It's one thing to hear about the "best" leaders (e.g., catherine), but it's another to get a sense of what people think about the "worst" leaders.

List your top 5 worst leaders and why :)

Isabella
Peter
Louis
Roosevelt
Saladin, Mao, or Frederick

I'm new though so I don't have a great perspective on things yet. I'm also not sure how I would order these ones.

I look forward to reading peoples' thoughts on this.

Brace yourself, because you're going to get disagreement, and how ;). It is an interesting question, though. Personally, I haven't had a chance to play that many leaders yet (I play random, but large/epic games that take forever, and therefore have only played a handful of leaders thus far), but I personally was not a fan of Saladin either. Camel archers are just not much of an improvement if you have the resources necessary for knights anyway, and I personally don't find a lot of use for spiritual in most circumstances. As mentioned though, opinions on a topic like this could vary wildly from player to player.

Actually I agree with him >.>

I disagree with all of them. I can think of how each of them can suit different playstyles. I used to think Alex had like the worst combination (sad since I loved Greece in Civ3), but now I am best with him. If they don't suit you don't play them, but doesn't mean they suck.

I can even see why a person would play Frederick.

Just list all finantiaa leaders. I play rundom and hate to play as finantial. Finantial trat is very week and was made even worce in Patch.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, mutineer.

Peter is actually a pretty good leader if you ask me. He's best for a specialist strategy (more heatlh = more food = more specialists, and he's philosophical), and the cossacks speak for themselves.

I think Hatty is worse than Peter.

NO, I have not been sarcastic. I started with Playing Catherina, because I am Russian when I just strat learning game, gradially I shifted to plaing rundom leaders and found out that game have some mach better early way to bust yourself up then to use finanntial trait. So, I bacome to hate it, because in order to use it you are forced to fix yourself in unmoving, low food excess state that mach hurt you early on then help.

When you finally really can use it, it actial benefit become relativelly small.
That in order to play any starting position game trow your way, not cherry pick most sutable for finantial one.

I know that all leaders have their place, but what I'm asking is that if you *had* to pick the 5 worst, which would they be?

You mean overalll or leaders I have actually played?

As far as the AI goes, the weakest always seem to be:

Isabella
Louis
Peter

I've seen Frederick and Mao both have huge empires.. Of course, in both cases they were isolated on islands... I'm sure that had a significant amount of influence there.

As far as the one's I've personally played..

I tried Peter a few times, but just don't click with that Civ. Can't seem to get anywhere playing him

I tried playing Napoleon too, and couldn't get too far with him either. But that just might amount to a play style issue.

I haven't yet played all the Civs either tho :)

Monty & Salidin - nerfed by their UU's, not that great in general
Hyuana - gets nerfed by his UU too but he isn't as bad as the others in general

Those three in general just seem to embrace the suck every game. I've never seen Sal doing anything substantial.

I'm just stunned someone is arguing that finacial is the worst trait. :p

Granted the AI doesn't optimize use of the trait, but it is simply phenomenol for players of almost every strategy.

Worst leaders for players? Monty, Frederick, Louis perhaps.

Ah. Sorry for misunderstanding. Anyway, I wasn't trying to moralise that much. It's really my opinion. But if someone is terribly affected by UU choice then some leaders obviously will not be their preference.

Personally, I prefer early UUs (not as early as Quechua, though) so that would slightly put me off playing anyone with something later than Samurai, with the exception of Cossacks. Of course, Jaguars are hopeless. And yet I've played Americans and Germans and don't hate them, so I guess I'm really undecided about who are the worst for me.

I dislike Monty and Mao due to my impressions of them from reading history. Lol. I hate the game's colour for Malinese. Do these count?

By the way, I've seen AI Saladin and Louis become world power in a number of games. So I guess it's pretty open?

I like early UU's too, especially Praetorians, and Jaguars. Aelf, you're right that they are underpowered, but if I beeline to Iron Working from the beginning I can rush 6-8 Jaguars and send my next door neighbor to an early flowery death. No need to track down iron right away.

Rather than site specific worst leaders, for me, any leader with the Organized trait I tend to avoid. That trait just seems weak with my approach to the game. Maybe someone can cite a highly informed reason why I should love to be Organized, and I'll change my ways.

For me, Aggressive-Creative probably works the best. For the warmonger in me, I can flip enemy territory at a high clip. For an isolationist approach, I can carve out a large territory of my own early on, and then keep it well fortified.

In order, beginning with the worst:

Isabella
Bismarck
Roosevelt
Louis XIV
Frederick


I don't think you can say a civ sucks just based on one of its traits. What makes a civ good or bad is the synergy (or lack thereof) between both of its traits and its UU.

Isabella: Conquistadores can be fun, but don't make up for Isabella's mis-matched traits and starting techs.

Bismarck: Starting techs are good; but the late UU only rarely makes a difference, and his traits don't have much synergy.

Roosevelt: Similar to Bismarck, but with an even later UU. The organized trait balances things out a bit, so I'd say Bismarck and Roosevelt are about tied.

Louis and Frederick: I do have a soft spot for Louis and Frederick, and I like the creative trait, but on the whole these civs are mediocre; in both cases their traits lack synergy. Moreover, Louis has a mediocre UU while Frederick's will only occasionally be a factor (see above.)


As for the other proposals, here's my take:

Napoleon: his traits work well for creating elite armies in mid/late-game, though the Musketeer is mediocre.

Peter: good synergy between his traits for creating lots of GP, and an awesome UU.

Hatshepsut: unrivalled when it comes to cultural dominance, very fast early expansion.

I fould Louis' traits to be synergistic. Creative gets you quick coverage of resource squares without having to place you starting cities in bad locations. This also means you can totally skip pursuing early religion techs and do without them until you have alphabet and can trade for them, since you don't need the temple for early culture. And industrious means that the early resource covereage gets leveraged into early wonder domination, which means GP domination from the get go, which in turn means any other kind of domination you want: science, money, culture, production.

Of course, this only works if you have Stone/Marble/Copper around, otherwise you may not hit every early wonder you want. But if you do then no one can capitalize on that advantage like Louis.

WORST:
Isabella
Frederick
Asoka
Saladin
Mao Zedong
BEST:
Alexander (good traits)
Peter (good at end)
Hatpetshut (My Fave)
Gandhi (always builds wonders)
Huyana Capac (always does well against me):)

Hatshepsut is terrible for me. I rarely use creative as I usualy build stonhenge to get a great prophet. Spiritual also does not do anything except give me a turn here or there.

I agree floppy. Maybe I should take Louis off my list.

WORST:
Isabella
Frederick
Asoka
Saladin
Mao Zedong
BEST:
Alexander (good traits)
Peter (good at end)
Hatpetshut (My Fave)
Gandhi (always builds wonders)
Huyana Capac (always does well against me):)

is that for player civs or AI civs?

anyway, I'm still rather new at this game and still developing strategies, so I don't really have any dislikes/likes as far as leaders though. although in one game I found the Incas really annoying and stubborn when I was trying to culturally convert them.

The only emporer game I have won has been with Hatty. I found her UU extremely useful for the early war I needed to win at that level. I think it is the most underatted UU in the game. War chariots with 30-50% withdraw rate can be quickly produced (half cost of horse archers with only 1 less combat strength). Though you lose some in attcking cities, there cheep production cost and ability to withdraw allow them to overwhelm opponets. Her spiritual trait allows you to quickly switch from war to non-war settings.

feh, I'm still doing settler, I guess I'm having it a little too easy (started playing earlier this week)

Worst:

Louis - has the two traits that are most depreciated in the late game, so he isn't even any good at cultural victories. Uninspiring UU. Plus looking at his face makes you want to punch it in.

Genghis - Expansive really doesn't go with aggressive and an early UU, as you tend to grab a lot of health resources anyway. UU also requires research of a tech that's an early game dead end (Horseback riding.)

Victoria - cause it's annoying not to have drawn Elizabeth instead

Roosevelt - same as above, but with Washington

Monte - dishonourable mention here just because the jaguar is so bad

yea but that UU can still pack a punch, in a game I did last night on settler, tiny, great plains with Mansa Musa and the Mongolians (I think it was Kublai Khan though, not Genghis) and a little later in the game I went to war with the mongolians and at first I really struggled, but as I built more advanced units soon, I began to gain the upper hand, and with his Keshik UU, he kept getting one city, Heliopolis and that poor city was captured like 3 or 4 times, but I always took the city back within a turn or two, with me finally keeping the place. even though the war was hard on my citizens, I managed to keep the pressure on them. Even though Mansa Musa did go to war when I asked to, but he kept doing a peace agreement after like 10-20 turns even though they didn't like the Mongolians that much and I had to get them to declare war again. I probably could have done it without his help anyway because since I had put two spies (yes I did it with the worldbuilder, but I couldn't do anything with them) and saw that he had maybe only sent one or two units to attack one city. my point bieng is that he really gave me a hard time with the UU. that and the fact that his capitol city was on a hill and really difficult to capture...

1. Mao
2. Peter
3. Asoka
4. Genghis
5. Monte

Why is the jaguar bad? Most games I don't bother with many swordsmen, if I have bronze then I'll have mostly axes and add a few swords when I get around to it, so giving them up is no big deal. In one of the games I played with the Aztecs, I had no starting bronze or iron and I took most of 2 civs using jaguars.

I think part of why some people rank certain leaders and units so poorly is that they have one pattern and don't deviate from it a bit. Plus resource restarts, the jaguar is never going to be appealing if you make sure that you always have bronze or iron.

I'm going with, in no particular order:

Hatshepsut - Though war chariots are handy, the creative/spiritual thing just doesn't suit me (IMO these two traits are the worst) once their window is closed.
Gandhi - Great if you want to build lots of wonders and terrain improvements, but the guy with more units captures said wonders and pillages towns.
Catherine - Too dependant on mature towns and a late game explosion of rush buy cossacks, weak early game which is very important.
Louis - Industrious can be handy, but this combo is crap. Also, musketeers without the free combat 1 are meh.
Isabella - You can do really well with the conquistadores, and expansive isn't too bad, but I really hate the spiritual trait and the pink color.

Off topic, Peter, Napoleon, Alex, and Mao are amongst my favorite leaders.

I don't think you can answer this question without specifying what difficulty level you're playing on. For example, the industrial trait can be quite useful on lower levels, but it's pretty useless at the top two levels, because you have almost no chance to build any wonders after the ancient age (without an engineer anyway).

plus the Jaguar is suppoused to work best in Jungle, but jungle is normally chopped, so... go figure.

I also found Huyana Capac annoying/stubborn, especially when trying to convert his cities.

Ghandi fell pretty easily to my culture though and by the time I had him down to one arctic city which wasn't going to convert anyway because it was across a few ocean squares from my culture borders(he only had a few cities because I had colonized my half of the continent and Hatsheput colonized most of the other half) I whacked the last city with marines and he was defending with.... longbowmen lol. I was playing Catherine in that game.

and I also hated that pink culture zone color for Isabella :P

My favorite leader is definetly Washington because its so easy to run a huge empire and still have a large science budget. He also starts off with 2 good techs in Fishing and Agriculture.

As for my least favorite leaders it would have to be anyone with the Spiritual trait. I just don't think it makes enough of a difference to measure up to the other traits.

I don't think Frederick is as bad as everyone seems to think he is though. I haven't played as him yet but he looks good for a cultural victory with the extra culture and increased flow of great artists.

I also like Tokugawa for Conquest or Domination games because its easy to run a large army full of rock hard Samurai.

yea, at lower levels, there are only one or two turns of anarchy which is no big deal.

Ah, the difficulty ranges from noob to pro. My list was based on multiplayer, sorry.

Cheap question I think.

How can you answer that unless you play only one way.

It fully depends on level difficulty and type of win you are going for.

I mean if im going cultural victory then im going to hate all kinds of civs that I would not if im going for domination victory.

I have not had much luck with Tokugawa.

I think industrious is pretty worthless but then again my some of my highest scoring games are with Gandhi but thats because of fast worker.

I dislike Cyrus simply because Persian was my fav civ in past Civ2 and Civ3, I feel the same about the Japanise.

I guess Louis is pretty lame for anytype of win. Thou I have had game where he was far ahead of other civs.

Alexander because if im going to play domination victory I'd rather go roman or anynumber of other civs first.

Ive always disliked the american civs because America seems to young to me to be a starting Civ. I mean come on might aswell have Australia as a starting civ, Or how about Israel.

Well as much as I dislike the question I still felt compelled to reply.

it depends on what map you play on and what size..but any leader with 100% growth isnt bad..that was my fave to begin with..as for finanial being bad..financial causes trade and trade gives you faster science development..without trade you have no endgame. organized and financial are kind of the same thing in that they reduce costs and thus increase income(trade) but i think in a longer game with 5 cities or more financial pays off better. another thing about fredrick is hes got hunting to start and that means he starts with scouts which means you can clean off the tribal villages...maybe get a few good techs..and make sure your opponent doesnt get em.

For my style of play in the upper difficulty levels, I value Financial and Organized (and Aggressive to a lesser extent) the most. Industrious, Creative, and expansive I value the least. Spirtual and philosphical are in the middle; useful, but it can depend on the style of game I want to play.

Given this value system for traits, in a vaccuum (without starting techs and UUs) my least favorite leaders are (in ascending order of quality):

Cyrus
Bismarck
Isabella
Louis
Peter

Cyrus is up at the top because of the mid-late game impotence of cre/exp. He could be powerful in the beginning when you factor in his UU, but I'm generally very underwhelmed.

Bismarck, I must say, I've never played. If you factored in UU's he'd probably actually be worse than Cyrus in my opinion (the number of games I've taken to tank warfare is very low). His trait combination is a bit better, but industrious is generally not overly useful on the upper difficulties unless paired with aggressive for the cheap forges (I like napoleon).

Isabella has the moderately useful spiritual trait so she can't be all bad. Plus, the conquistador can have uses. She seperates herself from the bottom two a bit because of those two reasons. Still not a leader I'd choose, given the choice, but I have won a game or two with her.

Louis really doesn't have much going for him. His trait combination is very difficult to make effective use of. Actually, though, one of my first emperor level wins was with him. Though, I later found napoleon to be superior in most every way, the cheap forges leading straight into a fairly versatile UU was something I appreciated. Again, though, playing as Louis makes the game a bit more difficult than it otherwise would be in most cases.

Peter is another leader I can only talk about on paper. I may have played as him on noble when I was first learning, but the random number generator hasn't drawn his number in some time for me. Philosophical is a genuinely useful trait and actually has some synergry with expansive (the only trait that really goes well with expansive). Your GP farms are that much easier to create. I also considered Hatshepsut for this spot, but decided my opinion of her is currently tainted by a recent losing effort on an island start (something she's not terribly adept at handling).

And, I know you didn't ask for it, but my top 5 are probably: George, Huayna, Elizabeth, Toku, and Mao.

Least fav is the Persians purely because they always end up on a map full of jungle every game grrrr. Although the immortal is a cheap unit to play around with.

Fav would have to be English, Roman. Chinese, Japs, Not tried the Americans but look fun, Germans too cause of traits. (no particular order) I normally look at traits and UU to decide what might be fun or different to play. Although im trying to play each civ once at mo.

I haven´t play with so many civs...but I guess it´s possible to win with all of them...I like financial and spiritual the best...So mansa or elizabeth or quin shui are my favourites...For cultural Gandhi is great...
For modern era archipelago game america is the best...specially washington...

France is not so good, nor atztec...Althought I have never played with them...If i´m right France UU is anyway quite good cause it moves 2 squares...not bad at all for certain kind of war...no need for cavarly?

About Jaguars I can´t say much more than they have never been too good against my swordsmens...

And about Saladin I must say that I have played my best games with him!
Spiritual is great as well as philosophical...With him I have played two games without having any war and gained diplomatic victory :) (in monarch level)

I don´t want to say 5 worst leader cause I think it depends on how you play...

well the Romans won't be on my worst list anytime soon, in a game last night one of my opponents was nearby from the start and I took them out (they were the English) since that lone warrior was away and the Incas were the only one, so, I managed to get a huge technological advantage as well as a military one as I churned out alot of Praetorians with a few other units thrown in and meanwhile built up military presence on the border and gullible Huyana gave me his world map and other stuff when I requested it and never took notice of my buildup, and then I attacked when the time was right. he fell easily despite putting up some resistance with his Quechas against my Praetorians as I had numbers on my side.

My 5 worst would have to be in no particular order:
Mao
Isabella
Peter
Asoka
Montezuma

I'll have to second Quan Yu and say it all depends on the map-- which makes just about every leader good at sometimes. Isabella is great for a religious strategy . . which can get you wiped out if the map is small enough for your neighbors to build Axemen while you're catching up on the military side. Thanks to the new patch, I was finally able to play Large maps, and unless you really work at it, any civ with an ancient era UU is giving away that advantage (except for Mansa, whose UU is great against Barbarians.)
Now, this is all on Noble; I can see how Industrious gets weaker as you approach Diety-- but again, thats' all about the choices you make before you hit the launch button. The only leader I've only gotten to work once is Tokugawa, because his UU just doesn't jibe with my warring style. Given how popular he is with some Fanatics, I can only conclude that this is a personal deficiency, an inability to best use what I've been handed.
If forced to pick, then, I'd have to say Tokugawa, then the two Mongol leaders (Horses are a dicey proposition, and unlike BW, there's no second chance), and then nobody. A worst three list, then with the big caveats mentioned earlier.

BW? you mean Black&White?

and Montezuma isn't a big favorite as an AI as he tends to get REALLY pissed like in a game where I was playing the Greeks and he was annoyed/cautious at me for most of the game, mainly because I was trying to fight him culturally. He declared war when my borders expanded after I won the game anyhow.

and I kind of like the Chinese actually, I've played the Quan Yu guy for china a few times, they tend to have a boost as far as growth.

Huyana is not too bad as an AI, athough he was VERY gullible in one game as the romans... and I crushed him like a bug.

I'm not really sure why Isabella appears on this list so often. At higher difficulties, I've found the ability to tweak my civics often a great asset, and the extra health from expansive is not just a small boost but a major increase to the starting health of a city. If I were a warmonger, yea, I wouldn't take Isabella, but I don't think she gets the overall love she deserves.

Cool history too.

-Alex-

To me I always see the traits being either 'supportive' or 'strategic'. With Creative, Financial, Expansive, and Organized as supportive, meaning they basically make you not have to worry about something as you normally would so that you can focus on other things easier.

Spiritual, Philosophical, Industrious and Aggressive are more strategic traits, meaning they basically give you an edge up on a certain part of the game, which if that part of the game is important they help a lot, but it is possible to not be using them much at all at some points in the game.

So for me, I always liked the supportive traits, since they help you no matter what. And usually having two different supportive traits is the best combo for me, whoever the leader is.

After giving this some thought, I think these are the worst...

1) Alex
2) Genghis
3) Kublai
4) Montezuma
5) Napoleon
6) Louis
7) Isabella
8) Roosevelt
9) Mao
10) Asoka

Imo these leaders' traits lack synergy and/or they have kinda a gimpy uu.

Worst 5 in no particular order:

1) Monty (super gimpy uu)
2) Alex (odd uu, no synergy)
3) Isabella (no synergy)
4) Mao (no synergy)
5) The Khans (The fact that you have to research two dead end techs to get their uu when it isn't that great anyways kinda sux)

I am shocked to find Isabella ranked so low. She has the Spiritual trait, lots of Jesuits and a kind husband.

i guess it depends on the game speed. i play on normal so anarchy doesn't last very long. plus i dunno how often you would change civics with isabella, often? i find i usually play civs that don't require me to change civics often (or else i just don't use civics efficiently enough...)

i just find that spiritual and expansive don't really go that well together. i guess they fit together for making a gpp city but that's about it imo.

The bonus for Spiritual is that you can change civics based on what you need right now. A small improvement early can snowball into a later advantage. If you are playing a Spiritual civ and you don't trade civics/religions 20 times or more in a game, you're not using the trait. Note that you not only save the "extra" turns of anarchy, you gain the ability to grab intermediate civics that might not otherwise be worth the switch.

A good example is an early civ with the Pyramids. Most people get Pyramids, set it on Representation and forget it until late in the game. With Spiritual, you can flip back and forth to Police State when you want the +25% production for a military buildup at no penalty. Use slavery to whip all the now-unhappy population into a huge army and off to war you go. Capture land then switch your civics back to build the economy.

Or maybe a more common version of a similar technique would be to flip between Bureaucracy and Vassalage. Put units in the production queue. As each gets close to finishing, start a new one. When you have several cities with 2-3 units in the queue within a few turns of popping out, switch to Vassalage. Out come the units with +2xp each. Then go back to bureaucracy.

Or if you find yourself with a holy city (perhaps because you pounded them via Police State/Vassalage) but don't want to slow down to build monasteries everywhere, switch to Organized Religion long enough to pump out a wave of missionaries then switch back.

To be fair, it is a bit of a micromanager's trait used to optimize your civics. But to me the really cool thing is that it allows you to essentially pursue multiple strategies simultaneously.

Genghis is definitely the worst. He is always very slow technologically, so he can never really become a threat. The AI doesn't take advantage of rushes like humans do, so they can't really start a game thinking about beelining. He hates everyone, making him just another nuisance. Since the Keshik is a rush unit, the Mongol cities don't really need to worry about health, making expansive lame. Finally, the Keshik isn't much of an improvement. A first strike and no movement penalty don't make up for a unit that can get its' behind handed to it by a spearman.

Worst AIs(in no particular order)
Isabella- She is ALWAYS, ALWAYS backwards in my games, probably because she is such a fanatical leader. She seems difficult to deal with, and I think it extends to the AI. She always seems to make powerful enemies who beat her down.
Montezuma- Monty is always backwards, though he'll destroy you if you neglect your military. Usually easily contained by telling him to go attack some one else and then cleaning him up once his out-dated army gets pwned.
Genghis- He never seems to do ANYTHING, and actually has me thinking he's a cream puff, the way I've abused him diplomatically.
Tokugawa- He never makes any friends, unless a religion randomly spreads into one of his cities. Most of the time, he is a backward and pathetically weak prick.
Saladin: See Izzie. Never, ever seems to be very powerful and has never amounted to anything but a backward zealot in my games.

Worst Leaders(IMO, no order)
Monty- I'm sorry, but the Jaguar is flat-out terrible. It loses one strength for....not needing iron, being 5 hammers cheaper than a swordsman, and getting +20% jungle defense. Ummm...wow. Axemen are pretty much better in every way, as +10% city attack means even less at 5 strength than it does at 6. And his traits have some potential too....

Mao- Philo/Organized? Where in the world is the synergy there? He's a frankenstein leader. They just don't match in any meaningful way that I can make out. The cho-ko-nu's not bad though.

Alexander- See above, except Agg/Phi. Another trait mis-match, and the UU is nothing to get excited over either, though it's quite a bit removed from the jaguar and the camel archers.

Saladin- His traits really aren't bad, but they aren't great either. The Camel Archers are really what gets him here.

Worst UUs(again, in no particular order and IMO)
Camel Archers- They don't require iron and horses. Yay. And..yeah, that's about it, unless they get some first strikes, which would make sense because they're supposed to be, y'know, archers.

Jaguar- In all but the most dire circumstances, they're the only UU that's actually worse than the unit they replace. And they don't even have a chance against axemen, and aren't even good at taking cities, which is what they're supposed to be good for!

Musketeers- I like both Frenchmen, but the Musketeers could use a little oomph, considering they obsolete faster than you can say "Knights." Did I mention that they don't stack up well against knights? I think it lands here more because the musketmen just plain suck than not being an improvement. The advantage just isn't enough to salvage muskets and their short window of usefulness.

Panzers- I'm correct in believing that the only way they're better is that they get a bonus against other tanks, right? Great. If I'm still playing at this point, I'm probably not looking for domination or conquest and am too busy powering towards a spaceship to fight my wars myself. That's what my lapdogs are for. All bets are off it's something else. I always have some gunships around pillaging to take care of tanks, but I simply aren't looking to polish off a big opponent at this point, just some backward weakling who I haven't found the time to finish off yet. If they get something more, all bets are off.

There you have it. My no doubt uneducated opinion....

I'm amazed that people think philosophical and aggressive are a mismatch, I like Alexander quite a bit. Using lots of specialists for your economy lets you start off faster than waiting for cottages to grow, and lets you make newly captured towns productive much more quickly. Using lots of specialists with a philosophical leader means loads of great people early on in the game, sometimes you're not even sure what to do with all of them. You use your aggressive nature (plus the boost to bronze age warfare from phalanxes) to spread your empire early on, run your economy with specialists, and get tons of GPs for all kinds of fun.

You won't get much out of Alexander with a simple cottage spam strategy, though, it's more difficult to manage specialists than to just take a financial civ and spam cottages.

Worst:

Louis - has the two traits that are most depreciated in the late game, so he isn't even any good at cultural victories. Uninspiring UU. Plus looking at his face makes you want to punch it in.

Genghis - Expansive really doesn't go with aggressive and an early UU, as you tend to grab a lot of health resources anyway. UU also requires research of a tech that's an early game dead end (Horseback riding.)

Victoria - cause it's annoying not to have drawn Elizabeth instead

Roosevelt - same as above, but with Washington

Monte - dishonourable mention here just because the jaguar is so bad

that's exactly what i would have said myself

I am surprised at the number of times that Frederick was listed as one of the worst; he is always one of my favourites to play -- call it an ethnic weakness.

I hate having either Monty, Issie, or Toku as a next door neighbours. They are impossible to get along with unless you share a religion and they usually choose a religion that no one else shares.

as far as which leader is good or bad depends on what level your playing at ..what map size..what map settings..etc etc etc..the whole levels thing is kinda dumb anyway ive won at emporer..just set it to duel no barbs and keep reloading until you get a way better start than the comp...pick caesar..accept his religion..build praetors and take him out fast...*yawn* i could spend a paragraph or 2 telling you what a god i am at this game..but the truth is i dont feel like i really accomplished a great deal "winning" that game. its more challenging and fun playing on larger maps where you havent a chance in hell :o)

I'm also surprise that Isabella is thought to be weak. She is one of my favorites to play. Its fairly easy to get an early Religion with Mysticism to start. If you can get a Great Prophet, you are in business.

1.61 seemed to increase Anarchy times (at least on Epic where I play) so Spiritual moved up a bit in my book. Expansionist also got an additional +1 Health...not a big deal, but you can often ignore building Aqueducts and the like for quite some time with Expansionist (and cheap Granaries are very nice to boot).

The Conquistador is a solid UU and hits at about the time most of the land is gone (which, for me, is a good time to start thinking about war). Its certainly not a game changing UU like the Praetorian or the Cossack, but it does the job fairly well.

I still think Financial is one of the better traits, but it definately lost some power relative to some of the others (Organized is better now because of the increased Civics costs, Spiritual and Expansionist are improved as mentioned above).

Maybe it's because I'm playing below my difficulty, but I've never seen the point of Expansive. Most games I can avoid sickness with a little planning on where to build aqueducts and where to stick a few specialists. It just seems a little pointless to give even more help in an area that's relatively "easy" to deal with in the first place.

I'm surprised at how underrated Spiritual seems. It's the most open trait, allowing you to do anything with civics and the lack of anarchy means you can quickly swap your entire empire to do something without worrying about the consequences. Swapping from the peaceful Representation/Free Speech/Emancipation/Free Market/Free Religion to the wartime Police State/Nationhood/Slavery/Mercantilism/Theocracy immediately is a powerful advantage at the start of a war, and the ability to swap back immadiately again any time after 5 turns is useful for building the economy back up afterwards. And quick Representation-> Universal Suffrage swaps to hurry the end of wonders and useful buildings are usually frequent without fears about killing the science rate for too long.

Another leader I've seen a few times here is Saladin. From all the leaders, I can't think of few better diplomatic victory candidates. The Mysticism start allows for religion hoarding, letting you spread your religion of choice to everyone without worrying about the ever irritating relationship hit for differing state religions. The Inspirational trait leads to a fast GP rate in early game, allowing advances through the tech tree whilst you concentrate on grabbing the religions. It also gives you the technological advantage, and this allows for more tech trading with the other civs for another relationship bonus and, if it all goes to pot, at least gives you technologies to give to the sceptical ones. Although admittedly the UU isn't the best, it can often work wonders in a tight spot without horses or iron. They can be built straight from a new city, without connection with the capital. Ultimately, without either you're screwed quickly so having the camel archer to fall back on is comforting, if nothing else.

Worst:

Louis - has the two traits that are most depreciated in the late game, so he isn't even any good at cultural victories. Uninspiring UU. Plus looking at his face makes you want to punch it in.

Genghis - Expansive really doesn't go with aggressive and an early UU, as you tend to grab a lot of health resources anyway. UU also requires research of a tech that's an early game dead end (Horseback riding.)

Victoria - cause it's annoying not to have drawn Elizabeth instead

Roosevelt - same as above, but with Washington

Monte - dishonourable mention here just because the jaguar is so bad

I don't see how Victoria would be that bad. and I tried her in a game last night on chieftain and inland sea, although I could have done better if a barbarian city didn't bug me for several turns and force me to focus on that. although Asoka and Kublai did see or sense my problems with the barbarian city and had sent one or two units into the region. I took care of it, but it was a distraction.

and Monty as an AI is annoying :P

also, the Khans aren't too bad, in the game I had last night Kublai and Asoka went to war at each other (I managed to diplomatically stay out of it and act as an observer, but the way the AI wages war is terrible because they make a peace agreement shortly after (I think the first time though which was after Kublai captured an indian city, was so he could build up more forces) even though some time later I had them fight each other again, only to make peace shortly after. what I mean is that from the way they hated each other, it seemed like they wanted to slit each others throats, not give a punch in the face or two and leave. I fully expected Kublai to conquer the Indians, but nope.

Worst Montezuma, Louis and Mao.

"Maybe it's because I'm playing below my difficulty, but I've never seen the point of Expansive. Most games I can avoid sickness with a little planning on where to build aqueducts and where to stick a few specialists."

Yes, it's because you're playing on a low difficulty.

As others have said, how "good" a civ is depends a lot on the map. E.g. being surrounded by flood plains looks a lot better as an Exp. civ. Also, cheap granaries are just as important as the extra health, if not more. As an Exp. civ, all I need to worry about for many, many turns is hooking up luxuries (and bronze/iron,) and my cities can just keep on growing.

I like Isabella a lot. She's great for "builders" who don't want a sprawling empire. (I.e. cultural or diplomatic victory.) She lends herself to having fewer, but larger and more developed cities. And what I said above about hooking up luxuries? She barely needs to do that since it's so easy to found several religions. The Conquistador is a decent UU, and - last but not least - if you play as Isabella it means you don't have to play against her!

wow, I'm surprised how many people choose Monty as a weak human player, or spiritual trait. My guess is those people play on mediocre levels, i.e below immortal or emperor. Best traits in my opinion are these: Aggressive, Spiritual, and Financial. (in no particular order, although aggressive is my favorite. On high levels there's no question that you'll spend half of your turns in war).
Spiritual trait is amazingly good trait. But mastering it reacquires a lot of experience and knowledge of the game. In my last immortal game I changed my civics, switched religions more than 40 times (yeah I counted). I can’t remember how many times I switched from heredity rule to police state, bureaucracy, vassalage, etc. need to rush something with money? Not a problem, go with universal suffrage for few turns. Somebody asks you to accept their state religion? No problem. That makes you not loose 3 turns and go from pleased to annoyed in relations. This is the kind of thing that makes you win on highest levels.
Financial in a no brainier. Although, now that I'm more experienced then before, financial is not a big deal at all.
Industrial is a waste. You can not get any wonder with or without it. Expansive is worthless, if played on standard maps. I never found philosophical appealing, as I can win a game without ever building a single scientist or engineer. Organized has its uses. All that said, I think Incas, Aztecs, Mali are very, very powerful civs, definitely my favorites. The fact that all have not-so-great UU doesn’t mean a damn thing. So many other civs have mediocre UU -> America, France, Greeks, etc, but the ones I mentioned above have very powerful traits that even if they didn’t have UU at all, they would still rock.
I think Mao and Isabella are not that great, but I never played with them, just don’t like traits that much, I also never like Caesar, his expansive trait is a waste of good potential and after swordsman era he is absolutely mediocre....

yea, but Industrious helps speed up wonders, and the traits do have thier buildings which are at half cost.

The aztecs are the only civ with a UU that is worse (significantly so) than the unit it replaces.

That really depends how you look at it, and what map you play on. There were times when I didn’t have iron at all, so ANY kind of swordsman at that point is good. The chances are that you will have iron, but even when I do have the ability to build swordsmen, I'd rather build axmen. I might have 2 swordsmen in a large stack of axmen. Also I wage very early war with axmen, and then try to bring up economy so rarely ever use swordsmen to full potential. Like I said it all depends...

On Emperor and above, Industrious is a waste of trait slot IMO. Any other trait or trait combo is fine. Not a big fan of Financial either, but maybe it's just my political-aesthetical leanings...

My least favourite leaders:

1. Gandhi - not evil enough (except when played by an AI, of course. Backstabbing bastard).
2. Louis XIV - musketeers have too short life span.
3. Roosevelt - american.
4. Washington - also american.
5. Qin Shi Huang - meh, I'd rather play as Mao ;)

I play on Emperor. Industrious helps me get those early Pyramids, Stonehenge and Great Library (Pyramids I may not). Maybe even Hanging Gardens. Enough for the rest of the game, IMO. And there'll be another boost when it's time to build those cheap forges.

It's great for militaristic play since quick forges = more units earlier, Stonehenge = early border expansion to grab strategic resources, Pyramids = extra happiness, Great Library = faster teching funded by plunder and Hanging Gardens = more pop = more production/science. That's why Napoleon is great for me.

I see a lot of hate for Mao and Napoleon, mostly with the reason that their traits have no synergy and (especially with france) the UU sucks. Since these two are at the top of my "awesome" list I'll try to provide a little insight.

Napoleon. Aggressive, Industrious. Ok, lets see. Industrious is going to let us build half price forges (an expensive improvement) and wonders, aggressive is going to let us build stronger melee/gunpowder units. How about building some axemen, chopping out the oracle for early metal casting, getting cheap forges and making more axemen, faster? You don't even need to chop oracle, this wonder is ridiculously cheap with industrious and you can build it in your capitol the slow way no problem. This has got to be one of the best MP tactics there is, I always have great (and fast) games with the Napster. Musketeers are good with Napoleon, awesome pillagers and they get defensive bonuses. Whoever said knights counter them is a fool.. I dare you to attack my musketeer with a knight while I get defensive bonuses. Should you choose not to attack me (you won't after ALT-mousing the odds) I'll run around you and pillage another town/resource, heh.

Mao. Philosophical, Organized. Ok, fast universities, courthouse, lighthouse. +100% GPP, -50% civic cost. Naturally, we are going to want some specialists and GP's. Try to get your GP city founded and growing ASAP. Get a library and 2 sci specialists as early as possible (in the capitol usually) after your necessary worker techs. First great scientist makes an academy in the capitol, the rest will sit here as super specialists. Yeah, your basic super-science city routine. Initally, Beijing will be my specialist city, I tend to switch to the dedicated GP farm when I get Caste System on the go. Every now and then it is advantageous to use one for a critical tech (say, philosophy, which opens up so many good things). You can afford to have a couple more cities than non-organized civs in the early game, which translates to an even larger advantage as the turns progress. You can get half priced courthouses everywhere fast, which is great when on the warpath or just settling like mad.

Mao has access to the all-powerful Cho-ko-nu. Abuse this unit like a red headed foster child. When machinery rolls around, you are undisputed lord and master of all that your eyes survey. I suggest you make LOTS of these guys, and attack everything that isn't your civ-color to make it yours. See, Mao's china is well suited to a medieval era explosion in size. When you take over your whole landmass with cho-ku-nu's you will see how absolutely fantastic it is to have half price courthouses and civic costs to consolidate your gains. Come the renaissance, you get half priced Universities (another expensive improvement), therefore getting Oxford faster, and putting it in your mega science city. Right about here is where you will leave everyone else eating your dust permanently, if you haven't already.

I actually tried your Oracle for Metal Casting trick with Napoleon. In both games my wars started too late and I was nearly beaten to the wonder (I was beaten both times because I was too leisurely in shooting for it so I had to reload to adjust). Getting Oracle on Emperor requires you to beeline for Priesthood after BW and to chop rush it before founding your third city. Forget having a few axemen out first or you won't get it. By the time I get the Oracle, put up a forge in my capital and built 8-10 axes, the AI had (in my first game) a lot of archers and (in my second game) horse archers.

Are you talking about MP? In my experience, my usual strat seems to work better in semi high level SP (standard continents, Emperor, 8 AI, Epic). I forget about the religious techs (except Mysticism to get Stonehenge), heading for Writing and Alphabet instead, until I am ready to research Literature (after Alphabet, before Currency). I will then research Polytheism only, never Meditation or Priesthood. If I can trade for Polytheism with something even better.

Somehow chopping that Stonehenge before my third city and/or axemen army can be done, but not so for Oracle. I think it's a question of timing. For some reason Oracle doesn't fit into the early warring pattern very well. That's what I find, anyway. Could I be mistaken? Maybe I was simply unlucky, or was not proficient enough in this to pull it off. Please give me some details in how you pursue your strat. Thanks :)

Napoleon is not too bad if you play him right. I won a domination victory just now with Napoleon, although I had to eliminate Isabella to get that, and my Musketeers were good against her since she didn't have gunpowder units and I didn't see her UU, her archers did pose a problem, but I killed her completely, even though she attempted to do a peace treaty after I captured Barcelona.

in fact, I used the tip from the analysis on UUs as offence units thread to get Musketeers as early as possible. I had thought maybe a conquest victory, but changed my mind when I saw that Elizabeth was pretty much keeping up in tech and was starting to like me and decided to do a domination victory and take out Isabella, but keep most of her cities. in fact, I only razed one city and despite my pillaging, I recovered the former spanish territories quickly with the captured workers and the couple I already had.

I'm sorry, but could someone please tell me what "UU" is a reference to?

It's one thing to hear about the "best" leaders (e.g., catherine), but it's another to get a sense of what people think about the "worst" leaders.

List your top 5 worst leaders and why :)

Isabella
Peter
Louis
Roosevelt
Saladin, Mao, or Frederick

I'm new though so I don't have a great perspective on things yet. I'm also not sure how I would order these ones.

I look forward to reading peoples' thoughts on this.
frederick a bad leader? :confused: Any leader with creative has an awesome early game advantage, the phil attribute realy makes a great person approach really woth it. If you manage to build stonehenge, not only are you right off the bat a great cultural city, but your going to get 3 great prophets at a very fast rate. Or forget stonehenge your going to expand anyway, but build a library and place 2 science specialist in a city. In the early gaem great peopel for scientific reasons cannot be matched. it isnt till the middle ages that Great people become outdated for research reasons.

anyway I do no think there is a single worst leader in this game, instead there are the 5 uber leaders.

I'm sorry, but could someone please tell me what "UU" is a reference to?

Unique Unit

Sorry Alef, yes, MP Napoleon strat there. Industrious is near useless at emperor... the idea is to get forges before everyone else and crank more units, not gonna happen in emperor SP.

I guess so. But I disagree about Industrious being useless at this level. As I've said, helping me nail a Stonehenge and a Great Library is enough for me early game in between my wars. Plus I get to build that Kremlin, rush the Three Gorges Dam and the Space Elevator when I am shooting for a space win late game. Not bad at all, also considering how rush buying has been nerfed, making all that even harder for a non-industrious civ.

yea well some ppl are talking about worst leader in MP and some ppl are talking about SP. So I'm not real sure what traits are not very useful in late game or on higher levels.

I'd like to add Tokugawa as my least favorite AI civ because in the last game he befriended me and then did a defensive pact, and THEN declared war on me! F'in backstabber! May have been because he got enough power, dunno...

Isabella is one I can't really find any use for.

Besides that. My favorites would be Elizabeth, Qin Shih Huan, and Catherine.

Mansa's not bad but the AI does better with him than I do.

Bismark has to be least usefull on higher difficulties. Industrial and exp. and his unit comes waaayyyyyy too late. And its not all that special either...

I groan when I get these ones in random select:

Hatshepsut
Isabella
Bismark
Ghengis Khan
Saladin

I probably ought to put Montezuma on there, too, but after I took three people out with him last night, I just can't bring myself to do it.

Worst leaders:

Bismark
Cyrus
Frederick
Louis
Roosevelt

I have noticed that Bismarck and Isabella are low on everyones list.

In my opinion this is because they are not correctly played.

Bismarck and Isabella are not science civs. How to win the game with them is through sheer productivity. The expansive trait = huge cities early.

To achieve a higher productivity large cities are needed, which means preferably double or maybe thrice the population of the opposing civs seperately. This is not impossible, and can even be achieved while possesing a smaller territory. Having a capital city with 21 citizens by 1400 should be the yardstick for succes.

In order to achieve this Monarchy is the best government for them.

With Isabella there is no need for quite so many garrison troops; this because she is spiritural and can grab two or three religions meaning three temples + one cathdral = five happy citizens in key cities.

Bismarck on the other hand can go for forges early, and churn out troops for garrison duty.

For both these civs alphabet is a primary tech, since it means their high productivity can be converted into science.

A side effect of having a large garrison army is that the AI will rarely, if ever, consider declaring war.

In order to achieve this Monarchy is the best government for them.


i assume you meant hereditary rule


A side effect of having a large garrison army is that the AI will rarely, if ever, consider declaring war.

high production = logistic war

T'woust appear we be discussing two related but distinctly different topics, towit: 1) What leader traits are the least effective for winning when used by the AI and 2) What leader traits are the least advantageous for a human becoming (humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such). For example, the AI may have great difficulty properly using the Aggressive trait, whereas a human (due to innate devious perfidy) may take full advantage of the trait. I personally am very lame at using the Financial trait well, unless I have a very good starting location. Some AI run civs almost invariably do very well, such as Messers Capac and Musa. Moreover, although I have never played a multi-player game, I would guess that the effectiveness of the traits would differ.

(humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such).

what the...

(humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such).

what the...
don't worry, it will pass

Louis

Cre/Ind? I think this is great, 50% on building wonders + :culture:

I have noticed that Bismarck and Isabella are low on everyones list.

With Isabella there is no need for quite so many garrison troops; this because she is spiritural and can grab two or three religions meaning three temples + one cathdral = five happy citizens in key cities.

Absolutely agree. Isabella is a strong starter in virtually any situation you are dealt. With Expansive you have the extra health to off-set any lack of food resources or a heavy floodplain start.

With the Spiritual trait, aside from the oft-overlooked ability to be in the perfectly suited Civics at any given moment, you can tackle any happiness issues that come your way provided you secure one, preferably two, religions.

Once your cities are too large for your traits inherent bonuses, it typically is perfectly timed - in most of my games anyways - to start conquering with the almighty Conquistadors with a focus on securing more Health/Luxuries to further enhance your core cities.

Isabella should suit most playstyles if you play Random Map Settings and never know how strong your core cities will be.

WORST:
Isabella
Frederick
Asoka
Saladin
Mao Zedong
BEST:
Alexander (good traits)
Peter (good at end)
Hatpetshut (My Fave)
Gandhi (always builds wonders)
Huyana Capac (always does well against me):)

Actually, I found Fredrick to have some rather nice traits as they go well together. Go for GP farm/specialist/Representation/Caste system/Mercatilism/Sistine chappel/Angkor Wat and your laughing

The extra culture per specialist, the unlimited number of specialists, beakers per specialist, extra hammer per priest, one free specialist, etc works well together.

Watiggi

Actually, I found Fredrick to have some rather nice traits as they go well together.
How does Cre go well with Phi? You're insane
Go for GP farm/specialist/Representation/Caste system/Mercatilism/Sistine chappel/Angkor Wat and your laughing

The extra culture per specialist, the number of specialists, beakers per specialist, extra hammer per priestm etc works well together.

Watiggi
That is workable with any Phi (on low enough difficulties -- you won't be laughing so hard on Emperor). What makes Frederick a bad leader is that Cre does not complement Phi in any way, shape, or form. It's a total waste. Any other Phi is better than Frederick. Truthfully the only good Cre civs are KK and Cathy. (Hatty can have her uses, but isn't really a strong civ.. some people list her as a favorite, others as a worst civ)

Nemesis']Cre/Ind? I think this is great, 50% on building wonders + :culture:
That's ridiculous. Ind civs will have plenty of culture, and are virtually guaranteed stonehedge if they want it.

Napoleon is 10x better than Louis. Agg is way more valuable, and the UU gets C1.

(humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such).

what the...

yeah, I tripped over that one as well :lol:

yeah, I tripped over that one as well :lol:
come again?

How does Cre go well with Phi? You're insane

Excuse me? Are you after a discussion or are you interested in destroying this thread. If it's the latter, your doing a good job of it with your attitude. STOP cutting people down with their choices. Just because you don't agree or cannot see the sense or make the leaders traits work in your favor doesn't make the leader crap - *NOR* does the person who can see sense in how it could work as being insane.


That is workable with any Phi (on low enough difficulties -- you won't be laughing so hard on Emperor). What makes Frederick a bad leader is that Cre does not complement Phi in any way, shape, or form. It's a total waste. Any other Phi is better than Frederick. Truthfully the only good Cre civs are KK and Cathy. (Hatty can have her uses, but isn't really a strong civ.. some people list her as a favorite, others as a worst civ)

The Sistine Chappel connects the two traits together where it allows culture to exist with the specialists. When starting new cities, the Creative trait gets the culture started. Build farms and have specialists and the culture grows (as does the GPP). I just find that the Creative and Philosophical trait goes well together (provided the Sistine Chappel is there to build on both the traits bonuses), especially if you want to build a culture focused empire.

Watiggi

The Sistine chapel COMPLEMENTS Cre? No dude, what it does is make it even more irrelevant.

Cre is really only useful in the early game for aggressive players who don't want to have to worry about getting a quick obelisk, library or religion in all their cities. The sooner you realize this, the better, because -- and I say this will all honesty -- there's no point conversing with someone who doesn't get it.

I am going to let that go...

You really are after a fight aren't you. I ain't biting.

Yes, the Sistine Chapple doesn't do anything to the Creative trait directly. But if you are going to go for a cultural game/specialist game, it works rather well. The Cultural trait gets the culture going. When the Sistine Chappel is built, the specialists (who are producing GPP at double the rate) then start producing culture. When you start building new cities (who are too small to have a specialist), the cultural trait works well.

What's up with you? Did you have a bad day or something (and no, this isn't with regards to your posts in this thread, you are being like this in other threads right now also). They all have this tint of "your crap because your wrong" about them. I don't appreciate them and I would imagine others don't either.

Watiggi

The Sistine chapel COMPLEMENTS Cre? No dude, what it does is make it even more irrelevant.

Cre is really only useful in the early game for aggressive players who don't want to have to worry about getting a quick obelisk, library or religion in all their cities. The sooner you realize this, the better, because -- and I say this will all honesty -- there's no point conversing with someone who doesn't get it.

@Gherald: I would like to see you playing a multiplayer game vs Watiggi to solve your differences.

@Watiggi: I only add “Statue of Liberty” to your strategy. This mean +14 culture per turn in your new conquered cities (+2 cre trait + 6 per free artist with Sistine Chapel)

Solve differences like civilized people..... :ar15: in the board....:goodjob:

Whooa. I'm surprised to see so many people mentioned Monty as the worst leader. If you think so, you obviously have never been visited by a stack of city-raided axemen in 2000 BC!

When you start building new cities (who are too small to have a specialist), the cultural trait works well.
Right, and that's the only point at the game in which Cre is useful. Once you have enough culture from other sources (which you most certainly will by the time Phi starts to be useful) Cre becomes a waste, and you're better off with any other trait.

Since I'm a builder I'm not really found of Aggressive leaders. I think that for a builder, other traits are much more efficient.
So I do not like:
-Montezuma
-Capac (even if financial is pretty good)
-Tokugawa
-Napoleon
-Peter.

And it's not that I don't like them, it's just that they're not suited to my gameplay.

Right, and that's the only point at the game in which Cre is useful. Once you have enough culture from other sources (which you most certainly will by the time Phi starts to be useful) Cre becomes a waste, and you're better off with any other trait.

it is quite obvious at this point that you pretty much don't know what'r you talking about.

The Sistine chapel COMPLEMENTS Cre? No dude, what it does is make it even more irrelevant.

Cre is really only useful in the early game for aggressive players who don't want to have to worry about getting a quick obelisk, library or religion in all their cities. The sooner you realize this, the better, because -- and I say this will all honesty -- there's no point conversing with someone who doesn't get it.

Personally The Cre Trait does complement Phi trait becuase of the cheap threatre's and collosiums I usually Run 20% on my culture silder to get an extra 6 happiness once i research drama, & happiness is a must if your playing on high level games if you want big cities in the early game especially if your using the specilist stragety farming 2 grassland tiles in order to work one specilist (pre biology)

at 20% culture you get 4 happiness from threatre's & 2 from Collosiums plus a further 2 from representation, that's a crazy plus 8 happiness (& that's if you decide not to research Calander which alot of people do they just trade it later)

it is quite obvious at this point that you pretty much don't know what'r you talking about.
How so? Once there are a large number of ways of getting an extra +2 culture in a city, pretty much any other trait is better than Cre. It's quite simple, really.
Personally The Cre Trait does complement Phi trait becuase of the cheap threatre's and collosiums I usually Run 20% on my culture silder to get an extra 6 happiness once i research drama, & happiness is a must if your playing on high level games if you want big cities in the early game especially if your using the specilist stragety farming 2 grassland tiles in order to work one specilist (pre biology)

at 20% culture you get 4 happiness from threatre's & 2 from Collosiums plus a further 2 from representation, that's a crazy plus 8 happiness (& that's if you decide not to research Calander which alot of people do they just trade it later)
I suppose if you need 20% drama for happiness the cheap buildings are nice. Personally I try to stay as close to 100% science as possible and very rarely have any use for the Cre buildings.

How so? Once there are a large number of ways of getting an extra +2 culture in a city, pretty much any other trait is better than Cre. It's quite simple, really.

I don't know. Even though there are other ways of generating the culture, it's allways nice to have the +2 culture still coming in. The Creative civs tend to really stand out with regards to culture, regardless of whether you take advantage of the other ways of generating culture or not.


I suppose if you need 20% drama for happiness the cheap buildings are nice. Personally I try to stay as close to 100% science as possible and very rarely have any use for the Cre buildings.

Are you kidding! How many cities do you usually have in your empire? I find it extremely difficult keeping it above 40-50%. In the mid game the income starts to out do expansion and so I can afford to lift the slider a little (after I acquire a couple of developed Shrined Holy Cities).

Watiggi

Right, and that's the only point at the game in which Cre is useful. Once you have enough culture from other sources (which you most certainly will by the time Phi starts to be useful) Cre becomes a waste, and you're better off with any other trait.


Although your language is a bit terse for most, you have some type of point here. Creative is a very strong early if used correctly and becomes weaker over the time of a game.

However, if one likes getting CULTURAL victories, it is a very useful trait. I am not sure it ever becomes a waste, unless the human player wastes it.


Some people actually like playing the game out into the modern ages. I enjoy playing the CREATIVE trait and going for synergies with certain Wonders (sistine Chapel/Hollywood/Rock & Roll etc) and Cathedrals.

It's all about playing style. Some people only have one (or maybe two) styles they use. Some of us like sampling everything at the buffet.

Although your language is a bit terse for most, you have some type of point here. Creative is a very strong early if used correctly and becomes weaker over the time of a game.

However, if one likes getting CULTURAL victories, it is a very useful trait. I am not sure it ever becomes a waste, unless the human player wastes it.


Some people actually like playing the game out into the modern ages. I enjoy playing the CREATIVE trait and going for synergies with certain Wonders (sistine Chapel/Hollywood/Rock & Roll etc) and Cathedrals.

It's all about playing style. Some people only have one (or maybe two) styles they use. Some of us like sampling everything at the buffet.
Actually the creative trait is not very useful at all for obtaining a culture victory. This is because +2 culture in your three chosen cities over the course of an entire game only comes out to a very small amount of culture when you need 50,000 points in a city.

That +2 is equivalent to an extra monastery. Meanwhile philosophical allows you to get more Great Artists for culture bombing or super specialists. Financial allows you to get more commerce, as the fastest way to pile up culture is through use of the culture slider and stopping research. Industrious allows you to grab useful wonders that contribute culture.

The creative traits is most advantagous in the early game when there is less religion and cultural buildings. It allows you to more land without wasting hammers on early culture builders. So I find creative most useful as a warmonger (don't you hate it when you can't use half a conquered cities tiles) or as any non-religous peaceful opening.

The synergy of creative and late game cultural improvements is an illusion. With the many religious buildings and +50% cultural modifiers the +2's relative effect becomes less and less. Creative is an early game trait.

Actually the creative trait is not very useful at all for obtaining a culture victory. This is because +2 culture in your three chosen cities over the course of an entire game only comes out to a very small amount of culture when you need 50,000 points in a city.

That +2 is equivalent to an extra monastery. Meanwhile philosophical allows you to get more Great Artists for culture bombing or super specialists. Financial allows you to get more commerce, as the fastest way to pile up culture is through use of the culture slider and stopping research. Industrious allows you to grab useful wonders that contribute culture.

The creative traits is most advantagous in the early game when there is less religion and cultural buildings. It allows you to more land without wasting hammers on early culture builders. So I find creative most useful as a warmonger (don't you hate it when you can't use half a conquered cities tiles) or as any non-religous peaceful opening.

The synergy of creative and late game cultural improvements is an illusion. With the many religious buildings and +50% cultural modifiers the +2's relative effect becomes less and less. Creative is an early game trait.


Some excellent points. I stand (sit actually) somewhat corrected.


I have been warmongering a bit with the creative Civ's, but never put it together until I read your post. I found them handy for snagging some resources that would normally be outside the earlier city borders, but upon deeper reflection of you post, I can see where I was mis-judging.

However, it does end up adding a few thousand points of culture by game's end if you get the right mix of buildings and wonders. It only takes 50 two cents to make a dollar! :lol:

The Sistine chapel COMPLEMENTS Cre? No dude, what it does is make it even more irrelevant.

Cre is really only useful in the early game for aggressive players who don't want to have to worry about getting a quick obelisk, library or religion in all their cities. The sooner you realize this, the better, because -- and I say this will all honesty -- there's no point conversing with someone who doesn't get it.


The Chapel gives you Two culture per specialist. I believe (:D ) this is added to the Creative bonus. I am not sure why you would say these two do not go together, especially if one is running a bunch of specialists and hunting for some more Artist GP's.


Would you ague that a barracks makes no sense for the Roman UU's since they are so strong to begin with?



Hey Gherald, how many Cultural victories do you have?

The synergy of creative and late game cultural improvements is an illusion. With the many religious buildings and +50% cultural modifiers the +2's relative effect becomes less and less. Creative is an early game trait.

Not an early game trait: It is an expansionists trait. If you keep expanding, no matter how well developed you are, the +2 culture is handy for a new city. The +2 culture just keeps accumulating whereas a new city - even in the late game - a new city still doesn't really produce initial culture (unless they have the Eiffel Tower).

Watiggi

This isn't actually relevant to my style of play at all (it seems the buffet isn't working out for me). But I'm just curious, isn't the +2 culture for Creative affected by modifiers? That means the +50% and +100% make it an extra 6 per turn. Not too shabby for a the second or third culture city to catch up with.

Yeah, that is true too. +50% will make it 3 culture per turn and +100% will make it 4 culture per turn.

Put them together than you'll get +6. That's equal to Globe Theatre's output. Quite solid.

Did anyone establish if the original thread question was relating to your 5 worst AI leaders, or worst leaders to play as?

I suppose if you need 20% drama for happiness the cheap buildings are nice. Personally I try to stay as close to 100% science as possible and very rarely have any use for the Cre buildings.

I suppose that you are cottage spammer at all. With specialist economy you don’t need your science slider at 100% to research techs fast. Let me explain you. Your Science slider controls the investment of your produced commerce (from worked tiles). When you are cottage spammer you make a lot of commerce (again, from worked tiles) and you NEED your slider at 100% to convert this “commerce” in “beakers”. When you are specialist spammer, you produce “commerce” only from tiles beside rivers or coastal tiles, the remaining worked tiles produce food (to support specialist and mines) and hammers (from mines, plains,…).

Each specialist produce beakers itself, doesn’t matter your science slider. In this case, 20% culture slider mean invest 20% of you coastal/rivers tiles (not much money) in exchange of 6 Happy faces per city (with theater and colloseum) to grow your cities and support more specialist.

Can you see the power of Cyrus in the late game (exp = health, cre = happiness)?.

Not an early game trait: It is an expansionists trait. If you keep expanding, no matter how well developed you are, the +2 culture is handy for a new city. The +2 culture just keeps accumulating whereas a new city - even in the late game - a new city still doesn't really produce initial culture (unless they have the Eiffel Tower).

Watiggi
But after the early game all the land is taken by other civilizations. After that you're expanding pointy-stick style, which is why I like creative leaders when I go a conqueoring.

Put them together than you'll get +6. That's equal to Globe Theatre's output. Quite solid.
No its not. The Globe Theater also gets the same modifiers. Modifiers do not change the relative value of the creative trait which is the same as a monastery.

Also +150% of 2 is 5 not 6.

The Chapel gives you Two culture per specialist. I believe (:D ) this is added to the Creative bonus. I am not sure why you would say these two do not go together, especially if one is running a bunch of specialists and hunting for some more Artist GP's.


Would you ague that a barracks makes no sense for the Roman UU's since they are so strong to begin with?



Hey Gherald, how many Cultural victories do you have?
Because the +2 is equivalent to having an extra monastery in said town. The more culture you have in a city (from things like the Sistine Chapel powered specialists) the less relative effective the creative trait has.

The situation with barracks and praetorians isn't analagous, as experience for units offers large benifits when you gain additional promotions. So barracks help you reach those critical points that drastically improve your unit. Culture has less critical points (the border pops) and by the time you have the Sistine Chapel border expansion isn't an issue. Instead the comparitive culture between your cities and your rivals does. And the +2's cumulative effect at that point becomes very small.

I suppose that you are cottage spammer at all. With specialist economy you don’t need your science slider at 100% to research techs fast. Let me explain you. Your Science slider controls the investment of your produced commerce (from worked tiles). When you are cottage spammer you make a lot of commerce (again, from worked tiles) and you NEED your slider at 100% to convert this “commerce” in “beakers”. When you are specialist spammer, you produce “commerce” only from tiles beside rivers or coastal tiles, the remaining worked tiles produce food (to support specialist and mines) and hammers (from mines, plains,…).

Each specialist produce beakers itself, doesn’t matter your science slider. In this case, 20% culture slider mean invest 20% of you coastal/rivers tiles (not much money) in exchange of 6 Happy faces per city (with theater and colloseum) to grow your cities and support more specialist.

Can you see the power of Cyrus in the late game (exp = health, cre = happiness)?.Truthfully I don't see how creative is all that useful for this strategy. If you're building a specialist based economy I prefer spiritual. That way I can use my food to obtain all the production necessary without much penalty by hopping from slavery to caste system whenever I need it. Theaters are cheap anyways, and colloseums aren't that crucial to the sort of strategy you suggest.

Truthfully I don't see how creative is all that useful for this strategy. If you're building a specialist based economy I prefer spiritual. That way I can use my food to obtain all the production necessary without much penalty by hopping from slavery to caste system whenever I need it. Theaters are cheap anyways, and colloseums aren't that crucial to the sort of strategy you suggest.
I agree; Peter, Saladin, or even Isabella would be much better suited.

The sad truth about Cyrus is that he's not stellar at anything, and the few things he's somewhat decent at other civs can do better.

Anyone who believes Cyrus, Frederick, or Louis to be a good leader is sadly mistaken... they are clearly among the worst civs. The only good Cres are KK and Cathy; Hatty is just average.

Truthfully I don't see how creative is all that useful for this strategy. If you're building a specialist based economy I prefer spiritual. That way I can use my food to obtain all the production necessary without much penalty by hopping from slavery to caste system whenever I need it. Theaters are cheap anyways, and colloseums aren't that crucial to the sort of strategy you suggest.

I don't try it with Izzy (Exp/Spi) yet. I suppose that you suggest replace the colloseum by temples (to get Happy faces), this is

At 0% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 1 Temple -> 40 Hammers / 1 Happy faces

At 20% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 2 Temple -> 80 Hammers / 2 Happy faces

At 40% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 3 Temple -> 120 Hammers / 3 Happy faces

At 60% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 4 Temple -> 160 Hammers / 4 Happy faces

At 80% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 5 Temple -> 200 Hammers / 5 Happy faces

At 100% culture:
Colloseum -> 60 Hammers vs 6 Temple -> 220 Hammers / 6 Happy faces

Conclusion:
At 0% (and maybe 10%) culture: Temples win (20 hammers less)
At 20% (and maybe 30%) culture: Colloseum win (20 hammers less)
At 40% (and maybe 50%) culture: Colloseum win (60 hammers less)
At 60% (and maybe 70%) culture: Colloseum win (100 hammers less)
At 80% (and maybe 90%) culture: Colloseum win (140 hammers less)
At 100% culture: Colloseum win (180 hammers less)
And more than 4 religions in each city is a lot of spread religions.

I’m not sure, but I think that people that criticize creative civs in late game hasn’t use them.

Nope you can just use Hereditary rule or whip your colloseums. If you're going for specialist based economy you should be using all the happiness buildings. Spiritual allows you to do that without losing turns swaping from caste to slavery and back again.

Besides the comparision is somewhat invalid as they come at different stages of the game. Temples are available with priesthood, theaters and colloseums come signifigantly later. Use them all!

I agree; Peter, Saladin, or even Isabella would be much better suited.

The sad truth about Cyrus is that he's not stellar at anything, and the few things he's somewhat decent at other civs can do better.

Anyone who believes Cyrus, Frederick, or Louis to be a good leader is sadly mistaken... they are clearly among the worst civs. The only good Cres are KK and Cathy; Hatty is just average.
I find Cyrus is a pretty good if you want to bum rush at the begining of a game. Creative allows you much more flexibility in early city placement to get horses, and immortals are nasty if you are efficient enough to get them early.

I think that people that criticize creative civs in late game hasn’t use them.
Either that, or they realize that relying on the culture slider for happiness is very, very wasteful.

I find Cyrus is a pretty good if you want to bum rush at the begining of a game. Creative allows you much more flexibility in early city placement to get horses, and immortals are nasty if you are efficient enough to get them early.
How many times must we go through this? KK and Hatty both have a better unit and better traits for this.

I don't agree with that. Kublei Khan is better, but his unit also will come out signifigantly later. I personally prefer immortals by far to war chariots for early game suppression. The ability to fortify on metals and use terrain is more important that +1 strength for me.

Nope you can just use Hereditary rule or whip your colloseums. If you're going for specialist based economy you should be using all the happiness buildings. Spiritual allows you to do that without losing turns swaping from caste to slavery and back again.

Besides the comparision is somewhat invalid as they come at different stages of the game. Temples are available with priesthood, theaters and colloseums come signifigantly later. Use them all!

I think that this depend on the play style. Hereditary Rule is a option, but you lose +3 extra beakers from each specialist.

With Cyrus, my research is: AH -> The Wheel -> Mining -> BW ->Writing -> Alphabet

I would get some tech from huts (Cyrus start with scout). I research alphabet first to “trade tech for peace” (at this moment my immortals could destroy me closest neighbor and almost destroy my second neighbor). I get some techs in this way too. If can’t get CoL I research this ASAP. I research Drama and the remaining upper path. You can see that I don’t found any early religion, but Great Artist help with Nationalism - Divine Right (and almost always found Islam) and MT. You can see, Theaters (and maybe colloseum) can arrive at the same time (or before if nobody found a religion in your continent) than temples.

My point is, try to use your traits in the best way you find. Financial trait is a waste if you use specialist economy. Maybe Creative is a waste if you are cottage spammer.

Don’t be annoyed with me, I’m exposing my ideas and experience….:goodjob:

Unless you've built or captured the pyramids representation as an alternative isn't available. From your technology path it doesn't appear your specialist opening involves the pyramids.

Its not that your approach doesn't provide you with tons of happy faces, its just that in my experience you rarely need the cultural slider turned up that much. Even if you're not cottage spamming your base science from commerce is still something you should try to maximize.

I'd also like to point out again that the hammers saved on theaters/colloseums doesn't seem that big a deal to me. This strategy can be run with any leader.

Unless you've built or captured the pyramids representation as an alternative isn't available. From your technology path it doesn't appear your specialist opening involves the pyramids.

Its not that your approach doesn't provide you with tons of happy faces, its just that in my experience you rarely need the cultural slider turned up that much. Even if you're not cottage spamming your base science from commerce is still something you should try to maximize.

I'd also like to point out again that the hammers saved on theaters/colloseums doesn't seem that big a deal to me. This strategy can be run with any leader.

Immortals are good to build ... sorry…. to capture pyramid ;). But, IMO, Specialists work without Pyramid. I win on Prince without pyramid with Alex. Now I can win in Monarch with Cyrus (I do it in my first attempt in Monarch). I usually play on Large Map/Epic/Random AI/Default # of AI. Maybe you are right and this doesn’t work in the upper levels.

Maybe you are right and this doesn’t work in the upper levels.Or on quicker game speeds, wherin immortals become obsolete extremely rapidly.

In the long run, a specialist economy doesn't have a chance against a cottage economy.

In the long run, a specialist economy doesn't have a chance against a cottage economy.
Neither does it in the short run.

All-out specialist economies are only absolutely viable on low enough difficulty levels to get key wonders, and on which the AI has relatively slow research (compared to Monarch, Emperor, etc)

Ok, right, the +2 isn't that great later on. But, really, Creative seems to me a good militaristic trait. I really enjoy the ability to whip rush a theatre for 2 population rather than 3 at that newly-conquered starving city. If the city is size 10, you can whip a theatre and then a library for quick culture on top of the inherent +2.

i consider just about anyone who has expansive as a trait to be weaker. And i strongly disagree with anyone who says fredrick is weak because i just finished a game on prince with him who i barely eaked out a space race win over. he was the tech leader for the entire game, even though he wasn't the largest.

NO, I have not been sarcastic. I started with Playing Catherina, because I am Russian when I just strat learning game, gradially I shifted to plaing rundom leaders and found out that game have some mach better early way to bust yourself up then to use finanntial trait. So, I bacome to hate it, because in order to use it you are forced to fix yourself in unmoving, low food excess state that mach hurt you early on then help.

When you finally really can use it, it actial benefit become relativelly small.
That in order to play any starting position game trow your way, not cherry pick most sutable for finantial one.

Financial is great if you know how to use it, if u dont, well too bad. I love Cathy <3<3<3

Im russian too ;)

I dont have a 5 worst leader list, But I have used most of them and put there traits to the max to test how well they do.

Creative: is by far one of the best to have,. but only for 1 main reason,conecting resorses vary early on in a game much faster then other civs with out it.

Agressive: is the second best,can make medic's befor your non agressive enemys,.medic spears with any one of your mixed units makes you alot stronger,much much easyer to keep your pilligers alive.

The rest of the traits have there moments like cottage spam cathrine,but the bottom line is they all got some sort of a advantige in the start of the game,. mid game and end game dont matter much.for any of them.

what I fell really matters is the starting techs and how fast you can keep that first worker busy,mixed with asap border expanding,.But i build a worker first thing so i depend on this, and its just my opinion.

theres a leader for anyone i think,But if i were to pick just one i never do well with at all.. its the japan leader,I cant do well at all with them,. not sure what the key is but i think they just might be imbalaced and weak,.

thats my 2 cents.

I play on emporor sometimes on immortal.
The worst AI leader are:
Monty (out tech)
Isabela (out tech)
Hatty (to weak army)
Ghandi (too weak army)

the best are:
Napoleon (the God of war)
Cathy (many cities, many resources)
Washington
Huayna Capac

Ok, right, the +2 isn't that great later on. But, really, Creative seems to me a good militaristic trait. I really enjoy the ability to whip rush a theatre for 2 population rather than 3 at that newly-conquered starving city. If the city is size 10, you can whip a theatre and then a library for quick culture on top of the inherent +2.
Those +2 means roughly a spare Great Artist, with 2-3 cathedrals and free speech, on normal speed, not to shabby.

This whole thread is pretty much pointless, each trait has its pros & cons, you can win a game with every combo, maybe it doesn't suit your playstyle so you avoid it, adopt new playstyle. UUs? Each UU is useful during certain time span, it's up to you to utilize it's power in a most convinient moment, you can win a game without UU. Cossacks are f*****g great. You restart a game if you have no horses? Play sam random leader/18 civ maps, you'll learn to appreciate what is available.

But I have used most of them and put there traits to the max to test how well they do.

Creative: is by far one of the best to have,. but only for 1 main reason,conecting resorses vary early on in a game much faster then other civs with out it.

Agressive: is the second best,can make medic's befor your non agressive enemys,.medic spears with any one of your mixed units makes you alot stronger,much much easyer to keep your pilligers alive.

The rest of the traits have there moments like cottage spam cathrine,but the bottom line is they all got some sort of a advantige in the start of the game,. mid game and end game dont matter much.for any of them.

Wow, really? From the games I've seen, the benefits of Spiritual last a very long time - if you've been planning your game around it. Industrious looks like it should hold value (whatever that value is) til the late ages as well.

Spiritual is weak early on, but grows in usefulness as the game progresses.

Nothing is weak early on if used right,. spiritual is best early on with no missed turns you can do orginized reg civ to boost wonder production or slavery.its just 1 turn you say? not much of a diff,. hmm 1 turn can meen alot, if all players are avid pro's and trying to build the same things.

mid/end game has to many things to consider,industious sure,but what if someone has marble/stone and one hell of a hammer power house city.only in the begining can you be 100% sure your leader's bonas will help you,.(knowing its just to dam early to match it for other civs w/o it.

Industrious = early wonder ownage.
agressive = early medics = strong unit stacks.
creative = fast resorse hook ups, makes use of great city spots sooner
Philisophical = first great persons,ten turns to get first one.
orginized = rapid expansion
Expansive = larger citys,.done right with food whoring have 14 pop in no time.
(whats the use of that so dam early,.? im not sure lol)
Financal = fast techs,early cott spam = crosbows first,catts first.
Spiritual = saved turns to get civics that improve turns.like slavery or Orginized reg.

This whole thread is pretty much pointless, each trait has its pros & cons, you can win a game with every combo, maybe it doesn't suit your playstyle so you avoid it, adopt new playstyle.

Try to win in duel spi-exp vs agr-fin in mirror game

The worst leaders are Ceasar and Catherine.

I like to play random leaders, but whenever I draw those two, I have to exit to the main menu and restart. Their traits and UU combos just make the game too easy. It's really annoying to get one of them.

The worst leaders are Ceasar and Catherine.

I like to play random leaders, but whenever I draw those two, I have to exit to the main menu and restart. Their traits and UU combos just make the game too easy. It's really annoying to get one of them.
Didn't you know it's possible to win a game as Russia without building a single Cossack, or as Rome without building 10,000 praetorians?

Try to win in duel spi-exp vs agr-fin in mirror game
Why only 2 civs?

I'll take that. Emperor/standard/marathon is ok? Mirror & landmass type random? Victory conditions all checked?

Because multi in civ4 make sense when there are ony two civ.
When there are more, it is two vs one.

Currently I have not direct access to internet because I am moving to my own new flat (at least). I play only by LAN
When I finish I can play with You.
But I prefer setting like this (map small, small lakes, normal game speed)

Aaaah, I wasn't aware that you were talking about MP games.:) Never play those, don't like rushing games very much. As per settings you proposed, you would like me to play as Isabela while you play Catherine and having an edge in a small all-land map where starting techs suits you so you can nail me with an early axemen rush? What does that have to do with leaders/traits or am I missing something?:crazyeye: I'll pick Mansa instead :lol:

With Louis you can set up a very efficient wonder factory in those 3 legendary cities, so he's def not one of the worst.

my ideas: FDR sucked in real life, and he sucks in civ IV also.

he disobeyed my other sig i use, to no end. may sound familiar

"any socity that sacrifices a bit of freedom to gain a bit of security will deserve neither and lose both"(or something like that, too lazy/busy to check right now) -ben franklen

in short, i really really really hate him and every freaken government program that he made. i hate most, if not all, government programs anyway...

It's one thing to hear about the "best" leaders (e.g., catherine), but it's another to get a sense of what people think about the "worst" leaders.

List your top 5 worst leaders and why :)

Isabella
Peter
Louis
Roosevelt
Saladin, Mao, or Frederick

I'm new though so I don't have a great perspective on things yet. I'm also not sure how I would order these ones.

I look forward to reading peoples' thoughts on this.

You put Saladin on that list? he is one of the greatest leaders of all time, he recaptured Jerusalem and defeated the Christians back to a few miles of scrap land.

My bad you mean in the game. lol

Actually in my gamaes Saladin, Mao and Frederick can really be a problem if left untreated.

Actually in my gamaes Saladin, Mao and Frederick can really be a problem if left untreated.

Yes, they are actually a big problem when the AI plays them. Frederick is not so bad, but generally the AI seems to be really good at using Philosophical - those golden ages they get. This makes Peter very dangerous too, not mention Liz.

Mao might be the worst because the AI plays Organized very well too. In my current game he settled half his continent (all the cities had Chinese names) early on and of course went on to take the lead for most of the game. It's the 19th century now and I only just surpassed his land area in the past century or so, after fighting so many wars and capturing so many cities on my continent. And he's out-teching me by quite a lot. I think it might be too late to catch up.... I need advice on how to win this :(

Aelf, I think a slash-and-burn raiding policy towards Mao would help. You do not have to occupy his land, however you can attack and raze a few cities and that will slow him down immensely. Losing 10-40 suicide troops who journey to China to pillage and raze cities are well worth sacrificing if they take out enough cities and cottages. Take out only the coastal cities, if you have to. If he has more advanced troops than you do, then bring the equalizing catapults. If you have flight, use bombers to your advantage.

Have you seen the game? This guy probably has tanks while I am still totting cavalry guns around on my continent. I am still researching Assembly Line while he is probably going for Plastics right now. If we just entered the Industrial Age I wouldn't be worried because I have the whole continent under control now and have time to catch up. But this late in the game this definitely sucks.

I don't know why people hate Mao so much. I played my best game with him, and normally I play with good ole Queen Vicky and build a cultural empire on which the sun never sets, and all that.

Personally, I think Washington and FDR suck. I played as FDR for 11 turns and got destroyed by barbarians. Perhaps it was my fault but having a country full of Americans can't help, of that I'm sure!

I also think Gandhi is a bit pathetic unless you're going for the whole spiritual thing or you're doing the one city challenge, and I always seem to end up conquering Hatshepshut.

So in conclusion, my personal worst leaders are the Americans, the Indians, Japan and Egypt - and the best are Victoria, Mao, Napoleon and Peter - in my humble estimation, at least.

Mao should be good with high populations. Expand asap (Organised would help) and dedicate a GP farm or two with as high many specialists as possible and you shoud be doing well. That's how the AI plays him anyway.

Didn't you know it's possible to win a game as Russia without building a single Cossack, or as Rome without building 10,000 praetorians?

Yes, but that's like chopping of your arm to save a finger. They should just balance the UU's instead.

...and the traits for that matter.

Mao might be the worst because the AI plays Organized very well too. In my current game he settled half his continent (all the cities had Chinese names) early on and of course went on to take the lead for most of the game. It's the 19th century now and I only just surpassed his land area in the past century or so, after fighting so many wars and capturing so many cities on my continent. And he's out-teching me by quite a lot. I think it might be too late to catch up.... I need advice on how to win this :(

This game looks won. I would do this:

Revolt to representation ASAP and stay there, since you're running a farm/specialist economy. This will increase science a lot. Consider caste system too since some cities running useless artists. (Towns are stronger at this stage but it is too late to switch.) Spec a few cities out for production fully with workshops and watermills.

Research radio and computers. Trade for Genghis' spices and open borders. Hopefully trade 2 techs for 1 to Saladin for assembly line and get factories and labs up everywhere. Then beeline to rocketry and get Apollo up. Trade Mao's aluminium temporarily if unable to acquire industrialism in trade yet. Try for robotics and space elevator, but even if you miss it your size advantage and superior city management should win you the race in the end. Space elevator is more to deny Mao than anything.

Make sure to send a few spies to Mao's land to be ready to sabotage in the end if it looks like it's still going to be a close thing.

This game looks won. I would do this:

Revolt to representation ASAP and stay there, since you're running a farm/specialist economy. This will increase science a lot. Consider caste system too since some cities running useless artists. (Towns are stronger at this stage but it is too late to switch.) Spec a few cities out for production fully with workshops and watermills.

Research radio and computers. Trade for Genghis' spices and open borders. Hopefully trade 2 techs for 1 to Saladin for assembly line and get factories and labs up everywhere. Then beeline to rocketry and get Apollo up. Trade Mao's aluminium temporarily if unable to acquire industrialism in trade yet. Try for robotics and space elevator, but even if you miss it your size advantage and superior city management should win you the race in the end. Space elevator is more to deny Mao than anything.

Make sure to send a few spies to Mao's land to be ready to sabotage in the end if it looks like it's still going to be a close thing.

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try. But don't you think I have more than enough towns to merit US? Why would +3 beakers per specialist matter at this point in the game?

Oh, yes, the artists. The computer assigns them for me. I was too lazy to micro so many cities :p

I won the game. A 1892 diplomatic victory. I followed your advice for the most part, but Mao's tech lead was seriously bad. He beat me to both Three Gorges and Space Elevator before I could even begin. Even with Representation really powering up my research (didn't realise I had so many specialists working) combined with Statue of Liberty, I couldn't catch up quickly enough.

In the end his mistake was converting to Free Religion and building the UN. I had 2 GEs which I was reserving for golden ages, but I didn't need to use them for the UN. So he thought communism could dominate the world, eh? :p I converted to Confucianism and Police State to buy favour with both Saladin and Genghis. They voted a victory for me.

And Representation was :king:

I don't know why people hate Mao so much. I played my best game with him, and normally I play with good ole Queen Vicky and build a cultural empire on which the sun never sets, and all that.

Personally, I think Washington and FDR suck. I played as FDR for 11 turns and got destroyed by barbarians. Perhaps it was my fault but having a country full of Americans can't help, of that I'm sure!

I also think Gandhi is a bit pathetic unless you're going for the whole spiritual thing or you're doing the one city challenge, and I always seem to end up conquering Hatshepshut.

So in conclusion, my personal worst leaders are the Americans, the Indians, Japan and Egypt - and the best are Victoria, Mao, Napoleon and Peter - in my humble estimation, at least.
that depends on what gametype you are playing.
htshepshut,the 2 khan r best military leaders
gandhi is the Farmer King,i mean he is absolute the best one with respect of peaceful developing .
washington and mao is worst both on military aspect and developing aspect.
i rarely see anyone ,who is always proved to be a noob,choose them.in that case,i usually type on screen:u r gg now,wait 2 die.

Yes, but that's like chopping of your arm to save a finger.
Not even close.

One More Opinion...

Because I choose them to play against - you wouldn't want them.
At least they are the easiest to beat. All have a very poor UU and start handicapped because they don't have a scout.

Asoka - Leaves cities unprotected and can't defend if overpowered early on.
Gandhi - Same...
Isabella - Poor units, poor expansion, grouchy, and a good opponent to overtake as noooobody likes her so wars won't upset others.
Qin Shi Huang - always poor at knowledge and expansion, easy to attack.
Victoria - expands poorly, but gets knowledge to exchange with-easy to beat in the end
Washington - can't get his culture together and expands slowly

How does Cre go well with Phi? You're insane


Cre and Phi is like peanut butter and chocolat. your insane :P
hehe