) very quickly in the game and you
can trade for communications with other civs easier than walking all over
the place and risking pissing off some other civ.
> How useful is it to start with Pottery?
Only so-so, the granary isn't something you can really afford to build
off the bat and you can almost always trade for it by the time you get
production up to a level that makes building it reasonable.
AcK!
>1. Commercial. I love Commercial. More money means more research and
>bigger armies. The lowered corruption doesn't hurt. Properly played,
I'm playing Greece, but the corruption is atrocious... I shudder to think what
the game would've been like with the same situation, but a non-commercial
civilization...
>2. Religious. There are two things that make Religious an awesome trait.
<snip>
Agreed.
>6. Expansionist. I hate this trait, it's purely a crapshoot. If you can
>find lots of goody huts and quickly make contact with lots of civs, it
>can be a great way to jump start your civ. OTOH, miss out on finding a
>lot of goody huts or not make contact quickly enough and it will be a
>complete waste of a trait. Worse, once outside of the ancient era, it
>does absolutely nothing.
Better for small maps with early wars then, eh?
It's up to your gameplaying style, I suppose...
TTYL
... God must love stupid people; He made so many.
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
R. Cohen
I've only played a few of these, but here are my impressions so far.
> Based upon my playstyle and ingame experiences, here's my thoughts on and
> ranking of the civ traits:
>
> 1. Commercial. I love Commercial. More money means more research and
> bigger armies. The lowered corruption doesn't hurt. Properly played,
> you can use the Commercial trait to come back from the slowest start
> because once you get your economic machine started you can become an
> unstoppable force through wheeling and dealing.
>
This is a quiet skill for me. It seems like an obvious favorite but
there are so many other mechanisms to make money for your civ.
>
> 2. Religious. There are two things that make Religious an awesome trait.
> First, you only miss one turn for changing governments, that can really
> make a difference in tight races. It gives your civ the freedom to
> switch governments as needed depending on the situation; e.g. declare
> "martial law" (communism) during an extended military campaign if the war
> weariness is out of hand and almost instantly switch back to democracy
> when the war is over. Second, cheap religious structures rule because
> they generate both culture and happiness. Makes keeping the populace
> happy (or pacifying a conquered populace) so much easier.
>
I agree, anarchy is so painful in this game, it's such a pleasure to
be able to switch in 1 turn!!!! And the cheaper religous structures
are "always" important.
>
> 3. Industrious. The extra shields is only nice, but the faster workers
> in the early game can make a big difference if you like to micromanage
> them for maximal effect. Even though the shield bonus doesn't really
> compete with commercial, extra production is never something to sneeze at
> either.
>
I'd put this one higher imo, half the game is building items as fast
as possible and maximizing industrial output. Especially now that
wonders are so hard to build.
>
> 4. Scientific. Cheap scientific structures help with the culture boost
> and the free tech is decent. Still, it's not very good compared to say
> Religious or Commercial. Religious structures generate both happiness
> and culture, and a well run Commercial civ can out research the
> Scientific civ any day of the week.
>
I have a weakness for this one as my favorite. Building bigger and
better technology has always been mainstays of this game. I really
like the extra technology per epoch change.
>
> 5. Militaristic. Now we're getting down to the crap. If you're going
> for conquest this probably is an OK tech. Otherwise, it's purely wasted.
> Barracks don't cost that much to begin with and coastal fortresses are of
> dubious value next to just sticking some artillery in the city. Since
> anyone can get barracks and start their units at Veteran, the fast
> experience gain is also of dubious value. If playing agressive, it can
> make a big difference in the early game, but its utility is definitely
> watered down as the game progresses. Since my experience of early game
> wars has been bad, I put this one near the bottom.
>
>
It's hard to say, I've never played with this trait, but it seem
redundant.
> 6. Expansionist. I hate this trait, it's purely a crapshoot. If you can
> find lots of goody huts and quickly make contact with lots of civs, it
> can be a great way to jump start your civ. OTOH, miss out on finding a
> lot of goody huts or not make contact quickly enough and it will be a
> complete waste of a trait. Worse, once outside of the ancient era, it
> does absolutely nothing.
Yes, it seems of dubious use.
Deep Avali
<codem...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Based upon my playstyle and ingame experiences, here's my thoughts on and
>ranking of the civ traits:
>
I like to de-select "Allow Civ-Specific Abilities" during game setup.
Makes for a more even game, and like you said some of the advantages
greatly outweigh the others.
It would seem to follow that some civs are weaker (Militaristic,
Expansionist = Zulu), and some are stronger (Commercial, Religious =
India).
Code Monkey
says...
Not a fan of SMAC then? I wouldn't have even picked this up without the
civ specific traits - it adds a LOT to playing with the AI (albeit less
than SMAC did).
I can still remember the shudder that would run through me every time I
spotted the orange of Miriam in SMAC, "ooh, that bitch!"
It's cool knowing that a certain civ will tend to respond to another civ
in "personal" way. Beats the hell out of playing 7 borg clones.
Deep Avali
>> >ranking of the civ traits:
>> >
>>
>> I like to de-select "Allow Civ-Specific Abilities" during game setup.
>> Makes for a more even game, and like you said some of the advantages
>> greatly outweigh the others.
>>
>> It would seem to follow that some civs are weaker (Militaristic,
>> Expansionist = Zulu), and some are stronger (Commercial, Religious =
>> India).
>
>Not a fan of SMAC then? I wouldn't have even picked this up without the
>civ specific traits - it adds a LOT to playing with the AI (albeit less
>than SMAC did).
Never played it...I went straight from Civ 1 to Civ 3. The game is
pretty much completely recognizable.
>I can still remember the shudder that would run through me every time I
>spotted the orange of Miriam in SMAC, "ooh, that bitch!"
>
>It's cool knowing that a certain civ will tend to respond to another civ
>in "personal" way. Beats the hell out of playing 7 borg clones.
I'm more worried about balance, since some computer civs seem to be
much stronger than others. I believe the cultural factors still apply
though.
Hans
You said it yourself Code Monkey, "It's cool knowing that a certain civ
will tend to".
Hans
"Deep Avali" <d...@kaputa.com> wrote in message
news:5c54vtoongleltgtv...@4ax.com...
Code Monkey
hkes...@yahoo.com says...
> Knowing their specific abilities makes them entirely predictable as well.
> You said it yourself Code Monkey, "It's cool knowing that a certain civ
> will tend to".
>
> Hans
No, it doesn't. Tend and predictable are related but not
interchangeable. From the exchanges we've had in these ng's I'm going to
guess you're the sort who tends towards uber-anal wargames while I'm the
sort who just wants to play a good game.
I know that Japan and the Zulu will tend towards agression. I even know
that unless things go in a certain way the Zulu will probably let their
nature destroy their civ by modern times just like Santiago in SMAC. On
the other hand, when things do go right they're an unstoppable force. I
know that India and Greece will be more likely to form lasting bonds when
I trade heavily with them. I know that China will tend to choose
communism. In my mind, the French should be the French and the Aztecs
the Aztecs, not some Magenta or Green civ that has an arbitrary label
slapped on it.
It gives the Civ personality, it does not make them "predictable" in any
true sense for this sort of game. Any of the civs, including me, the
human, are predictable if what you are talking about is that we will
expand where we can, attack those who are weaker, and seek trade/peace
where that is advantageous. That you spice it up with some, shudder,
game play elements does not make it essentially predictable any more
than it already is.
Predictable is the ability to leave a large city with only a worker in it
while you have hordes of fast moving troops stationed outside of it so
that the AI will make a beeline for your trap. Predictable is that the
AI won't make peace for a number of turns right after you declare war on
them even if you really didn't mean to (mutual protection act caused)
even though they can't possibly benefit from the war. Predictable is
that the AI doesn't have a good grasp on the implications of the mutual
protection act webs they like to weave (of course, given my record at
unintentionally getting in the middle of wars, I'm not so hot at managing
this either :)
Hans
> interchangeable. From the exchanges we've had in these ng's I'm going to
> guess you're the sort who tends towards uber-anal wargames while I'm the
> sort who just wants to play a good game.
If by that you mean their dictionary definitions are not the same, I agree.
And no, I don't generally play war games, though I may be anal... When you
are able to make 'predictions' about what they AI is planning (do not be
pedantic and assume this means 100% accuracy), as you state you do, to
attemp, then your use of the word 'tendencies' obviously means that the AI
is predictable (to a high degree.)
You're right, I'm not interested in a playing a good game. LOL. You just
cannot admit that the AI in Civilization has weaknesses that it overcomes
through 'resource/production/military' cheats.
Hans
sands
> Code Monkey <codem...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<156fcaae8bec88bb...@meganetnews.com>...
> > Based upon my playstyle and ingame experiences, here's my thoughts on and
> > ranking of the civ traits:
> <snip>
> > 1. Commercial.
>
> How much free commerce and when?
> How much is corruption reduced?
> Is starting with Alphabet all that useful?
Dunno - looks like 1 or maybe 2, once you hit Republic. Corruption is
only slightly reduced, but that is an edge when you get big. Alphabet
is useful, in that it leads to Republic, and it takes a usual 32 turns
to get. See below about starting tech.
> > 2. Religious.
>
> How long does anarcy normally take?
> Which structures are half price? (Temple, Cathedral?)
> How useful is starting with Ceremonial Burial?
Anarchy seems to take about 5-7 turns. Given that disorder frequently
occurs during anarchy (and when I say disorder, I mean something like
50% of your cities going into disorder, with no easy way to fix it)
the speed is a Good Thing. I'd take religious over commercial any day.
For the tech, again, see below.
> > 3. Industrious.
>
> How much faster do workers work?
> How many more shields and when?
> How useful is starting with Masonry?
This is a must have! Workers seem to have a turn or 2 shaved off their
time. If you're automating workers, this can make up a bit for the
boneheaded AI. If you're not automating, then it's good because you
can rapidly accomplish things. On shields, I think 1 or 2, around the
time you hit Republic. Tech, see below.
> > 4. Scientific.
>
> Which structures are half price? (Library, University, Research
> Lab?)
> How many free tech advances? 3 or 4?
> How useful is starting with Bronze Working?
This one is worthless IMO - 3-4 free techs is right, over the course
of the game, but you don't get to pick them. Other traits will more
than compensate for the 3-4 freebies, and you can easily trade for em.
> > 5. Militaristic.
>
> How much more likely is a promotion? And does that mean Great
> Leaders happen more often?
> How many structures are half price? (barracks, coastal fortress,
> walls, harbor, airport?)
> How useful is starting with Warrior Code / The Wheel - and which do
> you start with?
It's garbage. Units seem to go elite more often, but that's not huge.
Haven't noticed much of an increase in great leaders being created,
even with a higher proportion of elite units in my army.
> > 6. Expansionist.
>
> How much better are the goodie huts? Could someone play a few games
> and keep track of what they get under expansionist and whet they get
> when they're not playing expansionist?
> How useful are the Scouts? Is it worth building more?
> How useful is it to start with Pottery?
I played this before, and the first time I thought it was nice -
managed to get about 8-10 techs from goodie huts, and 2-3 settlers for
free. BUT: I also can do the same with non-expansionist civs.
Okay, all those "See below about tech":
You can *always* find about 10 techs from goodie huts, or trade for
the early techs easily. What I do is have my starting civ make 4-6
warriors who's sole purpose is exploration. By the time I've made my
warriors, my first city can build a settler, so it's not like you're
losing time.
I have the warriors explore: I've gotten *all* of the early age techs
(enough to send me to the next age) from huts, and in fact, in most
games I usually manage to do this. Plus, I get enough cash from
huts/barbarians that when I run into other civs I can buy any tech
they've got (about 100-200 gold per) without having to give them tech.
This is a *huge* advantage - each tech I have that they don't = about
32 turns ahead in the tech race. In more than one Regent game I've
gotten gunpowder before the computer (all of them swapping tech) has
managed to even get construction or currency.
What it comes down to is this: ignore what it gives you in starting
tech, and ignore the support for buildings: it makes little to no
difference. If you don't have *every* early age tech by about
2000-1000 bc, you just aren't trying. Often times, I'll set tech to 0%
until I hit the middle ages stuff, because it's just pointless.
The anarchy-free revolts with religious are a *huge* advantage,
especially later in the game: I can wage war for 20 turns as a
democracy, flip to communism when cities are going into disorder, and
flip back 2-3 turns later, all war weariness seems gone.
The speed of workers is likewise huge: 1 turn railroads on
plains/grassland/desert/floot plains. 3-4 turns to clear
jungle/forests. 1 turn pollution clean up. Makes it that much easier
to manage a large empire.
>
> On another note, anyone think "Printing Press" is more appropriate
> for cancelling the effect of the Great Library than "Education" is?
Yah, for sure. I also think it's odd that Printing Press is nothing
but a pre-requsite. I think PPress should lower corruption: corrupt
people get exposed in the mass media, and all that.
sands
> I know that Japan and the Zulu will tend towards agression. I even know
> that unless things go in a certain way the Zulu will probably let their
> nature destroy their civ by modern times just like Santiago in SMAC. On
> the other hand, when things do go right they're an unstoppable force. I
> know that India and Greece will be more likely to form lasting bonds when
> I trade heavily with them. I know that China will tend to choose
> communism. In my mind, the French should be the French and the Aztecs
> the Aztecs, not some Magenta or Green civ that has an arbitrary label
> slapped on it.
Well said! I was always bothered by the fact that all civs in civ 2
were the same. Who cares who you're fighting when they're all the
same.
And, you're right about that tendency thing - it's not an absolute by
any means. I've seen communist America, the Chinese monarchy, and so
on. Likewise, I'm playing right now with a "peaceful" Zulu nation at
my back door - they're quiet, relatively friendly, and haven't given
me any trouble. (Of course, I've got about 3x as many cities as they
do because I hemmed them in. And my army is comprised of about 90
calvary compared to their 30 or so swordsmen)
> It gives the Civ personality, it does not make them "predictable" in any
> true sense for this sort of game. Any of the civs, including me, the
> human, are predictable if what you are talking about is that we will
> expand where we can, attack those who are weaker, and seek trade/peace
> where that is advantageous. That you spice it up with some, shudder,
> game play elements does not make it essentially predictable any more
> than it already is.
One thing on this - I wish the dialogue were more appropriate to the
culture. For example, the Aztecs keep calling my civ "cute," which I
imagine would not be their normal way of talking. Joan of Arc actually
said something like "chill out" (can't remember the actual words) and
Elizabeth seems more like a surfer girl than the Queen. I'd like to
see a more SMACish dialogue (taking the environment seriously etc) and
maybe some French exclamations when I piss off the French, same for
Germany etc. (The dialogue was the #1 thing I liked about SMAC - made
it easier to immerse myself)
The only leader I feel is even remotely similar would be Lincoln -
"All hat, no cattle" (silly as it is).
> Predictable is the ability to leave a large city with only a worker in it
> while you have hordes of fast moving troops stationed outside of it so
> that the AI will make a beeline for your trap. Predictable is that the
> AI won't make peace for a number of turns right after you declare war on
> them even if you really didn't mean to (mutual protection act caused)
> even though they can't possibly benefit from the war. Predictable is
> that the AI doesn't have a good grasp on the implications of the mutual
> protection act webs they like to weave (of course, given my record at
> unintentionally getting in the middle of wars, I'm not so hot at managing
> this either :)
True - It gets so complicated that I half expect the Greeks to declare
war on themselves, sometimes. What's also predictable is that the AI
will make unreasonable demands, from a position of weakness, time and
time again. Also add that anything you give/trade to one civ will be
had by all the very next turn.
Paul Saunders
> (The dialogue was the #1 thing I liked about SMAC - made
> it easier to immerse myself)
Was the dialogue in 3D then? ;-)
Paul
--
Strategy is all in the mind.
sands
> sands <samgr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > (The dialogue was the #1 thing I liked about SMAC - made
> > it easier to immerse myself)
>
> Was the dialogue in 3D then? ;-)
>
> Paul
Drop-shadows, but I couldn't drive a tank through it. :P
Christian Seitz
1. Religious - Keeping people conent, expanding borders and switching
governments fast ist the best attribute in the game. Religious is usefull
in any situation.
2. Industrious - Also usefull in alsy situation but not as much as Religious.
3. Cormerical - Usefull is you have a large empire
4. Expansionistic - beeing able to build a granery fast ist very inportant if
you want to expand fast early. Scouts might get some good stuff from
huts. Good on small maps
5. Scientific - Religious is more usefull if I want to get culture and a
Comerical
Civs will suffer less curruption and get more research.
6. Militarisitc - cheaper miitary building wow thats usefull. The extra chance
to get a great leader isn't worth it. Same goes for experience.
Christian Seitz
Magnus Itland
religious civs. Originally I was only looking for the ability to
switch governments with only one night of anarchy. (I used to really
try to get the Statue in Civ2). Then I discovered that you can build
entire cathedrals in a few turns. The cheap religious structures not
only keep your populace content, they rack up culture like the sky's
the limit.
Haven't really decided on the others yet, but commercial seems a
runner-up. I play very much a builder type, and my military clout
comes mainly from having more advanced units. With a strong economy
and the new upgrade option, it is more lucrative to choose commercial
and use the extra funds to upgrade the units you elite'd in the
barbarian wars. A spearman can follow you all the way to mech
infantry if you have an ample supply of money for upgrades. Meanwhile
the militaristic civs will throw their obsolete units against you in
wave upon wave, further ignoring their own economy and culture.
To get a leader, your elite unit has to win. This happens very rarely
if you send horsemen against infantry that is stacked with artillery
...
In all fairness, things may be different if you play on small or tiny
maps.