I've been away for a bit so if I don't know if this has been talked about.

Does sitting bull seem too defense to anyone else? First he has the protective trait. Then the UB gives extra experience to archers. Finally, his UU seems defensive (and fairly useless) to me. Since his UU only has 4 strength against melee that is like 8 but axes against melee are 7.5 so that isn't a huge jump. Overall, he doesn't seem to appealing. Of course maybe with the improved AI I will learn to appreciate defensiveness. I suppose that you can beeline feudalism and pump out some drill III longbows.

Anyway, I don't think many people are going to be rushing sitting bull. He can pump out city garrison III archers/longbowmen with drill I.

While I think your assesment of the situation is correct, I on the other hand can't wait to face him. It will be great to have different tactics.

Why shouldn't some leaders be stronger on defense?

Why shouldn't some leaders be stronger on defense?

Aside from the image of Native Americans fortified behind walled cities firing down on their enemies? No reason... ;)

My plan will be to avoid fighting them in the early game... and if it's me or them and I need that land to be competitive, I'll go to war... send wave after wave of my men at one of their cities, then cry and sue for peace.

Their UB becomes outdated with calenders so once that is reasearched they are not as invincible as long as they didn't make a lot of archers.

Their UB becomes outdated with calenders so once that is reasearched they are not as invincible as long as they didn't make a lot of archers.

Actually, their UB is obsolete by Astronomy, so it's much useful now

Did they change that I didn't know.

I've been away for a bit so if I don't know if this has been talked about.

Does sitting bull seem too defense to anyone else? First he has the protective trait. Then the UB gives extra experience to archers. Finally, his UU seems defensive (and fairly useless) to me. Since his UU only has 4 strength against melee that is like 8 but axes against melee are 7.5 so that isn't a huge jump. Overall, he doesn't seem to appealing. Of course maybe with the improved AI I will learn to appreciate defensiveness. I suppose that you can beeline feudalism and pump out some drill III longbows.

Anyway, I don't think many people are going to be rushing sitting bull. He can pump out city garrison III archers/longbowmen with drill I.

I do think that in smaller size maps, Sitting Bull can be a bully particularly in early MP games. You don't need any resource for the dogfighters, so once you get BW you don't need to build your 2nd city near the copper mine to build axeman. You can immediately chop/whip a few, and send them out to create havoc. Most human players don't have that many archers (some go to BW right away and never build any archers anyway) and their warriors will be certified dead facing even a couple of dogfighters (strength 2 vs 8!).

Even vs AIs if you send them in early enough, good chance is you can take down their second city which has no more than 20% cultural D (if it's on hill, too bad) and be strong enough to kill those archers escorting the settlers (so become your workers).

Just make sure your target do not have access to horse. Chariots vs dogfighters mean dead dogs.

I think Sitting Bull could be fun to play.

So? Sitting Bull would be a tough opponent. I'll enjoy that.