I was chugging along winning game after game at a difficulty level right for me until I came along with Portugal. That civ gives me fits. They do get a nice UB if you're playing with a lot of coast, but apart from that, their only leader Joa, has the the traits of expansive and imperialistic, which are great for early REXing, but hardly good if you want something that helps you win in the end game.

First time I played with them was an archipeligo where I lost to Ghandi by 9 turns (his culture to my space ship). Since then I've had two maps where I uncharacteristically gave up and restarted after playing awhile. My current game with them just seems to have settled into a middle ages funk.

I guess my question for discussion is, has anyone else had some similar experiences where they just couldn't really figure out how to play a certain civ very well on a difficulty level (but otherwise did fine with other civs). I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with playstyle, and what you enjoy doing.

There are two that come to mind (I have not played Joao myself yet).

1) Charlemange. Prot/IMp. No fast buildings (except walls and castles), a UU that's OK, weak starting techs in Myst/Hunting, and one of the better UB's. The think is to get through the game where you can leverage the UB with a vastly growing empire. A tough guy to start with, but OK once the UB kicks in.

2) Boudica: Same techs as Charles. No helful fast building except for the barracks. Easy to want to start slamming people with an early rush, which is very difficult. Week UU/UB. When not warring pretty much stagnant. The key to her is founding a shrining an early religion to pay for your military costs.

Honorable mention: Wang.

Funny your top two are ones were the first two I played and had a pretty good game with. Boudica is nice for a military style win. I like having units with cheap promotions and start out with combat I, that's a pretty good combo, you're right though that unique building and unit are for the birds. A swordsman with a hills upgrade won't get you squat a lot of times unless you're playing on a highlands map or something like that.

I think I won diplomatically when I played Charlemagne. He's better suited to turtle I suppose, but one thing is he can defend with fewer archers/gunpowders given those promotions, and leave more of your troops to go out and go on the offensive. I liked that UB, it's the best one I've seen yet. That imperialistic trait is one of the ones Joao has, I don't like it. I'd rather have philosophocial and have great people emerging quicker than a general. Faster settler production only helps the early game out.

Montezuma, when he's my closest neighbour. :mad:

I can't seem to do ANYTHING with Ghengis.

On the flip side, a far-spawned HC is a nightmare. I hate the incan garbage AI. They ALWAYS seem to be score leader out of the AI, whoring wonders and using his trait to gain a massive tech lead if left untouched. Problem is, when you start in the ancient ages and he's across continent (or on a different one), he's not going to be touched. Comically, the ai always founds an early religion with him and spreads it around so he gets like 2-3 allies too. Joy!

I hate playing against Mansa Musa: he always peace-mongers with the Apostolic Palace (usually when I'm the one who founded the religion and built the wonder) and rapid expands all over the map.

On the flip side, a far-spawned HC is a nightmare. I hate the incan garbage AI. They ALWAYS seem to be score leader out of the AI, whoring wonders and using his trait to gain a massive tech lead if left untouched. Problem is, when you start in the ancient ages and he's across continent (or on a different one), he's not going to be touched. Comically, the ai always founds an early religion with him and spreads it around so he gets like 2-3 allies too. Joy!

Oh man, I thought that only kept happening to me! I find that the only way to stop him is to scare him by expanding very near him and building up an army, even if you don't intend to use it. Other than that, forget it, the guy is worse than Musa, at least for me.

One I just can't figure out is Maya. I would say Charlemagne, but my current game with him is actually going quite well (thanks only to the Rathaus, -75% maintenance is huge). BUt Maya I definitely don't get, unless my opponent makes nothing but horse archers and only horse archers.

As civs im playing I really really dont understand how to use SB, crappy UU , UB traits and starting techs.

Civs I hate to play aigenst is mainly Gilgamesh , protective + creative is a nightmare to attack both early and late and he always gets a huge empire.

The Zulu's always seem to love picking on me, and they do an excellent job at it too.

Napoleon (but not the other French leaders) seems to enjoy being a backstabber.

van Oranje grinds my gears. He aims for victory consistently, comprehensively, and effectively.

Evil opponents:
Montezuma, for always declaring war:mad: .
Huayna Capac, for reasons stated above and he is strong in culture too.
Mansa Musa, for always being the leader in the tech race.
Gilgamesh, just because I don't like his guts in the endgame where he gets real big in your face with his animation:) .

A tech whore by itself isn't scary. I hate mansa musa because of how he tends to drag people up to his level. He'll hand his technological bounty to the likes of Shaka and I'll get real pissed off. Hate that stupid crap.

I can play all civs reasonably well now regardless of traits UU/UB's etc, but civs that starts with hunting/mysticism gives me fits. The start is so slow compared to the others, and worker 1st doesn't work very well. (It will be unemployed a lot sadly)
The main problem is with heavily forested starts. Having to tech Bronze working and agriculture just to get some farms up is evil. (even worse if your main food resource is cattle etc) I regen a lot more with these guys just to get a start where I don't get mad during the first turns :p

(This sucks, cause some of the best warmongering trait combos belong to these guys, Cha/Spi is so awesome to play midgame :p)

I keep forgetting that I'm unusual in having seen the topic describing what bug causes those forest starts, and having fixed it in my game.

I think the OP meant leaders you start with, not neighbors.

The one neighbor I detest is Suryamanan. He is nuts, creative, and militarily agressive. I have had him send a stack against me from halway across a Pangea map.

I keep forgetting that I'm unusual in having seen the topic describing what bug causes those forest starts, and having fixed it in my game.

Modding the gamefiles directly is unfortunate when you play multiplayer as the game gives warning about players with different game files(after all it is possible to mod better condition for oneselves and hence abuse it as cheating). There are a ton of bugs with the game and the fact that fraxis don't fix it is really unfortunate.

I've had a tough time playing Brennus; I just don't "get" him. Had ALOT of fun playing Shaka. Absolutely HATE Catherine (my current game, someone killed her off before 3000 BC - YES!). Monty is an absolute clown and Napolean is a world-class backstabber. But the one I find most annoying, and the reason, is in my sig.

People I dislike playing - Joao, SB, GK
Joao I've never managed to utilise him effectively, SB is boring, and if you want to play a warmonger there are much better leaders than GK for the purpose

Mine is Hammurabi simply because he won't shut up. He'll ask to trade/ cancel a trade every turn or every other turn.

Zara Jakob. That grunting he gives you as greeting makes me really mad.

OK, now the most annoying personality.

Gotta be Joao for me. Always asking for a handout (without the looks of Cathy), is a pain to get peace with during a war, and that smirk he gives me when I tell him to get lost makes me want to smack to computer moniter.

and that smirk he gives me when I tell him to get lost makes me want to smack to computer moniter.This is something many of the leaderheads have in common. Personally i find this aspect of the game very unpleasant - i assume it's done on purpose, as it was the same with CivIII... But i really wish this is going to change for Civ 5...

Modding the gamefiles directly is unfortunate when you play multiplayer as the game gives warning about players with different game files(after all it is possible to mod better condition for oneselves and hence abuse it as cheating). There are a ton of bugs with the game and the fact that fraxis don't fix it is really unfortunate.

Can't you just keep 2 DLLs? A modded one for SP, and an untouched one for MP?

Now other leaders animations/introduction I hate/love

Hate:
Lincoln; come on man, would you just look at me?
JC; I really expected more from the great Roman leader.
Pucal: Spoiled Brat
Isabella: the woman just will not shutup.
Wang Kong: Does this guy ever smile. Seams like he's ticked even at friendly.


Love:
Boudica: Love her when she happy, really love to see her ticked off!
Hammarabi: regal one moment, but moved in with that eager/miserly expression.
Al: What' not to love about crushing 50,000 eneimes?
Gilgamesh: Real cool, even better when the humangod grabs you by the neck to refuse a deal.
Cathy; Getting slapped by her just striked me as funny. I often ask the same thing over and over again (yeah, these little things amuse me).
Ragnar: He's a slob, somehow I have feel I have an immediate kinsmanship with him!
Suliman: Guy just looks dam regal, fits the part of "Suliman the Magnificent"

Well I started asking about which Civs are lousy to play, but a lot of people are chiming in with their least favorite to go up against too.

For that I would have to say Montezuma. I've got to wear I think OH NO when I hear the first couple of notes of his music when I first meet him. He's so untrustworthy, he can go from pleased to furious at the drop of a hat and usually declares war on you at least once during the course of a game, even if you're peaceful. If you want to wipe him out, he can sometimes be a real pain in the neck with all his aggresive troops. Seems like I get him in half my games too.

Yea, some are actually nice/funny. I think Gilgameshs "Refuse" is my favourite :D
Also Monthy with his feathers and that hilareous skull :lol:

But my feeling - that might also be the result of selective memory - is that the "ugly" ones are the majority. Also the fact that they allways play the Annoyed animation first, when you just open up diplo, before switching to the actual mood :aargh: .... (I think with the exception of first contact, where actually "Greeting" is displayed...)

Animations?
Hate:
Lincoln. C'mon! Just look at me, you pansy!
Victoria. Ugly.
Pericles. He was supposedly brilliant, but can't find his way out of a helmet. Definitely the most cartoony, and thus the most annoying.

Love:
Churchill. The nod makes me laugh.
Gilgamesh. The entire "lift-you-up-snarl-in-your-face" routine is so politically incorrect, its amazing!

I usually dont care who I play, I pick random and go from there.

I used to always and I mean ALWAYS play Brennus of the Celts and eventually mastered him to the point I could win anyway with him. Because of that I have learned not to let the leader I am drastically effect the type of game I am playing. Brennus had a Crappy UU and a Crappy UB. So I learned to win without a UU and UB. Now when I play random leaders, the UU and UB are simply bonuses, not required for my plans.

My most recent games:

Vassalizing Domination win with Hannibal of Carthage
Domination win with Kublai Khan of Mongolia
Space Race win with Wang Kon of Korea
Cultural win with Elizabeth of England

Currently, I am in the middle of a game with the Mayans. 4 Continents, (Revolutions mod, so Civs up the ying yang) I control a continent and most likely will win by Space Race.

Anywho, like I said, I will play any leader, anyway...

Oh and I play on Prince, so I am in no way claiming I am an expert.

JC; I really expected more from the great Roman leader.

I feel you. What gives with that Mr. Burns-like thumbs up/down that he does? Man...

Maybe he's trying to come across to you as a silly, harmless looking, skinny old clown so you're all the more surprised when the legions show up?

I think the OP meant leaders you start with, not neighbors.

The one neighbor I detest is Suryamanan. He is nuts, creative, and militarily agressive. I have had him send a stack against me from halway across a Pangea map.

He's fantastic to play as, though. Especially on a tropical map.

And now since we're also talking about leaderheads, I'm gonna have to vote Gilgamesh as a favorite, too, followed by Hammurabi. I love what they've done with their beards! Also: Suleiman and Mehmed for style, Boudicia for great animations, Ghengis for looking really cool in that thin air, steppe sunlight.

I hate Churchill, his animation is stiff and he looks a lot less human than the others.

Well I started asking about which Civs are lousy to play, but a lot of people are chiming in with their least favorite to go up against too.

For that I would have to say Montezuma. I've got to wear I think OH NO when I hear the first couple of notes of his music when I first meet him. He's so untrustworthy, he can go from pleased to furious at the drop of a hat and usually declares war on you at least once during the course of a game, even if you're peaceful. If you want to wipe him out, he can sometimes be a real pain in the neck with all his aggresive troops. Seems like I get him in half my games too.

I can't agree with this. He techs so miserably poorly. Also, I like warmongers as friends. I will always push to be same religion as cathy/izzy/monty (less so cathy). Friendly warmongers will fight almost anyone you want them to, which is sooooooo convenient :).

I'm always chafing when trying to play Sitting Bull. With an ancient age UU, an ancient age obsoleting UB and one military trait, he seems to be best at early warfare... however, his UU is actually a downgrade for offensive purposes.
Economic, offensive and expansion-related bonuses can be leveraged; a defensive overkill not so much.

Most CRE leaders are unpleasant as neighbours thanks to their encroachment on your territory; most are also unpleasant personality-wise. I especially dislike Gilgamesh since PRO means he's quite hard to dislodge.

I really hate charemagne, for some reason he just irritates the heck out of me... Also the egyptian woman leader (forgotten name) has an irritating tendency of keeping asking to have free technologies off of my civ.

The one neighbor I detest is Suryamanan. He is nuts, creative, and militarily agressive. I have had him send a stack against me from halway across a Pangea map.

Same thing happened to me. I fought a bitter defensive war eventually sending a raiding party through 2 other civs to get to him and pillage a few things. Meanwhile that neutral S.O.B. Willem just keeps plowing through the tech tree. Then Suleiman backstabs me after centuries of peaceful religious friendship and only then does Willem decide to jump in and 'help' me by nuking the hell out of the Ottoman heartland and embarassing my infantry and artillery stacks with his countless legions of tanks.

I hate all three of these leaders passionately.

I feel you. What gives with that Mr. Burns-like thumbs up/down that he does? Man...

Maybe he's trying to come across to you as a silly, harmless looking, skinny old clown so you're all the more surprised when the legions show up?

Didn't Romans actually do this historically in the colosseums? Thumbs up meant the person lived, and thumbs down died? Maybe I'm just watching too many movies...but I thought it was something along those lines.

Charlemagne seems difficult to play. He does have a nice UB for colonization and corporations, IF you have anything to get to that point.

Charlemagne seems difficult to play. He does have a nice UB for colonization and corporations, IF you have anything to get to that point.

Tried playing Charlie once, he was difficult. I gave up, never tried him again!