Well, I think that I have finally come to a conclusion: George Washington is my favorite leader in Civ4.

Now, I realize that some of the first responses would be along the lines of "so what?" so I figure that I should state my reasons. The answer is simple, but lies at the core of all the Civ games past: expansion, and the early settler rush. Washington can expand like no one else, almost at Civ3-like level with a good start and good play.

No longer is food the measure of power as in games past. Now it is cold hard cash that determines your expansion. In the Civ games of the past, expansion has always been overwhelmingly key in the early game. Settler spamming was quite the rage in Civ3, the game I best remember besides Alpha Centauri (where colony pod spamming was also a winner, IIRC). To tone down this one-dimensional early game, Civ4 introduced the new city maintenance system where you paid more for every city whenever you founded a new one. You now must have an economy before you build more cities.

Washington has the best combination of traits for generating a huge empire, and doing it quickly. The financial trait is one of the best in the game, giving an extra commerce on every tile that already generates two commerce. The organized trait reduces upkeep on civics, which get worse as you add more cities (I'm not quite sure how it works between civic upkeep and city upkeep, but organized helps your finances when you have many cities). But key is that organized also halves the price of Courthouses and Lighthouses.

Washington's traits combined with America's techs work very well at expanding. A fishing village with a cheap Lighthouse will quickly be an economic powerhouse due to the financial trait, allowing for better research and quicker expansion (which gets insane if you have a lot of places that you can place fishing villages). Even better is that America starts with Fishing and Agriculture, meaning that food resources can be improved early for maximum growth and worker/settler construction.

The thing you have to watch out for is military production, since shields may not always be easy to come by. Personally, I recommend going for Bronze Working and using strategic forest chops to build buildings and defenses. I can vouch that even with raging barbs and aggressive AI, that this strategy will work (on Noble, anyway - haven't gotten past that, but considering the ease that I won early wars it should still be possible to run a defensive military on a higher difficulty with this strategy). A side benefit is that by pumping settlers, you avoid having to worry about happiness buildings or resources as early as usual.

The result is that you will quickly out-expand the AI and will generate a lead in the tech race once you focus on infrastructure. I think Epic One players understand how good Washington can be with cottage spamming, and this is simply cottaging on a massive scale (though don't give up common sense about maintaining some production!). That is the reason why Washington is my favorite leader.

That is a very solid write-up towards your opinion. I tend to focus my early game strategy to grabbing as much land as I can, and then doing everything I can to become a cultural powerhouse, slowly draining my rivals out of land. I haven't tried out Washington yet, but after reading your post, I'm sure i'll be trying him very soon. Thanks for writing such a solid post.

i agree...i've seen elsewhere in the forums that washington seems to be one of the better leaders to play as...right now i'm playing as either Alexander, Cyrus or Saladin...and so far i like Saladin's traits of Philo/Spirit because you get the bonus for GPs and there is no anarchy...also beginning with Mysticism helps with getting at least one religion in for the game so you can get the gold income from spreading your religion and having a shrine...haven't really figured out how to use him best though...as far as being able to expand and create a military he's not terrible from what i've seen, but then again i'm playing at the easier levels (been out of the Civ loop for some time...previous to getting Civ 4 i played Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri), i really wouldn't mind hearing what people have to say about playing as Saladin

Seems like you have figured out how to exploit (and I don't mean this negatively, of course) GW's traits; because of this, you are able to do really well with him. This does not mean that GW is the best leader though.

One thing that gives Civ such lasting playability is the many possible approaches to winning. You found one that works well with GW and perhaps you'll refine it or come up with others. Any of the leader traits can be exploited in one way or the other to give you advantage over a civ that isn't playing to their traits. It's like when playing chess - you can either play the move that you want to make that works according to your plan or you can play the move that the board dictates; the player moving according to what the board dictates is most likely to dominate the game.

Play with GW and have fun, but don't be afraid to explore new leaders just because you think you will be owned by another player with GW or because you won't be able to do as well without GW. A natural progression would be to play as Cat (preserving the financial trait but swapping organized for creative); learning to take advantage of the creative trait while balancing the lack of the organized trait with infrastructure and whatnot can only make you a stronger player.

I find choosing a leader really troublesome these days. The leader I ultimately choose really depends on my mood and the sort of game I feel like playing. Do I want to wage war or play diplomatically? Do I want cultural dominance or a massive tech lead? No single leader is mandatory for any playing style, though two or three usually fit well. I usually bounce between Sal, Hatty, and Cat.

Jeremy.

i really wouldn't mind hearing what people have to say about playing as Saladin

Read Sulla's walkthrough. It's a full game as Salidin (with screenshots) showing how to exploit his traits to achieve victory early on.

Jeremy.

Well, I think that I have finally come to a conclusion: George Washington is my favorite leader in Civ4.
I think he's just the strongest in most circumstances. He combines 2 strongest traits and in 1.52 he only became further apart.

I would rather have bismark.

The main reason I took the time to post this is that I've never seen anyone even comment on Washington before. I had no idea he was considered one of the most powerful! I picked him because I thought I'd found an interesting way to play him, a strategy I enjoyed (though I still play only about 30-40% of my games as Washington). My second favorite is probably Kublai Khan, for when I really want to get in the face of my neighbors. :D

I also didn't comment on my overall view of Civ4, which is to play the hand you're dealt and roll with the punches that the game throws at you. But picking a leader allows you to customize your hand, to an extent. The strategy I outlined is simply the plan that I have going into a game with Washington.

My top 3 favourite use to be Bismark, Victoria, and the Russian lady. Now I tend to play solely as Romans. For all I know, I may eventualy switch to something else... we shall see.

I used to play as Gandhi, but these days I prefer the Chinese guy starting with Q: Industrious, Financial.

I think the Chineese are tough also. Russians are not bad due to the UU and culture.

I have yet to play a full game with GW but my impression is that GW is tough. Also, the AI GW always seemed to have advanced techs which is a good indicator of latter performance.

The first marathon game i played, I wanted the industrious and financial trait.Now qui is my favorite leader.

I think the key is that Washington's traits have great synergy, to a degree most of the leaders can't match. Civic upkeep is what holds back rampant expansion, and Washington's traits both work to keep the cash flowing in, facilitating a lot of winning play - because, as we can all agree, money is power in this game (instead of food, as before.)

Personally, I can't get in to playing the Americans for two reasons. One is the late-game UU, and the other is that it just seems kinda lame to play my own country in a game with tons of different cultures available. Still, Washington's traits are good enough that I sometimes play as him. In fact, they're my two favorite traits in the game.

I'm really surprised there are people who prefer Industrious civs on high difficulty levels. I find the trait extremely difficult to leverage, and a big gamble. Doesn't it become nearly impossible to beat the AI to wonders at higher difficulties? What if you don't find stone or marble, and another Industrious civ does? It just seems to me the trait could easily be useless in many games - worse than useless, as you waste hundreds of shields almost completing wonder after wonder.

The organized trait reduces upkeep on civics, which get worse as you add more cities (I'm not quite sure how it works between civic upkeep and city upkeep, but organized helps your finances when you have many cities). But key is that organized also halves the price of Courthouses and Lighthouses.

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148840) is an explanation of how civic costs are calculated. Basically it's just related to your total population and number of cities.

I haven't actually played as either of the American leaders yet, as the late game UU puts me off a bit as I like to have one time period where my military has an advantage, but financial is always a good trait, and Organised, with the right style of play (which you seem to have) is also useful.

This is even more true with the increased civic costs in 1.52.

Washington has a HUGE advantage on archipelago maps. Use the State Property civic (no distance costs), and you can basically maintain an unlimited quanitity of iceball cities that are very lucrative, given as few as one resource nearby. You'll also make great use of Slavery in this setup.

BTW, the UU isn't THAT late, and it is very handy. The problem is the infrequency of situations where they are better than their contemporary: tanks. Unlike tanks, it does get defense bonuses, and I've seen the AGG civs try artillery rushes in the late midgame - they like to beeline to that tech. Seals get bonuses vs. artillery.

Doesn't it become nearly impossible to beat the AI to wonders at higher difficulties?

There are a few tricks to get around that, even on deity.

There are a few tricks to get around that, even on deity.

Like what?

Here's the game that inspired me to start this thread. Again, it's only noble, but after this result I think I'm going to bump up the difficulty by a notch or two. Note that I haven't actually expanded much since around 1000AD (was done with my core cities earlier than that, but one can never have too many fishing villages!). Fought two wars, one early against Bismark to secure the location of Phili, and another against Mansa to grab a few extra cities (mostly just because I could).

In 1600 I'm so far out ahead of the pack that I can't imagine losing. Probably going to make a cannon or artillery rush to finish Mansa, and then decide how I want to win. The most interesting thing now is that I've tried out Caste System, Mercantilism, and Representation for the first time, and am now checking out the Environmentalism/Lumbermill combination. Out-expanding everyone in the BC years makes it very easy in the AD years.

Well, I think that I have finally come to a conclusion: George Washington is my favorite leader in Civ4.

Washington can expand like no one else, almost at Civ3-like level with a good start and good play.

Why does the most powerful leader become your favorite? In a game like Civ4, where the computer opponent doesn't play very well and you have to give it large handicaps to make the game interesting, wouldn't it be more sensible to prefer a leader whose traits are less good, so that you don't have to give the AI players as much of an advantage in order to have an interesting and challenging game?

I'm really surprised there are people who prefer Industrious civs on high difficulty levels. I find the trait extremely difficult to leverage, and a big gamble. Doesn't it become nearly impossible to beat the AI to wonders at higher difficulties? What if you don't find stone or marble, and another Industrious civ does? It just seems to me the trait could easily be useless in many games - worse than useless, as you waste hundreds of shields almost completing wonder after wonder.
I wouldn't discard industrious traits easily. I've won on deity with financial+industrious by building strategy around wonders (Great Lighthouse, Pyramids). While I believe that financial+organized is stronger, financial+industrial is not far behind, even though you're not likely to build more than 2-3 wonders.

Why does the most powerful leader become your favorite? In a game like Civ4, where the computer opponent doesn't play very well and you have to give it large handicaps to make the game interesting, wouldn't it be more sensible to prefer a leader whose traits are less good, so that you don't have to give the AI players as much of an advantage in order to have an interesting and challenging game?

He is my favorite because I find that playing him is extremely entertaining. You can play an entertaining but doomed strategy as well, and sometimes I do, but I usually like to have a good chance at winning.

And again, it's usually Ghandi (or another industrious leader) or Ceasar (because of UU) that I keep hearing about being good. Before this thread, I'd never heard a peep about 'ol Washington.

He is my favorite because I find that playing him is extremely entertaining.

That makes sense, but your lead post is entirely about how good he is; nothing about how entertaining he is.

You can play an entertaining but doomed strategy as well, and sometimes I do, but I usually like to have a good chance at winning.

You can always give yourself whatever chance of winning you want, by choosing the level of difficulty you play at, as well as map layout and other factors. Perhaps some leaders at Monarch on some maps are harder than other leaders at Emperor on other maps. So the leader doesn't really determine by itself how easy or hard the game will be to win.

And as I've also repeatedly said, I think I need to start upping the difficulty level of my games. :p

It is true, though, that I talked only about how good he is. My reason was twofold. First, as I said at the beginning of my original post, I would get a "so what?" reaction otherwise. Second, this is the strategy & tips forum. I wanted to post the strategy I use with my favorite leader, and so I did.

I think the key is that Washington's traits have great synergy, to a degree most of the leaders can't match. Civic upkeep is what holds back rampant expansion, and Washington's traits both work to keep the cash flowing in, facilitating a lot of winning play - because, as we can all agree, money is power in this game (instead of food, as before.)

Personally, I can't get in to playing the Americans for two reasons. One is the late-game UU, and the other is that it just seems kinda lame to play my own country in a game with tons of different cultures available. Still, Washington's traits are good enough that I sometimes play as him. In fact, they're my two favorite traits in the game.

I would think Washington would get tougher as you go up in levels, though
I haven't personally played him. On high levels, the biggest limitation on
empire size is the fact that the computer settles so much faster than you
do. Unless you have some way of taking over a neighbor (JC :)), Organized
is hard to make use of.

I have won both spacerace and domination with Washington on deity. I'll be honest in that I wasn't sitting there thinking... "oh boy! what great traits, I think i'll try HIM!"

I leave leaders on random and try to play with what comes out. I may not be happy with who I get, or where my starting position is, but such is life. Many times I felt like quitting because my intial spot was so crap for these hard levels it just spelt early death. But then suddenly I am producing a lot more hammers than you would normaly expect in some of these weak positions. I know a lot of people just re-start, even if it takes 20 times in a row till they find an area where they get EVERYTHING that they want infront of them. I don't know, doesn't give me as much satisfaction.

A lot of my strategy has been trying to get early pressure by my nearest AIs to fight themselves. This helps buy me time to try and play catchup against the cheating AI production. Mistakes hurt, but practice makes perfect. Also keep in mind you need to always target the strong (not the weak!). That is another major flaw I see people do on the hard levels. Crushing a weak neighbour is pointless if you're letting some guy else become a giant.

I would think Washington would get tougher as you go up in levels, though
I haven't personally played him. On high levels, the biggest limitation on
empire size is the fact that the computer settles so much faster than you
do. Unless you have some way of taking over a neighbor (JC :)), Organized
is hard to make use of.
From my experience it's opposite. With Washington you can almost match (deity) AI expansion rate (with others it's harder because of city maintenance) and this is the most straightforward method to win. At lower levels Washington is good as well, but there you can apply various strategies and you don't have to expand fast, so it's easier to get the best out of other leaders.

Hmm, if you can match the ai's expansion on deity, then I must have a lot to learn still. When I get the game back i'll experiement some more.

Hmm, if you can match the ai's expansion on deity, then I must have a lot to learn still. When I get the game back i'll experiement some more.
Key word there was 'almost'. But with Washington it's pretty close. I imagine that in lucky circumstances one might be able to actually match AI expansion.

Do you attack at all, or remain totaly passive?

I'm really surprised there are people who prefer Industrious civs on high difficulty levels. I find the trait extremely difficult to leverage, and a big gamble. Doesn't it become nearly impossible to beat the AI to wonders at higher difficulties? What if you don't find stone or marble, and another Industrious civ does? It just seems to me the trait could easily be useless in many games - worse than useless, as you waste hundreds of shields almost completing wonder after wonder.


Don't underestimate the raw power of half cost forges. Half the industrious leaders start with mining as well, putting them a tech closer to bronze working and chops.

And don't forget that those shields get converted to 1-1 gold when you lose wonder races, and that with the industrious trait, you're making at least 1.5 gold for every shield you would ordinarily generate.


Do you attack at all, or remain totaly passive?

In my experience, you're passive and generally cave/gift to demands, since you're shield poor and spending your forests choping settlers. You want to reach the mid-game where your larger empire, cheaper upkeep, and more profitable, bigger cities will make you a tech powerhouse and get you like knights.

Another synergy I haven't seen mentioned with washington is the fact that financial + organized helps power him into early code of laws for courthouses and sometimes confucianism for religion and bigger cities, which in turn give you more cottages worked.

That has backfired on me. Many times I have started building a wonder that I thought I had no chance in hell of making.. Just wanted the money bonus.. then poof... before I know it.. I've built the useless wonder that will expire in the next 2 turns anyway...

That has backfired on me. Many times I have started building a wonder that I thought I had no chance in hell of making.. Just wanted the money bonus.. then poof... before I know it.. I've built the useless wonder that will expire in the next 2 turns anyway...

Well, that's silly. You can build all but the last turn, and then switch to something else, and you'll get the cash for your partial work when someone else completes the wonder.

Do you attack at all, or remain totaly passive?
When I'm referring to expansion rate I'm talking only about peaceful phase. Obviously, one's expansion rate becomes faster than AI's when one start to conquer them.

I'd never really noticed before, but I have noticed that I often found Confucanism playing as Washington. I don't have much chance at early religion since I'm going for worker tech, but CoL almost seems easy to obtain first.

I took a liking to playing Gandhi. I'll have to give Washington a try. I ignored the Americans in Civ3 and didn't give them fair consideration in Civ 4. Thanks.

I haven't played a game as Washington yet--I'll have to give him a try, based on your recommendation.

So far, I've experienced my most successful games as either Caesar or as Elizabeth.

Caesar has a great early UU and a head-start on getting to Bronze Working. He shares Washington's Organized trait, and with Expansive, it means you can build and/or capture a LOT more cities than your rivals, preferably coastal ones to take full advantage of his attributes. If I play as Caesar, I'm usually looking to go on an early-game conquering binge and solidify later.

Elizabeth has a great mid-game UU, shares Washington's Financial trait and gets lots of GP from being Philosophical too. With Liz I prefer to build first, get a tech lead thanks to all those Great Scientists, and hold off on warmongering until I build huge stacks of those hardy, tea-sipping redcoats. I love those guys. (I'm not American, so I can.)

Of course, a lot has to do with starting position. One game I started as Caesar with 6 other civs on the same big continent. PERFECT. Another time, as Liz, I shared a mid-sized continent with Bismark and the Incas. Again, perfect. Now, if the starting positions had been reversed...

WOW necro.

I really have to agree with the OP. Washington is godly, he's also the only leader I can do well with on Prince and Monarch. Being able to expand fast, fight a big early war, and not have your research crash while you build your economy makes a huge, huge difference.

Washington's hammer problems go away when you switch to Universal Suffrage. Try chop-rushing the pyramids if you can't wait for Democracy.

GW is great. prop. 2 of the strongest traits combined. I think if it wasn't for the late UU he would be 'overpowered'. So, good thinking giving him the marine UU. GW is good for peacefull and warmongering strats. Currently i am playing continents, large, Emperor, epic , st and altough i was surrounded by jungle i could expand fast, since i could built coastal-support city's and then grab the inner city's. When the AI overexpanded me, i kindly took the egyptan and mongolian city's and maintain a 60% or HIGHER research rate. Lol i didn;t even have to catch up in tech, i already AM the techleader. With financial trait and massing cottages at those cleared jungles i will fly that spaceship before they will build appolo.. (instead of the other way around).

Well, knowing the traits you should see it's power.

I started off playing the Greeks, their defensive/philosophical approach was similar to what I like to play.

Then I moved onto the Romans, and man oh man did I do well with the Romans. I used to sell praetorians to other players (multiplayer) and made a killing, especially when I chop rush the pyramids and get something that allows me to pay cash to speed up production.

But then I realized the financial trait. So I started playing as Elizabeth and Victoria, which are really really good civs and the redcoats are such a golden age UU that the English are irresistable.

Then I moved onto the Americans as both leaders, fairly good traits, but again, the navy seals come in too late game and I usually win before that happens, or get really bored.

But now, I discovered my absolute favorite Civ. The Incas.

Financial and Aggressive, it means you can make tons of cash, and have a nice experienced army. The Quechua, although many people like them, I find really useless, but its ok, because the traits make up for it. And the fact that the Incas start with mysticism is just so great. I can rush for a religion, once I found one, I just concentrate on building a developed country, and build a small elite group of troops to deal with any suprise invasions.

The Incas can be used for early rushing, but I really hate early rushing and rushers, I like nice long comfortable games. Its not like we're playing Age of Empires or something.

I started out playing most of my games as washington, primarily because i was glad to see him as a leader in the game, him being a personal favorite real leader of mine. Eventually i began to play as other leaders and i must say that you really feel the loss of financial power (which leads to less expansion) when playing with another civ. especially early on when you are used to the dirt cheap civics costs, and then later when spamming courthouses and your cottages begin turning into hamlets and villages. For expansion, Washington seems to be the best way to go for me.

And as I've also repeatedly said, I think I need to start upping the difficulty level of my games. :p

When you move up a level or two, will you stay as Washington using the same strategy or will you play a different leader?

Maybe you should carry on with a few more games on noble trying out different leaders, just to find out how good you can be with them.
If you prove too good for the AI with whatever leader you play then it's time to move up. :)

I've reciently been playing Monarch games with random leaders. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I tend to do a lot better when isolated though, since the AI can't gobble up all the land and back me into a corner (though being isolated also brings problems of its own). My most recient game was a domination win as Monte, where I was isolated early.

In that game, I managed to get the largest territory at the expense of technological development. I caught up only in the modern age after aggressive tech trading, conquest, and cottage-spam on a massive scale. I got to flight before anyone else, and won in 1990 after fifty-five years of world war (which I actually didn't start - Germany got aggressive after getting to Panzers, and it was touch and go for a while with only my fledgeling air force and the Greek buffer state preventing me from being overrun). Fun game.

I have yet to playing Washington on Monarch, but I intend to give him a try soon.

Washington is aight but I just can't get over that stupid, stupid Navy Seal. But my babes, Caths and Liz, are the greatest leaders. Both their UU's come at the best time for me, when I've got my empire right and I'm doing better financially and catching up technically. I think financial is the very best trait but I think both Philosophical and Creative is better the Washington Organized. Cossacks are just the best but that's where the small diffrence comes and that's why I put Caths Nr. 1. Lizzie's UU, the Redcoat, is slightly worse than Cossacks. But Cossacks are the way best UU and Redcoat is number 2. But the other leaders I've played with, other than Caths or Liz, are Washington and Mansa Musa but they've got pretty lousy UU's. I don't like the early Skirmisher since in the beginning, I never seem to get up an army! When that happens, I'm on the edge of researching Military tradition and getting my beloved Cossacks ;]

Washington is my the best leader, when I play on emperor or immortal.
(I usually play on standard map)
I can discover 25% faster at the beginnig, I have a lot of GNP, The maintance cost are reduced significanlty. (the higher difficulty level the more useful organized is )
Also I think that Naval Seal are good (not best such as Cossack, Pretorian Crusader but good) because they can fight with good chances with Helicopter, Armor, Artillery- a multi purpose unit

I'm not good enough for a definite opinion but that hasn't stopped me before. I wonder if all leaders are good once you have developed a strategy to maximise both their traits i.e. Washington- early expansion, Catherine- Cottage Spam, others perhaps waiting to be discovered.
How often does the AI win spacerace with Gandhi or Mansa who rarely rate a mention?

Mayby because he trade a lot with everybody, but trading on emperor is not so easy (AI just doesn't want )

Mansa Musa is not so good on emperor and immortal (when you must play more agrresive), because he skimp on army and his land can be easily divided between over AI and me.(pangea, inner sea)

On continents You are right he is very good

I only played one game as Washington because I find his traits kind of boring. I don't like Financial because it helps you in every situation and is useful for all victory conditions, and Organized is Financial's little brother. Boooring.
And since I started playing on monarch i hate the American leaders. I always get outteched by them in a really humiliating way...
Roosevelt is even worse than Ghandi when it comes to wonders and Washingon always manages to stay out of trouble while I am in a war with someone else, and when I finally have time to take care of him he's already too strong.
Btw, I prefer Alex, Cyrus, Tokugawa and Frederick.

I just started my first Monarch game (moving on up from Prince). I always use random leaders, and I ended up drawing Washington. I think he's making my transition a lot easier than it could've been.

Here's the setup: Continents - Large - Epic

The map generator ended up coming up with two large continents. I was put in the Northeast corner of a continent with Mansa, Julius and Huayana. On the other continent is Alexander, Cyrus, Peter, and one or two others.

I got lucky with a start near several floodplains. It didn't take long before I had set up 7 cities, founded Christianity, built the Great Library, and converted Julius.

But Caesar must've been replaced by Brutus cause that brilliant bastard stabbed me right in the back and brought his army from the South up towards my weakly defended Southern border.

It was touch and go in my game for a little bit, but I think I finally got the situation under control after swapping cities in a protracted stalemate. When I stopped for the evening both of our borders were back at their original locations. Although we are still technically at war, we're just kind of staring across the line at each other for the moment.

Nevertheless, because of GW's ability to keep the cash flowing I have yet to drop below 100% research, and I look forward to repaying Caesar as the discrepancy in techs continues to tilt in my favor.

I don't remember playing a lot of games with Washington previously, but he is certainly now among my favorites after the start I've had to this game.
MM

i prefer bismrark. he can make things quickly and become quite a large empire in a short time. the panzer is also pretty sweet.

Washington has a HUGE advantage on archipelago maps. Use the State Property civic (no distance costs), and you can basically maintain an unlimited quanitity of iceball cities that are very lucrative, given as few as one resource nearby. You'll also make great use of Slavery in this setup.

BTW, the UU isn't THAT late, and it is very handy. The problem is the infrequency of situations where they are better than their contemporary: tanks. Unlike tanks, it does get defense bonuses, and I've seen the AGG civs try artillery rushes in the late midgame - they like to beeline to that tech. Seals get bonuses vs. artillery.
I agree. Washington is a plague on islands/archipelago maps. Unstoppable. You don't even need cottages. And you can cripple your opponents by razing their cities without setting a foot on their land with Seals. I usually build 5-6 transports, fill them with Seals, add like 10 or so battleships/destroyers for protection and go razing. It's amazing how quickly you can destroy enemy troops with this setup.

I agree. Washington is a plague on islands/archipelago maps. Unstoppable. You don't even need cottages. And you can cripple your opponents by razing their cities without setting a foot on their land with Seals. I usually build 5-6 transports, fill them with Seals, add like 10 or so battleships/destroyers for protection and go razing. It's amazing how quickly you can destroy enemy troops with this setup.

agreed.
so easy it's not even funny...
I'm not an archipelago fan, but with GW it's easy to achieve domination

On which level did you play?

Emperor, have to try Immortal soon.

I ask because I think that war should start ealier, I am not waiting unil modern era.

I don't like archipelago but I agree that Washinghton is the best for such type of map on emperor+

I ask because I think that war should start ealier, I am not waiting unil modern era.

I don't like archipelago but I agree that Washinghton is the best for such type of map on emperor+

on archipelago, it's a pain to start a war early
and with GW, you can expand quite a lot faster than others, making those fishing villages worthwhile, and thus grabbing much land.
In fact you work for domination straight from the start.:D

I ask because I think that war should start ealier, I am not waiting unil modern era.
Well, I usually draw first blood when I get macemen (or war elephants), I'm not expanding without having courthouses availeable, but Seals are excellent if you want to cripple your opponents and don't want to keep any cities. With only couple of promotions no unit type is safe from them.

G-Wash is a very good builder leader, methinks, on par with Gandhi and Mansa Musa. His traits are what are keeping us alive in RB-14. However, I must insist that my new favorite leader is Cyrus.

Oh man, oh man.

Immortals, for a cheap and powerful early UU, helps vs. the barbs. Plus, they can escort settlers extremely well and get defensive bonuses. Creative, for the cheap border pops (and ultra-cheap theaters and coluseuims (sic), which are great for warring). And expansive, a very poweful trait, what with the 1/2 price granary.

But again, as this is all a matter of opinion ... ;)

Hehe, pity there is no creative/organized leader on the rooster, that would be one mean SoB :lol:

I have been playing with Washington since day one.

I found with the CS sligshot you can grab a nice Tech and GNP lead. I have won both space race and domaination in Prince Level. I started playing in Monarch level Epic speed. I get the same Tech lead and GNP lead. I'm not able to compete military ( Atleast not yet) with the other civ.

In Monarch, it been my experience the AI expanse so fast. By the time I have finish my CS slingshot. I have atleast two civilation with city on my Culture borders. I notice as I'm building my Army after the CS Slingshot. I usually get one of my Neightbor demanding a tech (Usually Guilds) or Gold. If I refuse within 2 turns I'm in a war. I take 2 or 3 of the border city. Within the next couple of turn the AI is able to out produce me in Military Units and I start losing the War. I just can't seem to be able to out produce the AI.

Usually what I'm seeing is 1 Archer and 1 Spearman or 2 archer defending the city when I first Declare War. I usually have 6 Axeman, 2 spearman and 4 Cats attacking. By the time I reach the 4 cities the AI has atleast a 6 to 8 man defense force (usually Longbow, Axeman & Archer Horseman)

Like I said no matter what I do, I can't produce the troops I need to defend the capture cities and continue advancing. (I tried razing 1 of the cities)

Jsolo
Lost Monarch Military Leader

Washington is geared entirely toward archipelago maps. All coast tiles get extra commerce, half priced lighthouses, and a marine UU all point to quitting if you encounter him in an archipelago game. Thats why I always am him. :goodjob:

Washingon always manages to stay out of trouble while I am in a war with someone else, and when I finally have time to take care of him he's already too strong.

Always happens. While you've been busy fighting another civ with swords, he's putting in longbows. When you're reading to hit him with maces, he's got gunpowder. He has one of the most balanced AI game plans, in that he techs up fast, but he also does not skimp on the military production.

My anti-Washington strategy has invariably become wars of pillaging to slow him down. I don't usually do wars of strictly pillaging, but Washington is my #1 example for why you should. You can still pillage his cottages, even if he's too powerful to overrun.

to Jsolo:
if you cannot defend it, raze it ;)

edit : was too slow (once again!), so added who i was answering to

Washington is geared entirely toward archipelago maps. All coast tiles get extra commerce, half priced lighthouses, and a marine UU all point to quitting if you encounter him in an archipelago game. Thats why I always am him. :goodjob:
Not just archipelago, but any map which favors coastal cities (islands, hub, etc.). I never encountered full force Seal attack by AI, but I would say it would be very difficult to defend against it.

to Jsolo:
if you cannot defend it, raze it ;)

edit : was too slow (once again!), so added who i was answering to

I got in bad habit of Capturing every city in Prince, since Washington is good with Organizations.

Now that I playing Monarch. I'm realized you really do need to Raze and move on to your next target. Same once your done you need to basically move until your next victim fast

In my last game Monarch/Epic
Large
9 Ramdom AI
Cont,

Shared cont with Mongol and Egypt

Before the War I was 1st in GNP and 2nd in power Egypt was one.

Got a tech lead by completing the CS slingshot
Hit Egypt with my 13 Axeman and 3 Spearman army.
I left her with 3 city (My Bad) She sue for peace.

As I was recovering getting ready to hit the Mongols. I notice they already had Musket in the larger city.

I wanted to take 10 to 15 turns to build my cities up (Place Markets, Libary and Forges)

I had Maceman and Knights unit being built- But because of war didn't have the Gold to upgrade my standing Army. By the time, I got back on my two feet. The Mongol had Rifles and were taking over the egyptians.

I end up losing when France and Rome came over and decide it was time to take me out because I was too friendly with the Mongol.

I still have alot to learn. I seem to always fall victim to wanting to build that extra unit or get the next tech....

Well, I think that I have finally come to a conclusion: George Washington is my favorite leader in Civ4.

Gotta like ol' George. Back in his day, the average man's height was 5'8", but George Washington was 6'3", 200+ lbs.

@jsolo15

Actually CS slingshot is very deceptive, seems like a tech lead but it's more of an illusion. Early courthouses might help you financially while expanding, on the other hand, you probably wasted beakers on religious techs without founding any early religion, confucianism will spread nowhere since trade routes will be cut off because of war. Caste system will do you no good since your citi(es) are usually to small to afford any specialists. Bureaucracy will boost your capitol a bit, but I would prefer hereditary rule any day, to allow all my cities to grow. Macemen are still far away since you need Iron Working and Machinery to get them, chance is that stronger opponents will have longbows by then. So, the question is what did you actually gain from slingshot? You'll hardly have an edge in military and your economy is crap because you didn't have time to improve your land because all you did was chopping. IMHO, CS slingshot is very usefull in OCC games where you want bureaucracy ASAP, but on Emperor or above is next to impossible to get it by cca 1800 BC when AI usually gets it.

If i missed any benefits of CS slingshot, other than OCC, please feel free to enlighten me :-)

@jsolo15

Actually CS slingshot is very deceptive, seems like a tech lead but it's more of an illusion. Early courthouses might help you financially while expanding, on the other hand, you probably wasted beakers on religious techs without founding any early religion, confucianism will spread nowhere since trade routes will be cut off because of war. Caste system will do you no good since your citi(es) are usually to small to afford any specialists. Bureaucracy will boost your capitol a bit, but I would prefer hereditary rule any day, to allow all my cities to grow. Macemen are still far away since you need Iron Working and Machinery to get them, chance is that stronger opponents will have longbows by then. So, the question is what did you actually gain from slingshot? You'll hardly have an edge in military and your economy is crap because you didn't have time to improve your land because all you did was chopping. IMHO, CS slingshot is very usefull in OCC games where you want bureaucracy ASAP, but on Emperor or above is next to impossible to get it by cca 1800 BC when AI usually gets it.

If i missed any benefits of CS slingshot, other than OCC, please feel free to enlighten me :-)

NuWorld

You are absolutely right, I have tried CS Slingshot in about 20 Monarch game and have lost all of them. After I find the other civ in the game they seem to be at the same tech level as I'm or head of me. I find myself also starting my first war very late in the game.

I need to find a better Strategy for my early game.

NuWorld

You are absolutely right, I have tried CS Slingshot in about 20 Monarch game and have lost all of them. After I find the other civ in the game they seem to be at the same tech level as I'm or head of me. I find myself also starting my first war very late in the game.

I need to find a better Strategy for my early game.

push for stonehenge, and then swordsman rush everyone around you until the year 1000AD. After you have killed and assimilated 4-5 civs, use your massive worker force to place cottages EVERYWHERE, and tech up in a few turns.

push for stonehenge, and then swordsman rush everyone around you until the year 1000AD. After you have killed and assimilated 4-5 civs, use your massive worker force to place cottages EVERYWHERE, and tech up in a few turns.

I been reading the Cottage Spam post and going to try my hand on it.

I tried both Axeman Rush and I can take out 1 Civ. I go back to rebuild add Libary/Markets and Grocer for a few turns. This is when the other races from the other contenient find me. I try and trade and make them happy.

What I usually find happening while I'm take out the second civ on my contenient. One of the over sea races demands I cut relations with another race. If I don't or do within 10 to 20 turns I get invaded. With my troops out Fighting.

In my last game I built a 5/Knights moble defense unit. (With 2Longbow and Maceman in each city I should be okay) Well it work out fine until England came over to help out France.

I quit that game.

I went back to Prince level to practice some more and try another Stardegy...

I have change my strategy to cottage Spam with CoL slingshot.

I went back to Prince to learn cottage spam and get a grasp of Research order and city built Order.

I lost my first two games. The first one I was into building cottage and trying to micromanage. I didn't pay attention to how close I was to Peter, I didn't build a army and just build city defender. I lost when he rush me with a bunch of Archer/Axeman. While I only had 6 Warrior out.

Second game I lost in a space race to Gandi. He beat me out by 10 turns.

I played 4 more games and won 2 Space Race and 2 by Domaination

I decide it time to try Monarch again.

I found while in Prince I can build Stonehedge, Pyraimd and Oracle. In Monarch, I'm usually beaten out to all but one. Not bad, I get cash for losing out on the Wonders. (SAME AS BEFORE)

My biggest problem now is I can't seem to have a update Army to protect me after getting passed the Middle Ages. I usually have Knights, Maceman, Cats and Galleon when the oversea Civ have Rifles, Calvary, Cannon and frigates.

Tech Wise, in the 3 Games I have played, I was the tech and GNP leader and usually number 3 in points.

I need help:

Here my Reseach Order
Mining
Animal Husbandry
Wheel
BW
Pottery
Masonary (If I have stone in my first two city)
Archery
Horse Riding (If Horses)
Writing
IW
Alphabet -- (Trade for stuff I missed)
Math
Metal Casting
Machinery
Lit
Currency
CoL
Monarch
CS
Education
Liberalism
(Free tech Nationhood (sp)
Guilds
Paper
Constitutions
Democracy (sp)
Communism (For Kermlin)
Miltary Tradition and head for Industralism (This is when I usually get invaded by two over sea civ.)

Capital
--------
Worker
Warrior
Settler
Warrior
Settler
SH
Libary
Settler ( I build Settler until I get Literature)
Great Libary
Unversity
Market
Barrick

2nd City (Production)
Worker
Warrior
Worker
Libary
Barrick
Axeman (Rush Build)

3rd City (Coastal)
Archer
Worker
workboat
Libary
2 Galley
Courthouse
Barrick

Guys any help would be great. I'm new to the game been playing for about 7 weeks now and would really love to win a Monarch game.

Large Map
Contenient
Epic
9 AI Random
Currently (learning) no Barbs

Jsolo try this:

Mining
Bronze working
Mysticism
Wheel
Farming
Pottery
Hunting
Archery (*archery cen by reserch after mysticism before pottery)
Animal Husbandry (if i have copper a some "animal resources )
Iron working (try t build axeman and spearman in every border city)
Priesthood
Monarchy (very important)
Alfabet
(After Alphabet, you can trade some with AI (masonry, sailling, organized rel, maybe calendar, mathematics)
Literacy (if I have marble or/and 3level unit)
Code of law
Civil Service (huge boost to economy!!! you must have academy in your
capital)
Music (if you will be first)
Machinery
Paper
Printing Press (huge boost to economy!!!)
Education,
Philosophy,
Gunpoweder
Nationalism
Liberalism ( you must be first, to get free nationalism or better Military
tradition, develope some and watch who has education)
You will have cavalery (cossack) very soon and easily conquer one or two player

Thank you niedzialko I will try it.

How is my City Build Order?

Has anyone ever been zacked before your warrior get created in your second city. I was actually invaded by four Archer from Alexander while my 2nd city was 2 turns from his first warrior. WOW!

I would suggest you get currency before any tech trading, that way you'll get a bunch of $$$ for army upgrades and maintaining a higher research rate.

Regarding city build order, there's no cookie-cutter strategy, varies from game to game, but generally, always send an archer with a settler so you don't have to waste time to build one, especially if you're not alone on the continent. In a coastal city, always build workboat before worker and let city to grow to 2, food surplus will then allow your worker to come out sooner.

And remember, there is no strategy that fits all, on higher difficulties CoL slingshot will leave you in ruins more often than not. Know your opponents and adopt. Improve your resources to let city grow, before cottage spam, they're worthless if you don't have population to work them.

There's not going to be an optimal, all-situations research or build order. You're going to need at least a little bit of customization based on the resources you have available.

For the CS slingshot start trying for both methods - Oracle and the Great Prophet research option. If one works, you can use the other for a different purpose (they definitely won't be wasted). The nice thing about the Prophet method is that no one can beat you to it. As long as you get a wonder that gives Prophet points or assign a Priest specialist, you will get it.

I would suggest you get currency before any tech trading, that way you'll get a bunch of $$$ for army upgrades and maintaining a higher research rate.

Regarding city build order, there's no cookie-cutter strategy, varies from game to game, but generally, always send an archer with a settler so you don't have to waste time to build one, especially if you're not alone on the continent. In a coastal city, always build workboat before worker and let city to grow to 2, food surplus will then allow your worker to come out sooner.

And remember, there is no strategy that fits all, on higher difficulties CoL slingshot will leave you in ruins more often than not. Know your opponents and adopt. Improve your resources to let city grow, before cottage spam, they're worthless if you don't have population to work them.

Thank you Nuworld your right

Depending how the Map Resource are, where your place, and where the AI are there is no cookie cutter resourse path or Build order. I was just wonder if what I usually try to follow was a bad path.

I think the biggest difference is how the advance players are able to get their first Worker and warrior and research their tech faster. I'm wondering if it the way I'm Micromanaging my city.

In my last game where I started rushing Axeman. I had a total of 8 axeman and 3 Spears in 10AD and had 4 Archer Horseman for defense. (I had no Iron near me so I couldn't get swordman) I was hoping to attack my nearest neightbor. When I check his Cities he already had Swordman in one of his larger cities. The 2 border city had 2 Archer and 1 spearman or Axeman. I would have been able to take the Border city but I don't know what the AI would have waiting for once I was marching on the larger city.

On higher difficulties you can't compete with AI early on, during expansion, he'll beat you, so you let AI build cities and you take over. It realy depends on a situation, with an early UU, you might be able to grab few cities earlier. Basically, you build what you have depending on the resources available and hit those that can't counter you.

I mostly play pangea/18civ/marathon maps, sometimes I can't even find room to build a 2nd city, so I look for easy kills to expand, if I have bronze I'll go for those that don't have it. It's not necessary a neighbour, on occasion you may go pass neighbours and deal with them when you grow stronger, but it has to be pretty early before other civs culture chokes you. Quickly grab 2 or 3 cities and settle down, even financial or organized won't keep you out of trouble early on, without serious impact on your research.

When going for an early rush you basically build nothing but units, forget about growth or city improvements. You build a worker to hook up necessary resource and build units, chop if necessary. Early rush should start about 3000BC or even sooner if possible. You might try to play Huayna, Cyrus or Hatshepsut, they have good, cheap early UU's, just to get a grip on how early rush looks like. Avoid rush on Mansa, his UU keeps him out of trouble until maces or elephants, bastard:lol:

One more thing, starting techs will play major role early on, early axemen rush might not be a wise option for someone who starts without mining. Those who start with hunting would go for archery or animal husbandry. You can't afford to depend on warriors to hold off any attacks, so military improvent is a first step you take, not pottery or such, although you might want to try and grab an early religion if you start with mysticism.

Regarding city micromanagment, you might play occasional OCC game, you'll really learn how to manage your cities to a tiniest of detail.;)

When going for an early rush you basically build nothing but units, forget about growth or city improvements. You build a worker to hook up necessary resource and build units, chop if necessary. Early rush should start about 3000BC or even sooner if possible. You might try to play Huayna, Cyrus or Hatshepsut, they have good, cheap early UU's, just to get a grip on how early rush looks like. Avoid rush on Mansa, his UU keeps him out of trouble until maces or elephants, bastard:lol:

One more thing, starting techs will play major role early on, early axemen rush might not be a wise option for someone who starts without mining. Those who start with hunting would go for archery or animal husbandry. You can't afford to depend on warriors to hold off any attacks, so military improvent is a first step you take, not pottery or such, although you might want to try and grab an early religion if you start with mysticism.

Regarding city micromanagment, you might play occasional OCC game, you'll really learn how to manage your cities to a tiniest of detail.;)

With Amercian you don't start with Mining (95% of time the first thing i research)

NuWorld, have you been able to start a Axeman rush with American at 3000BC.


With the best start (I had Gold and a Corn Farm by the River). I got my Axeman rush alittle before 1000BC. I had 6 Axeman and 2 Spearman, The production city went from cranking out Axeman every 3 turn to 6 Turns while in War.

I seem to always able to take out my first neightbor. It knowning when to go after the second civ. I usually try do it once I get Cats (About 5 built) and researching toward Maceman.

The problem for me seems to come from the oversea civ. For some reason, I find they are as advance as I'm with better troops.

Usually my army is compose of Knights, Maceman and Cats. When the oversea nation have Cannon and Calvary with better promotions.

In the long run Washignton is the powerhouse leading in all. Perfect for kremlin
strategy.

@jsolo15

Actually CS slingshot is very deceptive, seems like a tech lead but it's more of an illusion. Early courthouses might help you financially while expanding, on the other hand, you probably wasted beakers on religious techs without founding any early religion, confucianism will spread nowhere since trade routes will be cut off because of war. Caste system will do you no good since your citi(es) are usually to small to afford any specialists. Bureaucracy will boost your capitol a bit, but I would prefer hereditary rule any day, to allow all my cities to grow. Macemen are still far away since you need Iron Working and Machinery to get them, chance is that stronger opponents will have longbows by then. So, the question is what did you actually gain from slingshot? You'll hardly have an edge in military and your economy is crap because you didn't have time to improve your land because all you did was chopping. IMHO, CS slingshot is very usefull in OCC games where you want bureaucracy ASAP, but on Emperor or above is next to impossible to get it by cca 1800 BC when AI usually gets it.

If i missed any benefits of CS slingshot, other than OCC, please feel free to enlighten me :-)

You're right. After a few games of trying out slingshots, I realised they're not great on a level like emperor unless you intend to follow them through with some big plan. All the CS slingshots I tried didn't make a big difference except when I was trying to get to Musketeers asap. It helped me get Paper and Education a little faster and as a result I was able to bag Liberalism as well. If after CS you decide to deviate to get Construction, Machinery and etc you'll quickly find the AI catching up with you, getting CS AND the other techs.

When the game is bad a CS slingshot doesn't do much to help. When the game is good it only gives you a little more advantage. Except if you want, for the most part, to keep on that route and maintain the lead there.

NuWorld, have you been able to start a Axeman rush with American at 3000BC.? With the best start (I had Gold and a Corn Farm by the River). I got my Axeman rush alittle before 1000BC. I had 6 Axeman and 2 Spearman, The production city went from cranking out Axeman every 3 turn to 6 Turns while in War.
Dunno what speed you play on, but there's something wrong if you managed to crank out only 6 axemen in first 3000 years. You need mining, BW and wheel to get this going, that should take less then 1000 yrs, even on marathon, with 1 city. If you can't apply this on Americans, don't do it, go for expansion, avoid early war and conquer later when you're ready. Americans favor overexpanding because of organized trait, conquering or settling.

I seem to always able to take out my first neightbor. It knowning when to go after the second civ. I usually try do it once I get Cats (About 5 built) and researching toward Maceman.
It depends: how strong 2nd civ is, have you enough firepower left after the initial war, can your economy support it, try to keep wars as short as possible.

The problem for me seems to come from the oversea civ. For some reason, I find they are as advance as I'm with better troops. Usually my army is compose of Knights, Maceman and Cats. When the oversea nation have Cannon and Calvary with better promotions.
If they have better troops, they're not as advanced as you but ahead. Usually, it's the long wars that set you back techwise or poor economy management.

When the game is bad a CS slingshot doesn't do much to help. When the game is good it only gives you a little more advantage. Except if you want, for the most part, to keep on that route and maintain the lead there.
Good summary. :) Shortest possible CS slingshot requires like 8 techs to research, but it takes to much effort. I got better results with occasional detours to pick up stuff like monarchy, alphabet, etc. Without being able to trade techs you're as good as dead.

Good summary. :) Shortest possible CS slingshot requires like 8 techs to research, but it takes to much effort. I got better results with occasional detours to pick up stuff like monarchy, alphabet, etc. Without being able to trade techs you're as good as dead.

Yep. Most situations favour a more pragmatic and conventional strategy, and with such an approach the CS slingshot may not be better than an earlier war or more expansion, etc. But the slingshot is good if you are gunning for a future tech in that route with very few to no detours.